patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,198,582 comments by 14,135 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, BeneTiberCato online now
Republicans are delusional about US spending and deficits
invite response
2013 Oct 16, 1:22am 55,076 views 201 comments
« First « Previous Comments 60 - 99 of 201 Next » Last » Search these comments
freak80
2013 Oct 19, 12:50pm
To misquote Mae West "logic has nothing to do with it".
Correct. The far-right runs on gullibility, fear and hatred...not logic.
Because the companies don't want to do that. They are afraid to expand because the last time they did credit was cut off. It could happen again. It is all about the banks, Wong.
who said you need the bank to expand.. capital markers are open to all...
you can issue your own debt securities.. and many actually have.
Apple Raises $17 Billion in Record Corporate Bond Sale
Correct. The far-right runs on gullibility, fear and hatred...not logic.
how much fear, gullibility and hatred and Not the Issues (Logic) did we hear from the Progressives-Democrats during the Election... Obama and his Crew only talked about Romney's tax returns.. And of course Reids comments that Romney paid any taxes as Governor.. (ignoring Romney skipped being paid a salary and paid his own expenses).
If anything.. it was pure Chicago politics.. the only thing missing was Al Capones Thugs..
lets not even talk about experience working with the people in Congress
Homeboy
2013 Oct 19, 1:46pm
there are plenty of funds that paid a healthy 5% pre-bubble.. had people not created the housing bubble and continued with rational pricing as was the case in the 90s , many would
have had a much higher savings rate with some invested in stocks and bonds.. we can only
wish it was rational thinking by the public... this did not happen. Those of use who bought in the 90s and been plowing it back into investments did well.. We worked at it.
Interesting you should bring this up. Yes, things were better in the 90s. Hmmm.... what happened in the 90s? Oh, yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate went up. And we had prosperity - not just for the elite in the financial sector, but for everyone. Hmmm... What happened after the 90s? Oh yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate was lowered. So did those "job creators" invest in equipment and create more jobs? Nope, the financial sector became immensely wealthy, over-leveraged themselves, and destroyed the economy. And that's where we are today. Trickle-down doesn't work, dude. I know Rush told you it does, but he's wrong.
tts
2013 Oct 19, 5:55pm
So, what does the "blue" team run on???
The D's are essentially neoliberal light at the moment, willing to do some social reform but economically are very pro business/Wall St/banks, not all that far in policy from early/mid 90's R's in terms of economic or foreign policy really. Which is why they passed Obamacare which was Gingrich's health care reform alternative to Hillarycare in the 90's.
tts
2013 Oct 19, 6:04pm
the game isnt rigged
When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:
Homeboy
2013 Oct 19, 6:44pm
The D's are essentially neoliberal light at the moment, willing to do some social reform but economically are very pro business/Wall St/banks, not all that far in policy from early/mid 90's R's in terms of economic or foreign policy really. Which is why they passed Obamacare which was Gingrich's health care reform alternative to Hillarycare in the 90's.
I think that's a very accurate assessment.
marcus
2013 Oct 19, 11:49pm
When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:
But they're the job creators.
there are plenty of funds that paid a healthy 5% pre-bubble.. had people not created the housing bubble and continued with rational pricing as was the case in the 90s , many would
have had a much higher savings rate with some invested in stocks and bonds.. we can only
wish it was rational thinking by the public... this did not happen. Those of use who bought in the 90s and been plowing it back into investments did well.. We worked at it.Interesting you should bring this up. Yes, things were better in the 90s. Hmmm.... what happened in the 90s? Oh, yeah - the long term capital gains tax rate went up. And we had prosperity - not just for the elite in the financial sector, but for everyone. Hmmm...
The tax increases in first term did nothing to promote business activity. Perhaps you have forgotten how Capital Gains tax was cut after 1997 by Clinton which provided much needed capital to hire many workers.. "In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%." . It was after the 1997 tax cut did the
economy boom and capital spending skyrocketed.
https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical
"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
- Bill Clinton 1995
The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase
While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,†but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.
During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democrat who helped steer Mr. Clinton's proposal through the Senate Finance Committee, was just as harsh, saying that the 1993 budget's deficit reduction had improved the economy and was something to be proud of.
"It just knocked us over when we saw that report this morning," Mr. Moynihan said. "He keeps conceding these things. He doesn't understand that he's conceding the principles." Asked why he thought the President had made the remarks, Mr. Moynihan said: "He's running for re-election, he's raising money in Houston. What he should have said was, 'Is there a man in this room who's not richer than he was two years ago?' "
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html
When nearly all the wealth is held by a teeeeny tiny percentage who do little or nothing to earn that wealth then yes it is. Also:
Robert Reich.. OH Please.... it would be great that auto, steel, and other workers were making more while our competition from Asia was undercutting market prices on goods they were flooding the market with to take market share away from us. How long would that have lasted..
Sorry, Mr. Reich: Your Economics Grade Is Still F (Reply to Robert Reich)
Third, Official U.S. data from 1964 to present reject Reich’s claim that declining employee compensation and rising corporate profits (measured absolutely or as shares of national income) cause economic downturns. Corporate profits fall (often dramatically) during economic downturns, while compensation of employees better holds its own. The employee compensation share of national income rises immediately preceding and during recessions. Reich makes claims about economic relationships with little or no regard to facts.
Fourth, I conclude that Reich does not understand wage formation in labor markets, although he was Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. Apparently such knowledge is not necessary for such a position. He seems to think that stingy corporations could pay their workers much more. He does not realize they most businesses operate in a competitive environment. If they pay more than the competitive wage, they cannot remain competitive themselves.
Wong, the people who need to be taxed are the top .1 percent, who have trillions of dollars offshore. Most companies get around high taxes in the USA and offshore profits are a problem there too.
you know little of overseas operations.. the profits overseas have already been taxed by foreign governments and are already taxed by the IRS. The amount due is the difference between the US Rates Less Foreign tax Credit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_tax_credit
Since when do you tax the same dollar twice ? There is no trillions in Profits DUE TO THE IRS.
Wong, the guy's chart above doesn't lie. Why don't you give up.
Competition from overseas ... no it doesnt lie..
So I ask you again.. increasing pay will do what to the US industries as the Overseas
competition cuts the market prices of goods they have flooded the international markets. ?
I know Rush told you it does, but he's wrong.
Ever read the National Review.. its been around for a very very long time..
If you like you can dispute Bill Clinton himself.. of Course even Patrick Moynihan
Higher taxes is just promises the Democrats cannot deliver on ...
tts
2013 Oct 20, 8:00am
Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.
D's tend to lose mid-term elections due to poor voter turn out. Also most people haven't got a clue what the capital gains tax rate is, only the rich care about it.
It was not a voter issue back then. Particularly on state level congressional votes which are most always about local politics.
tts
2013 Oct 20, 8:11am
Robert Reich.. OH Please....
Posting an opinion piece is not proof. Especially one who is Tea Bagger:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/10/17/the-tea-party-victory/
That idiot thinks Obamacare is a European-style welfare program when it is anything but!
Also all those charts are actual data, not opinions on what happened and when, and only 1 of them is sourced from Reich.
D's tend to lose mid-term elections due to poor voter turn out. Also most people haven't got a clue what the capital gains tax rate is, only the rich care about it.
It was not a voter issue back then. Particularly on state level congressional votes which are most always about local politics.
They lost because they screwed up and Clinton knew it.
Everyone knows about Capital Gains and everyone uses it.
Certainly the 60% of the homeowners do...and others who have mutual funds.
There is no 1% here as some would like to claim.
Also all those charts are actual data, not opinions on what happened and when, and only 1 of them is sourced from Reich.
the criticism against Reith is a fair one. many liberals talk of unfair or declining wages yet make
no comments regarding domestic and foreign competition.
you want charts ? ... here is one ...
tatupu70
2013 Oct 20, 8:57am
the criticism against Reith is a fair one. many liberals talk of unfair or
declining wages yet make
no comments regarding domestic and foreign competition.
Thomas--
Come on--you're smarter than this. There's another thread on here talking about how the difference between the top executive's pay and the median worker is larger than ever. And corporate profits are at record levels. Obviously foreign competition is not holding down profits or keeping executive pay down.
That explanation is BS.
Come on--you're smarter than this. There's another thread on here talking about how the difference between the top executive's pay and the median worker is larger than ever. And corporate profits are at record levels. Obviously foreign competition is not holding down profits or keeping executive pay down.
top executives are paid ALOT..yes this is true.. were the orginal founders ... no they made far far less but kept a large share in equity. Somewhere there is an offset when outsiders are hired.
you want more pay for workers.. talk to HR people about that..
the answer over foreign competition is even more obvious answer ...
how many times have you heard of a Japanese Car Maker going into Bankruptcy
due to lower sales and higher expenses ?
tatupu70
2013 Oct 20, 9:24am
you want more pay for workers.. talk to HR people about that..
lol. How would that conversation go. "I think the CEO making $20MM in pay/bonus/options is too much especially when you consider that he's paying the rank and file workers slightly over minimum wage."
I'm sure the HR manager would call the chairman up and recommend that the CEO salary be reduced immediately.
how many times have you heard of a Japanese Car Maker going into Bankruptcy
due to lower sales and higher expenses ?
How much do Japanese car maker's CEOs make?
How much do Japanese car maker's CEOs make?
i have no idea how much they make its not an issue..
the issue is how do we selling more cars than the Japanese competition and making Toyota/Nissan less profitable. That is what the focus should be.. everything is a distraction and smoke screen from the real issue.
You make US products dominate the world markets then of course you have pricing power and room to grow costs.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 20, 9:40am
the issue is how do we selling more cars than the Japanese competition and
making Toyota/Nissan less profitable. That is what the focus should be..
everything is a distraction and smoke screen from the real issue.
Actually, that's not the issue at all. You initially stated that US companies can't increase pay to the rank and file because foreign competition was too fierce. Do you agree that with record profitability and CEO pay, there actually is room?
Homeboy
2013 Oct 20, 9:43am
The tax increases in first term did nothing to promote business activity. Perhaps you have forgotten how Capital Gains tax was cut after 1997 by Clinton which provided much needed capital to hire many workers.. "In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%." . It was after the 1997 tax cut did the
economy boom and capital spending skyrocketed.
Bullshit.
Actually, that's not the issue at all. You initially stated that US companies can't increase pay to the rank and file because foreign competition was too fierce. Do you agree that with record profitability and CEO pay, there actually is room?
My opinion is unimportant... You should find several Liberal Leaning CEOs from a publicly traded company that will agree with you and will implement lower salaries for those at the top. Perhaps they will also implement mandatory salary/wage cuts across the board when things dont reach quota.. or how about firing all if revenues/profits are not met. When things go bad only a few usually at the top get paddled.
Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than didnt change.
Today, you want to impose greater government control over the private sector pay... all for the sake of fairness. Good luck with that ?
That is a lie. Did you know that back in the 90's, 50 percent of the people lived paycheck to paycheck and now it is up to 76 percent? How high can it go before the society disintegrates, Wong?
and where did the house bubble start..Home prices only go up and up.. buy now or be priced forever.
Bullshit.
so there was no cut in capital gains in 1997 ?
how do you explain the rush with over $150 Billion in Venture Capital flooding the start ups ?
https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical
tatupu70
2013 Oct 20, 10:45am
Today, you want to impose greater government control over the private sector
pay... all for the sake of fairness. Good luck with that ?
Nope--I'd like to see boards of directors actually become independent and their members grow a pair so they can do their job and represent the shareholders rather than the company's management.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 20, 10:46am
Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs
and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than
didnt change.
Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.
Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.
why is your number better than another.. where do you peg it "belongs"? Not going to happen...
"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
- Bill Clinton 1995
Back in Clinton's era, Congress disqualified the expense deduction of CEOs
and Officers salary above $1M. so what ever results were you seeking back than
didnt change.
Let's raise capital gains up to where they belong. That's a start.
The right number for that will always be in debate. However there is a difference between stock options (while you work at the company) and stocks bought on the open market. The stock options have no risk associated with them as you don't have to exercise them, so these gains behave more like regular income as compared to gains from regular stock purchases. Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.
Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.
LOL! Why do you hate home ownership and the American dream ?
.
.
(Psst... I do agree)
Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.
LOL! Why do you hate home ownership and the American dream ?
.
.
(Psst... I do agree)
Ever since I realized the best times were those hacking years back then at Sun Microsystems when we slept in the labs, medical rooms or in our cars and weren't missing much ;)
Homeboy
2013 Oct 20, 4:16pm
so there was no cut in capital gains in 1997 ?
Did I say that?
how do you explain the rush with over $150 Billion in Venture Capital flooding the start ups ?
Um, we were talking about JOBS. Unemployment went UP starting in 2000. Where was the job-creating effect of that cut in capital gains rate? I'm not denying that a flurry of stock market investing follows cuts in the capital gains rate; in fact I specifically mentioned that it helps the investor class. But we were talking about whether it helps the WORKING class, and no, it does not.
You seem to be having an imaginary argument with someone other than me. Did I say tax increases promote business activity? No, I simply said cutting the capital gains rate does NOT promote business activity. You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The reason to tax capital gains as ordinary income would be to balance the budget by ending preferential tax treatment for the investor class. The problem could be solved without people going hungry or dying from lack of medical care.
What happened when Clinton slightly cut the capital gains rate? The long trend of declining unemployment reversed, and people started losing jobs again for the first time in 8 years. Unemployment declined throughout Clinton's first term yet you inexplicably claim that there were no economic effects during the Clinton era until 1997. Cherry pick data much?
What happened when Bush further cut the capital gains rate? Overleveraging in the financial sector, housing bubble, Wall Street coup, and the destruction of the US economy, which has resulted in one of the worst wealth disparity situations in the world.
Trickle. Down. Doesn't. Work.
Homeboy
2013 Oct 20, 4:28pm
The right number for that will always be in debate. However there is a difference between stock options (while you work at the company) and stocks bought on the open market. The stock options have no risk associated with them as you don't have to exercise them, so these gains behave more like regular income as compared to gains from regular stock purchases. Furthermore no raise of capital tax rates without eliminating all deductions and loopholes, such as mortgage interest deductions and capital gains exemption from house sales after 2 years.
Or we could just tax capital gains as ordinary income. Period.
freak80
2013 Oct 20, 9:47pm
You seem to be having an imaginary argument with someone other than me.
Mell does that a lot. It takes some getting used to.
« First « Previous Comments 60 - 99 of 201 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/shutdown-republicans-government-spending-delusions
#politics