triangulation

[redrumjuice]

Jobs are created based upon consumer demand.

 

So we should make unemployment benies last forever? They're up to 3 years now... how is that progress?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

So we should make unemployment benies last forever? They're up to 3 years now... how is that progress?

 

I'd rather the program changed and we put the people to work that receive long term benefits, even if it's part time. Get some return on the investment.

[Clubfoothead]

To clarify, I am not a tea party supporter. I was using them as an example. Both parties are $hit and both parties are just as guilty about stuff they point the finger to about the other. Our federal government needs an enema and to trim itself down a bit.

 

Then you would mean all three parties are $hit and we can go back to agreeing most of the time.

 

let me reiterate that real govt spending is up 60% in the last decade. the key to taming the deficit is reigning in that beast.

 

Well ain't that some f*cking $hit. Remind me whose been the president for 80% of the last decade? I'll help you out a bit. He started a two front war with no plan to pay for it. 1/2 of his 2 front war involved the wrong country and plenty of people on the left have argued about the cost of Iraqi Freedom from the get-go. He awarded contracts to rebuild the contry and rape it of its oil to his buddy Big Gun Dick. He allowed his profiteering buddies to rape the economy on his way out forcing everyone else to try and bail out the economy and on top of it, the decider felt tax cuts were just the formula for paying off our record debt.

 

The key to taming the deficit would be to have someone pay us back for Iraq and Afghanistan. Another good place to look would be corporate profits. While our economy struggles to rebound and unemployment hovers just under 10% corporate America and the clowns running these companies are back to record profits. Way I see it, time for these bozos to pay up, they certainly don't need any tax breaks. And besides, of record prfoits haven't spurned a rash of hiring why would tax breaks?

 

I'm siding with Colbert on this "compromise" to extend the Bush tax cuts:

 

Changing nothing is the fresh injection of sameness our stagnant economy needs.

[redrumjuice]

lol foot, you're like a cartoon character!

 

I can't figure out which one though, daffy duck or dumbo?

[driveby]

Then you would mean all three parties are $hit and we can go back to agreeing most of the time.

 

 

 

Well ain't that some f*cking $hit. Remind me whose been the president for 80% of the last decade? I'll help you out a bit. He started a two front war with no plan to pay for it. 1/2 of his 2 front war involved the wrong country and plenty of people on the left have argued about the cost of Iraqi Freedom from the get-go. He awarded contracts to rebuild the contry and rape it of its oil to his buddy Big Gun Dick. He allowed his profiteering buddies to rape the economy on his way out forcing everyone else to try and bail out the economy and on top of it, the decider felt tax cuts were just the formula for paying off our record debt.

 

The key to taming the deficit would be to have someone pay us back for Iraq and Afghanistan. Another good place to look would be corporate profits. While our economy struggles to rebound and unemployment hovers just under 10% corporate America and the clowns running these companies are back to record profits. Way I see it, time for these bozos to pay up, they certainly don't need any tax breaks. And besides, of record prfoits haven't spurned a rash of hiring why would tax breaks?

 

I'm siding with Colbert on this "compromise" to extend the Bush tax cuts:

You do understand that corporations will continue to make profits regardless of how much they are taxed right? And that their customers will pay for those tax increases in the form of higher prices for goods and services. So unless you plan to stop buying things from these greedy evil corporations - you will be paying for those tax increases. Good plan.

[driveby]

Olbermann channels club.

 

"The easiest way to keep and create jobs is to make sure the umemployed have money to spend"

 

"The unemployed are the job creators"

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'd rather the program changed and we put the people to work that receive long term benefits, even if it's part time. Get some return on the investment.

 

I think WV does this - something like 20 hours/mo required to get the next month's check. Not much, but an ROI nonetheless.

[Clubfoothead]

You do understand that corporations will continue to make profits regardless of how much they are taxed right? And that their customers will pay for those tax increases in the form of higher prices for goods and services. So unless you plan to stop buying things from these greedy evil corporations - you will be paying for those tax increases. Good plan.

 

They sure do need a tax break while the rest of us can focus on paying down the deficit.

 

Just explain to me how record profits don't equal increased hiring but a tax break does.

[driveby]

They sure do need a tax break while the rest of us can focus on paying down the deficit.

 

Just explain to me how record profits don't equal increased hiring but a tax break does.

I'm not saying that they do need a tax break or that record profits increase hiring, just that increasing their taxes is going to achieve nothing, other than taking more money our of your pocket and mine.

[Clubfoothead]

I'm not saying that they do need a tax break or that record profits increase hiring, just that increasing their taxes is going to achieve nothing, other than taking more money our of your pocket and mine.

 

I suppose that depends on what is done with the money and I think most of us can agree we don't trust most politicians from either party to do the right thing with it.

 

My biggest concern is that every time someone mentions the government getting involved in some social program I hear we are broke. Only we are too broke for X or Z but not too broke to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest. There's probably a very reasonable argument that the government cannot afford to do all the things that I would like it to do. But you can't make that argument at the same time you are telling me the rich need tax breaks when there is no indication, based on what they've done with their record profits, the rich will do anything with those tax breaks but hoard the money.

[driveby]

I suppose that depends on what is done with the money and I think most of us can agree we don't trust most politicians from either party to do the right thing with it.

 

My biggest concern is that every time someone mentions the government getting involved in some social program I hear we are broke. Only we are too broke for X or Z but not too broke to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest. There's probably a very reasonable argument that the government cannot afford to do all the things that I would like it to do. But you can't make that argument at the same time you are telling me the rich need tax breaks when there is no indication, based on what they've done with their record profits, the rich will do anything with those tax breaks but hoard the money.

Too broke to extend tax breaks to the wealthy?

 

Dude, it's their money, what right do you, or anyone else, have to tell them that they have enough?

 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[Clubfoothead]

Too broke to extend tax breaks to the wealthy?

 

Dude, it's their money, what right do you, or anyone else, have to tell them that they have enough?

 

We limit the maximum value of $hit all the time. Tort reform was their idea. It's a farce to say there should be a limit on the value a man is worth to his family but no cap on profit. Seems to me that the rich benefit from whatever the government does more than the poor. You can always join the ranks of the folks living the life of luxury on welfare if the taxes associated with being rich are too much a burden.

 

Is the country broke or not?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Clubfoothead

[driveby]

We limit the maximum value of $hit all the time. Tort reform was their idea. It's a farce to say there should be a limit on the value a man is worth to his family but no cap on profit. Seems to me that the rich benefit from whatever the government does more than the poor. You can always join the ranks of the folks living the life of luxury on welfare if the taxes associated with being rich are too much a burden.

 

Is the country broke or not?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make in the first paragraph?

 

The country is broke. You want to tax "rich" people and evil corporations more to fix it, I want the gobment to spend less. But as more and more voters pay less and less taxes and receive more and more handouts, I suspect taxing the rich will remain the more popular option.

[Azazello1313]

Happy to see you're finally coming around to realize he actually is a pragmatist.

 

given his druthers, and a democratic congress, he's proven to be anything but. but if reality bites him in the butt (is it really ME coming around here?) and steers him in that direction and he ends up being able to lead and govern effectively, I'll give the guy the credit he deserves.

[Clubfoothead]

The country is broke. You want to tax "rich" people and evil corporations more to fix it, I want the gobment to spend less.

 

I would favor both depending on what we are spending less on. What I am saying is that if the country is broke I don't get the argument that we should extend tax breaks for the wealthiest even if they are being extended for the not rich.

[redrumjuice]

I suppose that depends on what is done with the money and I think most of us can agree we don't trust most politicians from either party to do the right thing with it.

 

Yet you want to hand the crack wh00re more crack.

[bushwacked]

I think WV does this - something like 20 hours/mo required to get the next month's check. Not much, but an ROI nonetheless.

 

 

WV is on unemployment? Oh man, not to make light of his situation, but after his years of frothing from the mouth against govt. assistance, he's on unemployment?

[cliaz]

The country is broke. You want to tax "rich" people and evil corporations more to fix it, I want the gobment to spend less. But as more and more voters pay less and less taxes and receive more and more handouts, I suspect taxing the rich will remain the more popular option.

 

 

I would favor both depending on what we are spending less on. What I am saying is that if the country is broke I don't get the argument that we should extend tax breaks for the wealthiest even if they are being extended for the not rich.

 

 

My take on it is like this. The wealthy and uber corporations (much like my own I work for) lose tax cuts. They then begin moving their corporation overseas or significantly reducing US footprint and the Rich begin moving their money to more off shore investments and accounts. It further impacts the country as a whole. (again, just in my opinion).

[bpwallace49]

WV is on unemployment? Oh man, not to make light of his situation, but after his years of frothing from the mouth against govt. assistance, he's on unemployment?

 

I was thinking that he meant the entire state . . . not just our resident revlountionary that plots against the evil gubmnet from his underground bunker while carefully nuturing his "crisis garden" he got off of Glenn Beck's website.

[redrumjuice]

You libs should read about the 'Broken Windows' theory and see how your ideas are bunk.

[gbpfan1231]

We limit the maximum value of $hit all the time. Tort reform was their idea. It's a farce to say there should be a limit on the value a man is worth to his family but no cap on profit. Seems to me that the rich benefit from whatever the government does more than the poor. You can always join the ranks of the folks living the life of luxury on welfare if the taxes associated with being rich are too much a burden.

 

Is the country broke or not?

The rich benefit more from the Govt than the poor?

 

Is that why there is that extra lane on the highway for people who make over 250k?

 

What are the major things that govt spends moeny on? Defense - yea the wealthy gain more from that?? Health Care - yea free rectal exams for everyone who makes over 250k.

 

I think the poor get a lot of help from our govt.

[bushwacked]

The country is broke. You want to tax "rich" people and evil corporations more to fix it, I want the gobment to spend less.

 

You are misinformed and/or repeating schtick that makes you sound not very smart. We are not talking about increases, we are talking about ending a short-sighted tax cut that was never meant to be permanent and should have never happened in the first place. The Iraqi welfare program was a monmumental spending spree, and it happened while huge tax breaks for the most wealthy were passed. Now your crying about wanting gobment to spend less after you whole-heartedly supported the primary reasons we are here in the first place. It should be time to pay the piper, but our politicians are too spineless.

[Deathpig]

The rich benefit more from the Govt than the poor?

 

Is that why there is that extra lane on the highway for people who make over 250k?

 

What are the major things that govt spends moeny on? Defense - yea the wealthy gain more from that?? Health Care - yea free rectal exams for everyone who makes over 250k.

 

I think the poor get a lot of help from our govt.

 

Don't think of it like that, let me give you a better example...

 

Let's say the government says they want to promote clean energy, and as part of that they want to give a rebate or tax break or whatever for switching from incandescent light bulbs to mercury-filled coily bulbs. The poor are going to get their rebate/tax break or whatever, and they can derive some benefit from the government to do so. The rich, however, have the capital to invest in or start businesses to provide the mercury-filled coily bulbs and generate profit from the now-government-induced (and essentially bankrolled) economic activity.

 

I think that's more of what he means than carpool lanes and rectal exams. This, however, is the nature of economics so I don't entirely understand the point. There's an old saying that goes something like this: "Making you first million is impossible; making your second million is inevitable." Saying that the rich 'hoard' money is, in my mind, a bit of a fallacy because they don't just stuff it in their mattress or make a giant Scrooge McDuck swimming pool. It ends up invested *somewhere*. The rich want their money to be working, and because they have more available to work in excess of what is necessary to survive, they tend to grow it faster.

 

Big corporations were absolutely cutting back and hoarding cash the last two years, but that's essentially not different from how individuals act when times get tough. Cash is king. And the last two years had a Democrat (you know, the party of 'WE HATE BIG BUSINESS') supermajority free to target and harass any industry they felt like (you know, like automobiles or health care or finance or energy). So every company was jumping at shadows and making sure they'd be able to cope with whatever was going to come down the pike when they were the next politically expedient enemy. This trickles down into investors... where do you put your money when you don't know which industry is going to come under the government's crosshairs next?

 

So when someone mentions 'uncertainty' by businesses or markets, that's what they're talking about.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The rich benefit more from the Govt than the poor?

 

Is that why there is that extra lane on the highway for people who make over 250k?

 

What are the major things that govt spends moeny on? Defense - yea the wealthy gain more from that?? Health Care - yea free rectal exams for everyone who makes over 250k.

 

I think the poor get a lot of help from our govt.

 

You think the rich could have a fraction of their wealth if not for the protections afforded them living in the USA???

[gbpfan1231]

You are misinformed and/or repeating schtick that makes you sound not very smart. We are not talking about increases, we are talking about ending a short-sighted tax cut that was never meant to be permanent and should have never happened in the first place. The Iraqi welfare program was a monmumental spending spree, and it happened while huge tax breaks for the most wealthy were passed. Now your crying about wanting gobment to spend less after you whole-heartedly supported the primary reasons we are here in the first place. It should be time to pay the piper, but our politicians are too spineless.

Were they not ALL supposed to be temporary? Why can't they ALL repealed? Maybe because we are spending too much?

 

I mentioned before where does it stop? Detlef thought I meant at what level do you stop taxing the rich - what I meant was when do you stop just taking money from the people that can afford it while you just keep spending? The spending is not all Obamas fault. I think it is nuts for everyone to be going so nuts on taxing the wealthy with very little angst about what is being spent.