1. #1
    no gnu taxes
    no gnu taxes's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-18-11
    Posts: 805

    Obama administration says jobless rate rise unacceptable



    President Barack Obama's administration called on Congress to do more to help the economy create jobs, with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis saying May's rise in the unemployment rate was unacceptable.

    "Congress has to take some action because while we see the unemployment rate where it is, it's not acceptable," Solis told the CNBC network on Friday.


    Earlier, the Labor Department said the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a point in May to 8.2 percent. The department also said employers added just 69,000 people to payrolls during the month, the weakest increase in a year.

  2. #2
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,585

    yes, create some more minimum wage jobs...........

  3. #3
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Love the picture. Goes great with the article. Why doesn't Obama call on his boys in the Senate to come up with something? All they do is strike down everything Congress comes up with anyway.

  4. #4
    tblues2005
    tblues2005's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-30-06
    Posts: 9,234
    Betpoints: 7178

    I don't see much getting done in this election year at all. It is going to be s flat out ugly election. These two parties are so far apart it isn't funny. I don't see it getting below 8 percent with the way it looks. The only good thing to say is gasoline prices are falling for once. That could be the only thing that can help the economy right now considering Congress is going to do nothing.

  5. #5
    BranchDavidian
    BranchDavidian's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-29-10
    Posts: 1,014

    Perhaps if the administration were not spending a few trillion more than it brings in --- all the while printing more money at the same time that it is putting more red-tape and restrictions on the private sector along with threats to increase taxes, just perhaps the private sector could come up with a few more jobs. Socialism just doesn't work --- look at Europe. Take the incentive away from the "producers" to give to the "non-producers" and we all lose!
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: DudleyDawson

  6. #6
    Brock Landers
    Forever in Debt to your Priceless Advice
    Brock Landers's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-30-08
    Posts: 45,360
    Betpoints: 8792

    i got a job, a great paying one too. Not sure what all the bitching is about.

    its survival of the fittest

  7. #7
    MC PICKS
    Update your status
    MC PICKS's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-10-10
    Posts: 6,644
    Betpoints: 265

    If obama spent a little more time trying to lead and do the right thing instead of campaigning all the time and pushing his agendas that are not productive and cost effective, we might be in a better situation.

  8. #8
    Snowball
    Snowball's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 11-15-09
    Posts: 30,019
    Betpoints: 3744

    It's not Congress's responsibility to create jobs,
    they can't do it anyway because we have a frikkin COMMUNIST as President.

    This guy needs to GO. Businesses are not gonna hire until
    he's GONE.

  9. #9
    SBR_John
    Wisky
    SBR_John's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-12-05
    Posts: 16,471
    Betpoints: 42225

    Obama played 59 rounds of golf in 2011. Doubt he cares about the unemployment numbers.

  10. #10
    King Mayan
    STFU AND SQUAT PUTO
    King Mayan's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-22-10
    Posts: 21,325
    Betpoints: 3679

    There's plenty of "job creators" in SBR..bush tax cuts are in place...

    Where are the jobs repubs??????




  11. #11
    MC PICKS
    Update your status
    MC PICKS's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-10-10
    Posts: 6,644
    Betpoints: 265

    Quote Originally Posted by King Mayan View Post
    There's plenty of "job creators" in SBR..bush tax cuts are in place...

    Where are the jobs repubs??????



    The looming cloud of obamacare has stalled job creation, nobody wants to hire someone if the government is gonna force them to cover them or pay a penalty if they dont, its pretty self explanatory.

  12. #12
    SBR_John
    Wisky
    SBR_John's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-12-05
    Posts: 16,471
    Betpoints: 42225

    What happened to the Obama $1 trillion dollar stimulus that was suppose to create 1 million new jobs??

    Oddly enough most of it ended up in wealthy donors pockets like Solyndra. The money was wasted on green technology grants, most the companies are long gone. Same money could have been used to lower business taxes pay down the debt and put people back to work. but nooooo, instead unemployment its worse now than it was before we flushed a trillion borrowed dollars down the drain.

  13. #13
    antifoil
    Update your status
    antifoil's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-11-09
    Posts: 3,993
    Betpoints: 6611

    this is crazy because when i told my wife putting her finger in my ass was unacceptable because of the rate at which my dick rises.

    i have so much in common with the obama adminstration. we dislike things that rise at an unacceptable rate.

  14. #14
    tblues2005
    tblues2005's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-30-06
    Posts: 9,234
    Betpoints: 7178

    I agree with you SBRJohn on your comment of where did the money go. That is an awful lot of money that is gone now. If the Republicans had a candidate that is decent they would have a very good chance but Romney isn't a strong candidate at all. He doesn't appeal to them very well at all. I think it is going to be a downright ugly fight all of the way this election.

  15. #15
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 702

    Quote Originally Posted by SBR_John View Post
    Obama played 59 rounds of golf in 2011. Doubt he cares about the unemployment numbers.
    That's the attack we're going with now, that he played too many rounds of golf to care about jobs? Nevermind the fact that the number you've thrown out for number of rounds of golf he played in 2011 is a complete fabrication(he actually played around 30 rounds of golf in 2011). Since taking office Obama has played approximately 90 rounds of golf, which works out to approximately one round of golf every two weeks. Or with travel time about 10 hours a month, there are approximately 720 hours in a month, so is your argument really that Obama doesn't care about unemployment because he spent 1% of every month, approximately, playing golf?

  16. #16
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 702

    Quote Originally Posted by SBR_John View Post
    What happened to the Obama $1 trillion dollar stimulus that was suppose to create 1 million new jobs??

    Oddly enough most of it ended up in wealthy donors pockets like Solyndra. The money was wasted on green technology grants, most the companies are long gone. Same money could have been used to lower business taxes pay down the debt and put people back to work. but nooooo, instead unemployment its worse now than it was before we flushed a trillion borrowed dollars down the drain.
    The money that Solyndra(and other companies) got from the Stimulus were not grants, they were loan guarantees, and of the 787 billion dollars, guess how much they represented? 1%.

    Furthermore, do you not think that giving loan guarantees to these companies put people to work? Did Solyndra have no employees before they went under? Nevermind the fact that one of the primary reasons that they went over is because China was dumping solar panels onto the US market that the Chinese government was subsidizing. The US just imposed a tariff on Chinese solar panel imports in approximately the last month because of it.

    Fully five times that went directly to the states to fund highway projects, which besides providing badly needed infrastructure repairs, put loans of construction workers to work doing these projects.

    As for your it could have gone to lower business taxes or pay down the debt, how would the latter have stimulated a demand recessed economy? What would lowering business taxes have done facing the fact that businesses weren't hiring because of lack of consumer demand, why would they suddenly be incentivized to hire if you lowered their taxes? It is not as though the majority of businesses were in large part saying, I want to hire I need to hire, but the taxes are just too high for me to hire that employee I desperately need. Lowering their tax rate at the most would help at the fringes, but the amount of people it put back to work would be a ill defined as the right claims the amount of jobs saved and created from the stimulus already is.

  17. #17
    jbart28
    MAGA KAG
    jbart28's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-16-11
    Posts: 3,387
    Betpoints: 16

    OBAMONOMICS= OBAMINATION

    More regulations sir. You should drone bomb some more people too. Fukin ban big gulp sodas as the press meetings while your at it. Stupid LIBTARDS. I heard he is playing golf with John Edwards today!

  18. #18
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Quote Originally Posted by King Mayan View Post
    There's plenty of "job creators" in SBR..bush tax cuts are in place...

    Where are the jobs repubs??????




    Obama continued them when the Democratic Congress was still in place. They are now Obama tax cuts.

  19. #19
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750
    Betpoints: 44

    Quote Originally Posted by SBR_John View Post
    Obama played 59 rounds of golf in 2011. Doubt he cares about the unemployment numbers.
    Bush played 24 rounds in the same amount of time, ran down to Crawford to clear brush repeatedly and went fishing with dad and other friends in Kennebunkport numerous times... and we were in the starting stages of a war on terror (according to him and Cheney anyway.) Guess Bush didn't care about the upcoming war or getting terrorists. He certainly didn't get the man he said he would, OBL. He was going to smoke'em out, dead or alive, remember? Didn't happen. Must have been too busy playing golf. Or as he said-



    Do I seriously believe Bush didn't care about protecting the country or that he was more interested in golf, clearing brush and fishing. Fukk no. It's just a stupid argument. It like lambasting the POTUS every time he or he and his family travel. They all travel, they all have hobbies. Their travel is almost always paid for with tax dollars, their security always is to my knowledge. I had a friend send me an e-mail detailing the cost the of flying Air Force One and how Obama was traveling in style while many folks are out of work. Really? Wow who knew the POTUS had his own 747? This must be something new... to anyone born yesterday. Or anyone who hasn't seen the film Air Force One with Harrison Ford.

    Simply one of the dumbest arguments around.
    Last edited by Tully Mars 63; 06-02-12 at 07:55 AM.

  20. #20
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    Quote Originally Posted by BranchDavidian View Post
    Perhaps if the administration were not spending a few trillion more than it brings in --- all the while printing more money at the same time that it is putting more red-tape and restrictions on the private sector along with threats to increase taxes, just perhaps the private sector could come up with a few more jobs. Socialism just doesn't work --- look at Europe. Take the incentive away from the "producers" to give to the "non-producers" and we all lose!
    Obama is spending the least amount out of any president in the last decade so get ur facts right. Interest rates for the gov't to borrow are at a historical low. This is when the gov't should be spending and spending big on infrastructure. Any economist worth a piss knows this. Tax breaks for billionaires bring nothing to the economy but a drain on the deficit. It has been proven so many times that u have to either be totally ignorant of this or just a parrot for talking points. Taxes for the top one percent are at historical lows. Where are the jobs? Where again is the trickle down effect? I will tell u where it is. It is in rightwing bullshit the public talking points. Why aren't these so called job creators creating jobs? They are not because demand for products create jobs and when u keep crushing the middle class, who are the big spenders, this is what happens.

  21. #21
    rocky502
    rocky502's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-13-10
    Posts: 486
    Betpoints: 225

    Quote Originally Posted by King Mayan View Post
    There's plenty of "job creators" in SBR..bush tax cuts are in place...

    Where are the jobs repubs??????



    Take your Obama blinders off for a second. Why don't you call these the "Obama Tax Cuts" since the extension was passed by a democratic controlled house and senate and signed by your hero Obama during the lame duck? Liberals don't have the intellectual honesty to ever acknowledge that the Bush Tax Cuts expired in 2010. They were voted on and passed by the spineless democrats and signed by Obama. If they don't think tax cuts positively affect the economy, then why did they pass the extension and why did Bama sign off on it.

    The Obama tax cuts are set to expire this year. We will see how courageous Obama is very soon on this. If they expire, we all get a tax hike. What are the odds Obama has the stones to allow these tax cuts to expire effectively raising everyone's taxes with the election looming?

  22. #22
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor4140 View Post
    Obama is spending the least amount out of any president in the last decade so get ur facts right. Interest rates for the gov't to borrow are at a historical low. This is when the gov't should be spending and spending big on infrastructure. Any economist worth a piss knows this. Tax breaks for billionaires bring nothing to the economy but a drain on the deficit. It has been proven so many times that u have to either be totally ignorant of this or just a parrot for talking points. Taxes for the top one percent are at historical lows. Where are the jobs? Where again is the trickle down effect? I will tell u where it is. It is in rightwing bullshit the public talking points. Why aren't these so called job creators creating jobs? They are not because demand for products create jobs and when u keep crushing the middle class, who are the big spenders, this is what happens.
    Jobs are not necessarily going to be created when there is uncertainty. Between Obamacare possibly being in full effect in 2014, and the upcoming election, I think a lot of employers are waiting to see how this all plays out. Smart businessmen look at the long term repercussions before deciding to expand the workforce. As far as the tax break thing goes, do you actually think that Congress will spend that money on the deficit if they get it? When have they proven, over the long haul, that they can be responsible spending extra money. Also, when are the 50% that are not paying federal income taxes going to come forward, and pay their "fair share" for living in this great country? Until Washington can handle their pocket books, like all of us have to, they are entitled to no more money PERIOD!

  23. #23
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr KLC View Post
    Jobs are not necessarily going to be created when there is uncertainty. Between Obamacare possibly being in full effect in 2014, and the upcoming election, I think a lot of employers are waiting to see how this all plays out. Smart businessmen look at the long term repercussions before deciding to expand the workforce. As far as the tax break thing goes, do you actually think that Congress will spend that money on the deficit if they get it? When have they proven, over the long haul, that they can be responsible spending extra money. Also, when are the 50% that are not paying federal income taxes going to come forward, and pay their "fair share" for living in this great country? Until Washington can handle their pocket books, like all of us have to, they are entitled to no more money PERIOD!
    And this kind of logic is why we are where we are today. Stop this nonsense that businesses are waiting for god sakes. No business in the world is gonna hire if there is no demand for their product period. When i was in business it wasn't a tax break that was what i needed it was money in peoples pockets plain and simple. Ask any business if they mind the gov't spending on infrastructure and if they are against it they are foolish because this puts money in peoples pockets. Money that would be spent in the economy.

  24. #24
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    [QUOTE=rocky502;14935064]Take your Obama blinders off for a second. Why don't you call these the "Obama Tax Cuts" since the extension was passed by a democratic controlled house and senate and signed by your hero Obama during the lame duck? Liberals don't have the intellectual honesty to ever acknowledge that the Bush Tax Cuts expired in 2010. They were voted on and passed by the spineless democrats and signed by Obama. If they don't think tax cuts positively affect the economy, then why did they pass the extension and why did Bama sign off on it.


    until u learn why he extended them then it isn't even worth debating u. He tried numerous times to shut them down but one certain party said no and now we see the deficit soar.

  25. #25
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    [QUOTE=Thor4140;14935214]
    Quote Originally Posted by rocky502 View Post
    Take your Obama blinders off for a second. Why don't you call these the "Obama Tax Cuts" since the extension was passed by a democratic controlled house and senate and signed by your hero Obama during the lame duck? Liberals don't have the intellectual honesty to ever acknowledge that the Bush Tax Cuts expired in 2010. They were voted on and passed by the spineless democrats and signed by Obama. If they don't think tax cuts positively affect the economy, then why did they pass the extension and why did Bama sign off on it.


    until u learn why he extended them then it isn't even worth debating u. He tried numerous times to shut them down but one certain party said no and now we see the deficit soar.
    He had a majority in the Senate and House when they were passed. He could have let them go to the wayside. It was actually a bipartisan vote in the House, and overwhelming vote in the Senate. The House liberals wanted to raise a higher estate tax on it, but got knocked down, even though they had the majority.

  26. #26
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor4140 View Post
    And this kind of logic is why we are where we are today. Stop this nonsense that businesses are waiting for god sakes. No business in the world is gonna hire if there is no demand for their product period. When i was in business it wasn't a tax break that was what i needed it was money in peoples pockets plain and simple. Ask any business if they mind the gov't spending on infrastructure and if they are against it they are foolish because this puts money in peoples pockets. Money that would be spent in the economy.
    Tell me. Why didn't all these infrastructure jobs pop up after the "shovel ready" program of the stimulus package? Do you actually believe that the government will use the money accordingly if they were to take more from the rich? Who do you trust more, the government or private industry?

  27. #27
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr KLC View Post
    Tell me. Why didn't all these infrastructure jobs pop up after the "shovel ready" program of the stimulus package? Do you actually believe that the government will use the money accordingly if they were to take more from the rich? Who do you trust more, the government or private industry?
    nobody is asking to take more for the rich. Pay their fare share for fuks sakes that is all people are asking. I would never be opposed to a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage U think the top 1 percent would want that? A lot of that stimulus money went to fund those god awful tax breaks that did nothing for the economy. That is why the stimulus didn't do as well as it should have. It was way to small. extending unemployment did a much better for the economy then throwing another 2 million in a rich guys pocket book. Don't get me wrong im not happy with Obama either but u guys are to much with these right wing talking points that i feel a need to right the record a bit. I don't think SBR john has had an original thought since 1962. Same old tired talking points and when u show him how ridiculous he is he just goes right to the next crock of bullshit he heard on Fox. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

  28. #28
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    [QUOTE=Mr KLC;14935546]
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor4140 View Post

    He had a majority in the Senate and House when they were passed. He could have let them go to the wayside. It was actually a bipartisan vote in the House, and overwhelming vote in the Senate. The House liberals wanted to raise a higher estate tax on it, but got knocked down, even though they had the majority.
    He never at one time had a majority of liberals. if u think Southern democrats are liberal i can't help u then. There is a reason they are called blue dogs. They might as well call them dogs.

  29. #29
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor4140 View Post
    nobody is asking to take more for the rich. Pay their fare share for fuks sakes that is all people are asking. I would never be opposed to a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage U think the top 1 percent would want that? A lot of that stimulus money went to fund those god awful tax breaks that did nothing for the economy. That is why the stimulus didn't do as well as it should have. It was way to small. extending unemployment did a much better for the economy then throwing another 2 million in a rich guys pocket book. Don't get me wrong im not happy with Obama either but u guys are to much with these right wing talking points that i feel a need to right the record a bit. I don't think SBR john has had an original thought since 1962. Same old tired talking points and when u show him how ridiculous he is he just goes right to the next crock of bullshit he heard on Fox. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
    I agree with you on the flat tax. The problem is that it would mean that the bottom half would have to start paying taxes, and some of the rich would actually possibly pay less. I could see the talking points on that one.

  30. #30
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    [QUOTE=Thor4140;14936334]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr KLC View Post

    He never at one time had a majority of liberals. if u think Southern democrats are liberal i can't help u then. There is a reason they are called blue dogs. They might as well call them dogs.
    You're correct that the liberals overall were not for it, but he is supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party. I think that there were more Democrats concerned about a tax hike going on their re-election resume in 2012.

  31. #31
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 702

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr KLC View Post
    Also, when are the 50% that are not paying federal income taxes going to come forward, and pay their "fair share" for living in this great country? Until Washington can handle their pocket books, like all of us have to, they are entitled to no more money PERIOD!
    Pay their "fair share"? The top 20% of the country controls 93% of the wealth. With that in mind, how much do you think the bottom 50%'s "fair share" is? If the top 20% control 93% of the wealth, how much do you think making the bottom 50% pay would dent the debt or the deficit?(yes I know personal wealth and income aren't the same thing, but having a high personal wealth means you don't need the income nearly as much). The answer is that the reason that the bottom 50% pay no federal income tax(keeping in mind that the working ones are disproportionately paying Medicare and Social Security "tax"), is because they need all the money that they have to eat, and to have shelter. The bottom 50% are for the most part living paycheck to paycheck, and making them pay more in taxes would do exactly what we don't want to do, stifle demand. The people at the bottom use a non-proportional amount of their income on things that stimulate the economy, food, necessary consumables, consumer goods, while the rich on the other hand do not need nearly the same percentage of their income on these things.

    I've used this analogy before, but it bares repeating. And no it is not a dig against Mitt Romney, but think of it this way, if you give Mitt Romney one million dollars, how much of it do you think he will spend on consumer goods and other things that increase demand for products and services? On the other hand, if you give $500 to 2,000 people making $25,000 a year, how much do you think they will spend of it doing activities that stimulate demand? The answer is obvious to anyone with any grasp at all about how people of varied income classes spend their resources. The people making $25,000 spend everything, the people who make millions like Romney do not, and the Mitt Romneys of the world certainly do not spend nearly the same percentage of the money they receive on things that stimulate demand. The logical step from this is that if you increase taxes on the people in the lowest income strata, as your pay their "fair share" would seem to indicate you want to, it will stifle demand, since they will no longer have that money to spend, on the other hand, if you increase taxes on someone at Mitt Romney's level it will not have nearly the same stifling effect on demand.

    The ultimate issue comes down to this, cutting taxes(or taxing the poor at a higher rate) is a supply side argument. The issue isn't that supply side doesn't necessarily work, it is that the problems we are facing are not problems with the supply side. Its a problem with the demand side.

  32. #32
    Thor4140
    Thor4140's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-09-08
    Posts: 22,285
    Betpoints: 22119

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Pay their "fair share"? The top 20% of the country controls 93% of the wealth. With that in mind, how much do you think the bottom 50%'s "fair share" is? If the top 20% control 93% of the wealth, how much do you think making the bottom 50% pay would dent the debt or the deficit?(yes I know personal wealth and income aren't the same thing, but having a high personal wealth means you don't need the income nearly as much). The answer is that the reason that the bottom 50% pay no federal income tax(keeping in mind that the working ones are disproportionately paying Medicare and Social Security "tax"), is because they need all the money that they have to eat, and to have shelter. The bottom 50% are for the most part living paycheck to paycheck, and making them pay more in taxes would do exactly what we don't want to do, stifle demand. The people at the bottom use a non-proportional amount of their income on things that stimulate the economy, food, necessary consumables, consumer goods, while the rich on the other hand do not need nearly the same percentage of their income on these things.

    I've used this analogy before, but it bares repeating. And no it is not a dig against Mitt Romney, but think of it this way, if you give Mitt Romney one million dollars, how much of it do you think he will spend on consumer goods and other things that increase demand for products and services? On the other hand, if you give $500 to 2,000 people making $25,000 a year, how much do you think they will spend of it doing activities that stimulate demand? The answer is obvious to anyone with any grasp at all about how people of varied income classes spend their resources. The people making $25,000 spend everything, the people who make millions like Romney do not, and the Mitt Romneys of the world certainly do not spend nearly the same percentage of the money they receive on things that stimulate demand. The logical step from this is that if you increase taxes on the people in the lowest income strata, as your pay their "fair share" would seem to indicate you want to, it will stifle demand, since they will no longer have that money to spend, on the other hand, if you increase taxes on someone at Mitt Romney's level it will not have nearly the same stifling effect on demand.

    The ultimate issue comes down to this, cutting taxes(or taxing the poor at a higher rate) is a supply side argument. The issue isn't that supply side doesn't necessarily work, it is that the problems we are facing are not problems with the supply side. Its a problem with the demand side.
    These guys who say the bottom fifty percent pay no taxes u would think there would be a rush to the bottom so u don't have to pay taxes. I don't see anyone in the top 1 percent wanting to change places lately or ever..

  33. #33
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750
    Betpoints: 44

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor4140 View Post
    These guys who say the bottom fifty percent pay no taxes u would think there would be a rush to the bottom so u don't have to pay taxes. I don't see anyone in the top 1 percent wanting to change places lately or ever..
    Plus it's really dishonest to say "pay no taxes." It would be much more honest to say "pay no income tax." There's a only a couple states that don't have sales tax. Do people think this large % of people do not shop or carefully only shop for items, such as medical supplies, that are sales tax exempt? Do they drive? Gas tax. Smoke? Tobacco tax. Own any property? Property tax. Plus there seems to be a fee for everything anymore. When I was a kid if you wanted to play HS sports it was free I have a friend in NoCal who says each kid cost him $700 a year to play sports.

    Who do you think are more affected by fees? The middle class family where a $700 fee might be 1% of the annual income or a wealthy family where it might be .0001%? I admit 1% sounds like nothing but if you have 3-4 kids in his school district all doing the max sports you're paying 3-4% of your annual income just on sports. Then there's books, field trips, library fees. The shit can add up.
    Last edited by Tully Mars 63; 06-02-12 at 01:19 PM.

  34. #34
    Mr KLC
    Mr KLC's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-19-07
    Posts: 30,515
    Betpoints: 259

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Pay their "fair share"? The top 20% of the country controls 93% of the wealth. With that in mind, how much do you think the bottom 50%'s "fair share" is? If the top 20% control 93% of the wealth, how much do you think making the bottom 50% pay would dent the debt or the deficit?(yes I know personal wealth and income aren't the same thing, but having a high personal wealth means you don't need the income nearly as much). The answer is that the reason that the bottom 50% pay no federal income tax(keeping in mind that the working ones are disproportionately paying Medicare and Social Security "tax"), is because they need all the money that they have to eat, and to have shelter. The bottom 50% are for the most part living paycheck to paycheck, and making them pay more in taxes would do exactly what we don't want to do, stifle demand. The people at the bottom use a non-proportional amount of their income on things that stimulate the economy, food, necessary consumables, consumer goods, while the rich on the other hand do not need nearly the same percentage of their income on these things.

    I've used this analogy before, but it bares repeating. And no it is not a dig against Mitt Romney, but think of it this way, if you give Mitt Romney one million dollars, how much of it do you think he will spend on consumer goods and other things that increase demand for products and services? On the other hand, if you give $500 to 2,000 people making $25,000 a year, how much do you think they will spend of it doing activities that stimulate demand? The answer is obvious to anyone with any grasp at all about how people of varied income classes spend their resources. The people making $25,000 spend everything, the people who make millions like Romney do not, and the Mitt Romneys of the world certainly do not spend nearly the same percentage of the money they receive on things that stimulate demand. The logical step from this is that if you increase taxes on the people in the lowest income strata, as your pay their "fair share" would seem to indicate you want to, it will stifle demand, since they will no longer have that money to spend, on the other hand, if you increase taxes on someone at Mitt Romney's level it will not have nearly the same stifling effect on demand.

    The ultimate issue comes down to this, cutting taxes(or taxing the poor at a higher rate) is a supply side argument. The issue isn't that supply side doesn't necessarily work, it is that the problems we are facing are not problems with the supply side. Its a problem with the demand side.
    I have an idea. Why don't we lower our corporate tax rates. Right now we are at the highest corporate tax rate of 35%. No why? Because Japan figured it out, and finally decided to lower theirs. Even liberal leaning Canada lowered theirs recently. You talk about we can't tax poorer people more because they need that money for spending on essentials. Well, if companies have more money in their pockets, maybe they'll be more apt to spend that extra money on something like, maybe employees. Maybe this is a reason jobs are going overseas. More money in the coffers could probably keep more money here.

    Here's a concept. If more people are working, then maybe they'll be bringing more money in than what the government deems efficient, and they'll buy even more of those essentials. Hell, they might buy a few more TV's, Blue Rays, new cars, go out to eat more, etc. Guess what. The money they would then be spending would come from private industry, instead of our loving and caring government. I guess we would then need to print less money, and borrow less from that country called China. Hey, I think that means deficit spending will go down also. Hey, no interest accruing on that money because we aren't borrowing it. Wow!

    This country needs to get with the program. Other countries, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, that have tried this see it is not working. How does the old saying go? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

    Wake up kids. This doesn't work. If it did other liberal like countries wouldn't be changing their ways. Some still don't get it, and look at them (Greece). You can come back at me, and say those evil corporations won't do anything. Well those evil corporations love that money. They need people to work for them to get that money, and I trust them to not wastefully use money a lot more than I trust the government to. Reagan used this method to get our economy back in line, and the public backed him up. If you don't believe me, look at the 1984 election results. It can happen again if mama bird government gets out of the way, and just lets the other birds fly.

Top