patrick.net

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

dublin hillz says

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

Or we just need to do away with class labels. People need to see employers as customers, not providers.

Bellingham Bill says

Eisenhower letter to his brother:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Yep. FDR had permanent destroyed the country.

This vapid argument needs to die regarding takes and providers. Are soldiers in our military takers? Are the police? Is the FBI, the CIA? Last I saw, they're employed by the government.

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Are you ready for defense spending cuts? Because "private" industry with consistent 150 to 200% cost overruns (F-22, F-35) etc is killing our procurement budget.

As for "obama's budget", when the last serious Republican budget that incorporates substantive meaningful cuts? Unless you touch Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending, you're just talking bullshit. Cutting millions from the FDA or NPR etc. isn't getting you anywhere.

Finally, the weird thing about the "takers" argument is that it's a lot of the "takers" propagating talking about cutting down on it when they're the beneficiaries. Just slightly hypocritical (like when the Republicans complain about Benghazi security after "cutting 476 million" from the security budget). Go figure.

DukeLaw says

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Worse. These people have no wants. They only have others telling them what they need.

Yes. Public-private partnerships can be worse.

Whenever you exert too much governance, you get bullshit like that. Be it USSR or USA.

We ought to be systemically natural and individually willful.

AverageBear says

And you naturally tax the shit out of those small business owners who happen to net over $250K through their business, yet quite often take home less than 80K when all business expenses have been taken care of.

Business expenses? I thought they were above the line write-offs.

Nevertheless, 20-25% is a joke. Tax rate should not be higher than 15%.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument.
Is that how it works now? You can dismiss facts that you don't like because they are tired and stale?
OK--the US debt argument is tired and stale. Don't bore me with that BS anymore.

-----------------------------------------------------
yes, Tatupu, that's how it works. Why? Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt. I dismiss the tired 1% argument because it doesn't apply to this thread. Go start a 1%'er thread and I'll be happy to stick to the topic, unlike you.

Obamacare does not go far enough.

Government-provided healthcare needs to be an option for everyone. Healthcare is the last place you want for public-private collusion.

Clinton was awesome.

AverageBear says

You do know he raped Medicare of $716 BILLION this year before the election. You do know this happened, right?

Nope, he "raped" Medicare Part C, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the 1990s.

Next on the block is Medicare Part D, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the previous decade.

It's really amazing how much damage your idiot Republican congress did to this nation, 1995-2006. They didn't leave a stone unturned in their search for how to destroy this country.

Mission Accomplished!

Peter P says

Clinton was awesome.

------------------------------------
You know, even though I voted against him, Clinton was WAAAAAAY better than the current clown we have for president. He genuinely brought the country together. Yet he didn't promise this. Obama on the other hand did promise this, and has severed the country like I've never seen before. We can't even get a budget passed since he got elected.

Clinton was more conservative than many Republicans.

AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.

Oh, my mistake. When I read this:

AverageBear says

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.
110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.
How is this possible? How can four American workers be paying THREE people either through welfare or a government job?

I thought you were discussing why the debt is so high and how we can reduce it. The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

tatupu70 says

The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.

The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Peter P says

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.
The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

It's a lose/lose situation. Less tax revenues and more welfare spending. Surely you can see how that would increase the deficit.

tatupu70 says

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

Of course not. If the top 1% own any less we have a problem. Most people do not own anything and they are not entitled to owning anything.

When the richest family owns 1% of the GDP then we may have a wealth gap.

Just require welfare recipients to work and perhaps we will see a difference. With 99-week unemployment, who will want to work?

A lot of people have zero or negative net worth. This does not prevent them from living.

They will just work to live.

And sadly investment is now driven by excess liquidity.

Lockean Proviso is quite laughable.

Come on.

Greed is good, as long as you are greedy for something beautiful.

Quite the contrary, we are very supportive other people's greed. They should go get it. Just don't cry and insist that you are entitled to it.

Peter P says

Greed is good, as long as you are greedy for something beautiful.

Quite the contrary, we are very supportive other people's greed. They should go get it. Just don't cry and insist that you are entitled to it.

Peter,

You are watching too much TV. TV and Internet should not be your whole world.

Nothing to do with TV. But when Gordon Gekko made a speech that resonated so well you tend to have it burned in your head.

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100204obamas_auntie_still_freeloading

I'd love to be treated like an illegal alien here in Massachusetts. I'd be much better off......

This is what happens when one party rules a state. And this particular state is run by democrats....

......"Aunt Zeituni donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign for president - which is also against the law because she’s not a U.S. citizen. How against the law is it? Remember when the president launched his unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union? His complaint was that foreigners might donate money to influence U.S. elections.

All these crimes extend from the first crime - violating our immigration laws. It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.

But it’s not the illegal stuff that Aunt Zeituni’s doing that’s so outrageous. It’s what she’s apparently able to do legally and openly.

She is shamelessly - and happily - living in taxpayer-subsidized housing intended for citizens and legal immigrants. Is there some poor American veteran living in a shelter because she’s got this apartment? Aunt Zeituni doesn’t care - why should she? Menino and the Boston Housing Authority don’t.

And now she’s back in court, using taxpayer resources with another bogus bid for asylum. She says she can’t go back to Kenya because of “political turmoil.” Sorry lady, but if that’s the basis for an appeal, nobody would have been allowed back in the White House since Scott Brown’s election.

Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work. She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing. In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American. She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes."

AverageBear says

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!

But I thought:

AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.

How does Aunt Zeituni factor in to that again?

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!
But I thought:
AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.
How does Aunt Zeituni factor in to that again?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Because obama's aunti Zeituni is an illegal alien who's been living off of tax payers for a LOOONG time, and doesn't work. See the title of this thread for some guidance.

- She's definitely in "Obama's world"; in fact, she's in Obama's Family (HAHAHAHAAA).

- She doesn't work, hasn't worked for years, and has no plans to work.

- And the quotes/remarks/comments of this arrogant asshole DEFINITELY tells me she thinks we workers are suckers. I can give you more quotes/links on this little peach of a woman if you want...

It dovetails into the spending problem that's caused the fiscal cliff. A spending problem that Obama wants to address by ........SPENDING MORE. Got it?

Oh, and if we do decide to go 'off topic', I'd be happy to tell everyone here in Patrick.Net-Land about Obama's Uncle living illegally here in Framingham. You know all about Uncle Omar, don't you? Nabbed for driving drunk? But I digress. Maybe I'll consider a new thread that addresses the massive drain of tax dollars here in Massachusetts that goes to illegal aliens, that should be going to LEGAL aliens, and you know, actual citizens of this fine commonwealth...

AverageBear says

It dovetails into the spending problem that's caused the fiscal cliff. A spending problem that Obama wants to address by ........SPENDING MORE. Got it?

Sorry--I was just messing with you. But, that's not really true. Obama wants more revenues and spending cuts both. That's where the "balanced approach" comes from. And yes, he does advocate some increased one time only spending. The economy is still weak and, more than anything, we need to create jobs. If you get people working a lot of the defict problem goes away.

Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that the economy can create the jobs if income/wealth disparity remain at their current levels.

tatupu70 says

Sorry--I was just messing with you. But, that's not really true. Obama wants more revenues and spending cuts both. That's where the "balanced approach" comes from. And yes, he does advocate some increased one time only spending. The economy is still weak and, more than anything, we need to create jobs. If you get people working a lot of the defict problem goes away.

--------------------------------------------
No worries. I do understand that the feds do need to spend something to keep the economy afloat, but I think where he's put that $$ in that past was misguided ($90 Billion in Green jobs that hasn't created any jobs)...I'm at least glad that the spending problem is Front and Center in the media's eye. Although their message usually gets warped in the delivery, I'm glad people are at least talking about it....I'm actually fine w/ us 'going over the cliff'.... spending cuts, tax hikes and all....I think many (myself included) get carried away on the 'what if's'.... If this isn't resolved, I'm inclined to think it we'll be affected like Y2K....