Senate rejects obummer jobs bill

[sandorski]

What's the answer then please enlighten us...

1) Cut programs that benefit the Middle Class to reduce the Deficit
2) Cut Taxes on the Job Creators by the amount saved in #1
3) ??
4) Jobs and Balanced Budget!

 

[Engineer]

So far you've offered nothing to indicate that increases taxes on the rich in any way helps the middle class.

It won't. I'm more curious as to how a flat tax will help the lower and middle classes since that seems to be the consensus of the GOP candidates (my guess it that it will butthurt them) but that is for another thread I guess.

 

[Ausm]

1) Cut programs that benefit the Middle Class to reduce the Deficit
2) Cut Taxes on the Job Creators by the amount saved in #1
3) ??
4) Jobs and Balanced Budget!

LOL

 

[Throckmorton]

And your answer to that is to get more tax money from the rich for the government to waste and hand out to their cronies? That doesn't help the middle class.



Riding a horse used to be the way to get to town. Now it's not. Times change and the world has changed. You have to add value, not just work hard anymore. That's just the reality, taxing the rich won't change that.



Nobody said that.



Nobody said that.



Because you're spouting off political talking points and generalities without a logical basis. So far you've offered nothing to indicate that increases taxes on the rich in any way helps the middle class.

You seem to have forgotten that this thread is about the "Obummer jobs bill". You know, the bill to pay for middle class jobs with a 0.5% tax on income over $1 million.

 

[PokerGuy]

What's the answer then please enlighten us...

Those trying to pass the bill (and raise taxes) need to justify it's passage.

 

[PokerGuy]

You seem to have forgotten that this thread is about the "Obummer jobs bill". You know, the bill to pay for middle class jobs with a 0.5% tax on income over $1 million.

Which is, of course, complete baloney. It's just additional money to be wasted.

 

[dank69]

What are we , in high school?

Hey, you post idiotic garbage and I am going to call you on it. Why don't you make sure you understand what you are posting before posting it?

Wait a minute. Are you sure you read the article? Didn't the author use a deliberately high figure near the end, rather than the number Obama used, to show that the tax isn't going to do what is claimed?

No, the author does not understand how taxes are calculated AND took Obama's example for one situation and applied it accross the board further showing how incompetent the author really is.

Obama's example was for a person with an AGI of $1.1M only. The author takes that example and applies it to all 235,413 people who make over $1M, conveniently leaving out the fact that a great majority of them make much, much more than $1.1M.

Obama said it would be $500 a year per millionaire, which was wrong on many levels. It would be $5,500 a year, and then only if you just count for the first $1M, which is wrong also.

Again you show your ignorance. a person making $1.1M would only be taxed an additional 0.5% on the amount over the first $1M. So that person would owe an additional $500 just like Obama said. First self ownage by the author.

I think the author has it exactly right.

His first calcs use the figure Obama gave, then the figure Obama meant, then later he uses the highest possible amount of the tax, and it still doesn't add up to much.

See above. Not everyone that makes over $1M makes only $1.1M. Terrible, this link is.

 

[Throckmorton]

Which is, of course, complete baloney. It's just additional money to be wasted.

How is it "money to be wasted" when it's directly paying wages to teachers and firefighters?

Oh right, because you despise working people.

 

[Ausm]

Those trying to pass the bill (and raise taxes) need to justify it's passage.

LMAO You must not be familiar with Grover Norquist's hold on Congress 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

Because you're spouting off political talking points and generalities without a logical basis. So far you've offered nothing to indicate that increases taxes on the rich in any way helps the middle class.

It would help pay for the govt that benefits us all.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Incorrect. Go learn something about how government spending works. The Cliff's notes for stupid people like you though is once again: government spending is not constrained by revenue.

Then why is Greece having such problems?

No one will take their debt; how can they spend.

Same goes for here; why not them have the government provide a job and do a cradle to grave for everyone.
No need for private enterprise or taxes.
Government can print up what ever is needed.

 

[sandorski]

Then why is Greece having such problems?

No one will take their debt; how can they spend.

Same goes for here; why not them have the government provide a job and do a cradle to grave for everyone.
No need for private enterprise or taxes.
Government can print up what ever is needed.

Greece can't(currently) print money.

 

[Double Trouble]

It really isn't.

Excessive deficits can create other problems for our country, like inflation. (although not in our current situation) You could say that spending is inflation constrained, and inflation CAN have a revenue component to it, but they are nowhere close to the same thing. That's one of the big reasons to spend big now and raise taxes for the future.

But you're saying two things. One the one hand you say spending is not constrained by revenue. On the other, you say deficits cause problems like inflation. Since spending in excess of revenue causes increase in deficits, it means increases in spending (assuming no increase in revenue) increases inflation and deficit costs.

If revenue has no bearing on the level of spending, then logically there's no reason to increase taxes either.

 

[fskimospy]

But you're saying two things. One the one hand you say spending is not constrained by revenue. On the other, you say deficits cause problems like inflation. Since spending in excess of revenue causes increase in deficits, it means increases in spending (assuming no increase in revenue) increases inflation and deficit costs.

If revenue has no bearing on the level of spending, then logically there's no reason to increase taxes either.

You need to go read my post again, as I specifically addressed your point.

 

[Engineer]

If revenue has no bearing on the level of spending, then logically there's no reason to increase taxes either.

Revenue may have no bearing on the level of current spending, deficits do and that's the very issue that is pushing for lower spending as well as tax increases to pay for previous spending. Of course, nobody wants to raise taxes (well, except those that want the "fair share" rule to go into effect - where the bottom 47% pays their fair share).

 

[Double Trouble]

You need to go read my post again, as I specifically addressed your point.

I did read your post. By whatever mechanism (through inflation, cost of borrowing, whatever), increased spending without increased revenue causes pain in the future. Conversely, increased revenue either reduces the deficit (good!) or allows for a pain-free increase in spending (bad!). Thus, since we all know how legislators act, raising taxes simply allows them more leeway to spend more. Then in the future they'll have to come back for yet more tax increases. We've seen this game before, spending never ever decreases. Whatever mechanisms exist to at least slow down the rate of increase needs to be used.

 

[fskimospy]

I did read your post. By whatever mechanism (through inflation, cost of borrowing, whatever), increased spending without increased revenue causes pain in the future. Conversely, increased revenue either reduces the deficit (good!) or allows for a pain-free increase in spending (bad!). Thus, since we all know how legislators act, raising taxes simply allows them more leeway to spend more. Then in the future they'll have to come back for yet more tax increases. We've seen this game before, spending never ever decreases. Whatever mechanisms exist to at least slow down the rate of increase needs to be used.

That's not how legislators act at all, and as I mentioned (and asked you to go look at again), deficit spending in our current situation does not cause inflation. (in case you haven't noticed, inflation has been quite low the last few years despite massive deficits) Inflation will only return when the economy has stabilized.

Additionally, there is no evidence whatsoever that legislators base their current spending priorities on the risk of inflation 10 or 20 years down the line. Like, absolutely zero. To think that some nebulous future risk inhibits current spending action is a fantasy.

So, like I said. Spending not constrained by revenues, but tax increases for the future still needed for when the economy gets better.

 

[fskimospy]

Revenue may have no bearing on the level of current spending, deficits do and that's the very issue that is pushing for lower spending as well as tax increases to pay for previous spending. Of course, nobody wants to raise taxes (well, except those that want the "fair share" rule to go into effect - where the bottom 47% pays their fair share).

Not everyone is pushing for lower spending, btw. I'm pushing for much, much higher spending in the short term.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's not how legislators act at all

You think legislators, given an option will actually make painful cuts instead of just spending more and taxing more? Really? A look at history would suggest otherwise.

, and as I mentioned (and asked you to go look at again), deficit spending in our current situation does not cause inflation. (in case you haven't noticed, inflation has been quite low the last few years despite massive deficits) Inflation will only return when the economy has stabilized.

It doesn't cause immediate inflation, but it sets the gears in motion for future inflation. Also, inflation has been artificially "low" for the past few years. Housing costs have declined greatly, but commodities and food have gone up in price -- by a lot. Inflation is taking place, it's just getting masked right now and unless we get the fiscal house in order, it's going to get a lot higher.

Additionally, there is no evidence whatsoever that legislators base their current spending priorities on the risk of inflation 10 or 20 years down the line. Like, absolutely zero. To think that some nebulous future risk inhibits current spending action is a fantasy.

Then what does? Why hasn't congress simply spent an additional 5 trillion or so to really boost the economy? There MUST be at least some connection between revenues and spending, whether it's political pressure, future inflation, borrowing costs doesn't matter. The connection might not be incredibly strong (or we wouldn't be in the hole as far as we are), but it exists nonetheless or the spending would be astronomically higher.

The current political environment has the public justifiably concerned about our financial situation as a country, so politicians are starting to feel the heat and don't want to be seen as raising the deficit. Increasing revenue just gives them an out to spend more and yet claim to not be increasing the deficit.

So, like I said. Spending not constrained by revenues

Controlled, no. Constrained, yes, at least to degree.

but tax increases for the future still needed for when the economy gets better.

No doubt tax increases will be needed to pay for everything.

 

[fskimospy]

You think legislators, given an option will actually make painful cuts instead of just spending more and taxing more? Really? A look at history would suggest otherwise.

Of course not, that's not what I said at all. Legislators will simply act in their own short term benefit regardless of the long term consequences. That was my whole point of why long term deficits don't affect their behavior.

It doesn't cause immediate inflation, but it sets the gears in motion for future inflation. Also, inflation has been artificially "low" for the past few years. Housing costs have declined greatly, but commodities and food have gone up in price -- by a lot. Inflation is taking place, it's just getting masked right now and unless we get the fiscal house in order, it's going to get a lot higher.

Actually, they haven't. Commodities have been declining for about the last 6 months, and (depending on what commodity price index you use) are somewhere around their 2007 levels currently. They have gone up in price a lot from the winter of 2008/2009, but that's because their prices crashed with everything else and were abnormally low at that point. Inflation is not taking place, and it is not being masked.

Then what does? Why hasn't congress simply spent an additional 5 trillion or so to really boost the economy? There MUST be at least some connection between revenues and spending, whether it's political pressure, future inflation, borrowing costs doesn't matter. The connection might not be incredibly strong (or we wouldn't be in the hole as far as we are), but it exists nonetheless or the spending would be astronomically higher.

The current political environment has the public justifiably concerned about our financial situation as a country, so politicians are starting to feel the heat and don't want to be seen as raising the deficit. Increasing revenue just gives them an out to spend more and yet claim to not be increasing the deficit.

I get your point, but I would say that it's at best a very limited constraint. The real issue is that the public has no actual desire to cut spending, and legislators have incentive structures to keep it going. In this case I'm happy to see it as we need as much spending as we can possibly get through Congress, but normally it can be a bit of a problem. That's what happens when you control the currency you issue debt in.