Other than Reagan, it appears that every Republican US President ended up crushing jobs while every Democratic US President created millions of jobs. A trend that is so repeated that it draws a conclusion; Repugnicans are for the oppression of working people. Could it be any more clear?
IP: Logged
02:37 PM
PFF
System Bot
Fformula88 Member
Posts: 7891 From: Buffalo, NY Registered: Mar 2000
I know this will be very watered down, but fundamentally it makes sense that Republicans are not heavily interested in creating jobs. Republicans are interested in creating bigger profits for companies, and raising the stock market (through greater profits). Lower taxes are one way to do it. So they lower taxes for the wealthy who are the business owners (large business owners). Then in thoery, they like to say how these higher profits will stimulate job growth. However, it doesn't necessarily work this way.
Companies always want more profit. Hiring workings is an expense for them, not a profit. So they will be more likely to cut workers whenever they can. They might do this by forcing workers to work for lower wages, such as Bush's desire to limit overtime pay. They may also search out lower income workers to do the same jobs as American, such as Bush allowing the outsourcing of jobs to India, China, etc.
I am not saying the Democrats are innocent. Nafta was a blow to industrial jobs, and they are looking at Safta now. Its just that Republicans have not and do not really represent the portion of the populace that works 9 to 5 every day to make a living, and instead represents the people who's stocks are helped by getting rid of those 9-5 workers.
Other than Reagan, it appears that every Republican US President ended up crushing jobs while every Democratic US President created millions of jobs. A trend that is so repeated that it draws a conclusion; Repugnicans are for the oppression of working people. Could it be any more clear?
I can see the color of the smoke changing and that's cool but clarity is something the general US citizen has lacked for almost 3 generations if not more.
IP: Logged
03:03 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Do you guys ever bother to research anything?.. Listening to the AFL/CIO on job issues is like listening to the Tobacco industry on smoking health risks. (Just for fun find out how much they donate to the Dem party)
As for jobs and the economy.. I won't cut and past long winded diatribes.. I'll just put the links up.. I'll leave the critical thinking up to you.
Bush allowing the outsourcing of jobs to India, China, etc.
I usually don't get into this political discussions.
But could you explain to me, how can the president of the US stop XYZ INC. from not wanting to pay me $15.00/hour plus benefits when they would rather pay someone in X country $1.00/hour no benefits with no OSHA, no EPA, no worker's COMP Etc. Etc. Global Market/Economy, XYZ inc has got to reduce their overhead in order to survive.
Ed
PS: No flames intended, I would like to hear your ideas.
Yeah, I dont trust those crooks at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics either.
quote
Originally posted by Uaana:
Do you guys ever bother to research anything?.. Listening to the AFL/CIO on job issues is like listening to the Tobacco industry on smoking health risks. (Just for fun find out how much they donate to the Dem party)
As for jobs and the economy.. I won't cut and past long winded diatribes.. I'll just put the links up.. I'll leave the critical thinking up to you.
Heres an email I received today. Subject: TAX FACTS SHM
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. The latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Well, you only pay taxes on earned income and considering his wealth is mostly his wife's and not his it would make sense, wouldn't it?
And the "you pay more now" was justified by the national average increase in property taxes, sales taxes and local fees. They're all on that electionic abortion he calls a webpage.
Heres an email I received today. Subject: TAX FACTS SHM
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. The latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Pass this on. Only 202 days until the election.
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 07-06-2004).]
IP: Logged
05:11 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I see some folks are still laying the majority of credit or blame on the economy and job growth on the sitting president. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - presidents can only nudge an economy, they cannot create or significantly change one. But I suppose if it supports your agenda to believe they can (or should), then you'll tell the tale over and over.
By the way, do we *really* want a government that has that much power over the economy? Do we want that much government control over us and our lives? I vote no.
IP: Logged
05:59 PM
CTFieroGT87 Member
Posts: 2520 From: Royal Oak, MI Registered: Oct 2002
Just adding: I remember reading that the average tax relief for taxpayers earning over $1m/year was in the $3-5k bracket, while the average middle-class relief was in the $300 bracket.
I hate seeing Bush giving his rich buddies thousands of dollars back, while we all work our butts off and he drives up the deficit. But once again, both candidates aren't too spectacular.
Dear Washington, where's Mr. Smith when we need him?????
IP: Logged
09:05 PM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
I see some folks are still laying the majority of credit or blame on the economy and job growth on the sitting president. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - presidents can only nudge an economy, they cannot create or significantly change one. But I suppose if it supports your agenda to believe they can (or should), then you'll tell the tale over and over.
By the way, do we *really* want a government that has that much power over the economy? Do we want that much government control over us and our lives? I vote no.
AMEN!
Somebody finally got it right. Big + for you. Presidents have little if nothing to do with the economy. They can talk, issue an agenda, or **** up, but that is about it.
Most of the economy has to do with us, the People. Taxes, laws, tort, etc... that effect business is all done in Congress, and most of which is in the state level, not the national level.
How many of you know who your state representatives are? States have more to do with your life than the Federal government, yet it is never watched or participated in. I always thought people are looking in the wrong direction when it comes to civil responsiblity.
IP: Logged
09:10 PM
Firefox Member
Posts: 4307 From: New Berlin, Wisconsin Registered: Feb 2003
One thing that I'd like to see is some honest reporting in the media. If the economy is doing ok, fine....report it. If it's going downhill, fine....report it. Right now we have a very good economy. How many storys are we reading about it?
Tell us the facts. Not what you want us to hear.
Same thing with the war. Tell us good stuff once in a while....not just the bad.
Mark
[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited 07-06-2004).]
And I have said it before too.. True they "nudge" the economy but they also "nodd and wink" to Mega corp CEOs who want higher profit margines, increased stock dividends for their chief share holders (board of directors) and more expansion capital, thus laying the groundwork for EXPORTING jobs and IMPORTING more profits.
Who pays for all this exporting of jobs and importing of cheaply constructed overpriced garbage?
We do.
Who sells it?
Visit cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight and look at the ever increasing list of American companies BASED in the US but manufacture over seas
In short the "Exporting of American JOBS" for higher profits. Created by our representitives and ratified by none other than the white knight himself William Clinton called NAFTA that has cause this terrible job market Dubya claims does not exist or is "getting better"?
ok.. good damn thing it was only a "nudge". I would hate to see what could happen when a president really starts getting greedy and pushing ideas with alot of force instead of nudging like Clinton did... Oh wait... Our hero Dubya is pushing terrorists off the planet with some force Hey that's great!!! nothing to see here but a bunch of dead bodies and headless, barbqued civillians, just move along.. nothing to see here, all is well. The inflation in living expences and the drop in salaries over the last 4 to 5 years is all just a fantasy cooked up by people who hate Dubya and Clinton because they were rich and successfull presidents..
SAFTA will get ratified and the BR modifications will also get ratified... it's not so much who will do it but when, both are a forgone conclusion. I wonder what companies will benefit from both laws.... Hummmmm the root of all evil... BANKS and US Mega Corp.
The president is a puppet and fall guy for the real political power of corrupted politicians and multibillion dollar lobbiests funded by US Mega Corp. and First Trust Global Mega Bank of America.
Who pays for all this? Mrs Jones who once worked for a small company making 45k a year that US Mega corp just bought up (a move funded by First Trust Global Mega Bank of America) and shipped overseas, She now works at Suzie B's botuque for 19k a year, Has 5 First Trust Global Mega Bank of America credit cards run out, totalling 25k @ 22% interest each per month, that she cant pay and is assessed 30 bucks late fee on each non payment + an over the limit fee of 25 bucks each. Because she just had to have that synthetic whale dork beautifing cream that makes you look & feel 30 years younger, sold on HSN for 300 bucks for a .008 oz jar that was manufactured by US Mega corps over seas "butification division" for .25 cents, Pays 25 bucks shipping and handeling, 6% state tax, 5% local tax so she could keep her cheating assistant to the junior assistant, to vice president attached to the CFO in charge of the corporate pencil allicotation department of a husband, who is trying to help sell his company to an off shoot of US Mega corp and run off into the sunset with his mistress after he rolls over his stocks.
Chapter 7 is out of the question with the new laws and SAFTA will make shipping for US Mega corp less expensive if they can move to Chillie where synthetic whale dork synthisis can be done even cheaper. They can pollute the Chillien enviornment with toxic chemicals used in the synthisizing of whale dork beauty cream. No OSHA, No unionized labor force, a labor pool of thousands willing to work for .05 US dollars per hr when converted to Chilliaen currency, No environmental controls to worry about. A win win win situation for US Mega corp and a financial windfall for First Trust Global Mega Bank of America who loaned US Mega corp the money for this move.
Meanwhile Mrs Jones is falling behind on her 1800 dollar a month mortgage for a house that was built for 1/10th that cost because First Trust Global Mega Bank of America over inflated the selling price so they can make nice returns on their loan. They are nice to Mrs jones though, she gets .2% monthly on her empty savings account. .3% on her 3 year CD which she needs to cash in 2 years early.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-07-2004).]
Heres an email I received today. Subject: TAX FACTS SHM
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. The latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Pass this on. Only 202 days until the election.
How very true. Kerry should prove to be a good buddy to PM Martin if he wins the election. Our own crooked Prime Minister ran a campaign on how high taxes goes hand in hand with being Canadian - while at the same time registering his shipping company under 18 different flags to avoid paying income tax. To add further insult to injury, he was still the beneficiary of over 160 million in Canadian grants even though he paid an estimated %2 Canadian tax on his business!!!! If you guys want an idea of what things will be like under the dems look no further than up here in Canada. Under the past 11 years of liberal rule our tax freedom day is now June 28th in most of the country, and stretches out to July 2nd in places such as here in Saskatchewan. With even more generous funding for a national daycare center and increased taxes to help fund other Liberal programs - such as lining their own pockets - our tax freedom day is supposed to creep up to mid July next year. Even with a low income of around $25,000 CDN a year, the Libs take over %50 to line their greedy pockets and to dole out to their left wing friends.
One thing that I'd like to see is some honest reporting in the media. If the economy is doing ok, fine....report it. If it's going downhill, fine....report it. Right now we have a very good economy. How many storys are we reading about it?
Tell us the facts. Not what you want us to hear.
Same thing with the war. Tell us good stuff once in a while....not just the bad.
Mark
Why are companies still laying off massively??
GL
IP: Logged
09:22 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I'll play Devils advocate for a while here. Answer this question ( a rhetorical question no real answer needed) why would a company want to stay in business if it has to pay a lot of taxes? Companies are in business to make money. The more demand there is for their product, the more people they can hire to make said product. If the profit margins get cut too far down by taxes and other costs, why stay in business? It is easier to cash out and close down. Do you know what this means? It means that all of those people that worked for that company have no more job or benefits. Let's put the shoe on the other foot know and shift the burden of taxes on the people. What happens then? They have less dissposable income and have to adjust their budgets to fit their new lower incomes. This means they will buy less products, which means there will be less demand for products, which will mean layoffs because of less need for workers, which will mean higher unemployment rates. It's easy to say that we have a huge deficit and someone has to pay for it, why? Why can't government live the way we do? If you have less money, you need to spend less so you can pay off your debt, not increase taxes. They have to remember that the money is ours not theirs, and we shouldn't tolerate their incompetence when it comes to wasting our money. I don't need to mention how many millions are wasted in stupid grants they hand out or loans that we give other countries that have no hope of ever being repaid. The worst part is that it doesn't matter which party is in power, they both are there to waste our money and ask for more. We need to put our government on a stick budget that is approved by the people, not some pork barrel senator or congressman with their own agenda.
IP: Logged
09:31 AM
Steve Normington Member
Posts: 7663 From: Mesa, AZ, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Just adding: I remember reading that the average tax relief for taxpayers earning over $1m/year was in the $3-5k bracket, while the average middle-class relief was in the $300 bracket.
I hate seeing Bush giving his rich buddies thousands of dollars back, while we all work our butts off and he drives up the deficit. But once again, both candidates aren't too spectacular.
Dear Washington, where's Mr. Smith when we need him?????
What is wrong with those numbers? People earning $1M per year are paying more taxes to begin with than the average middle-class people. The $1M taxpayer pays $346,675 in base taxes. The $50,000 (my number for the average taxpayer) pays $10,125 in base taxes. So the $1M person gets a 0.8% to 1.4% tax rebate and the $50K person gets a 2.9% tax rebate.
What is wrong with those numbers? People earning $1M per year are paying more taxes to begin with than the average middle-class people. The $1M taxpayer pays $346,675 in base taxes. The $50,000 (my number for the average taxpayer) pays $10,125 in base taxes. So the $1M person gets a 0.8% to 1.4% tax rebate and the $50K person gets a 2.9% tax rebate.
People who make 1M a year are in reality are at the top edge of middle class. The year my GF and I bought our house we made 78k between the two of us, we were just barely skimming by so we were the lower end of the low scale. That same year my friend made 198k and bought a (actually had it built) new house he was living fairly well but lost his house last year, he was at the upper side of the low scale but now lives in an appartment and is actually doing much worse now than I was.
IP: Logged
10:39 AM
PFF
System Bot
Voytek Member
Posts: 1924 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
What is wrong with those numbers? People earning $1M per year are paying more taxes to begin with than the average middle-class people. The $1M taxpayer pays $346,675 in base taxes. The $50,000 (my number for the average taxpayer) pays $10,125 in base taxes. So the $1M person gets a 0.8% to 1.4% tax rebate and the $50K person gets a 2.9% tax rebate.
Thank you - I was going to say the same thing. CTfiero - your logic is flawed (and so is ANYONE'S who believes that the rich got 'bigger' tax breaks).
Look at your own example CTfiero - take the average of what you state: $4k of $1,000,000. That works out to 0.4 of a percentage point in tax break. Now take the $300 for the average Joe. Assuming an average salary of $50,000, that is 0.6 of a percentage point.
Guess what! Based on these numbers the middle class got a 50% LARGER tax break!
If you're complaining about this, what do you think the alternative is? The Democrats (Liberals up here) want to raise your taxes. Hmmm... So you'd rather pay MORE than see the rich get a break??
[This message has been edited by Voytek (edited 07-07-2004).]
I had never heard the term "jobs creation" until this election cycle. Never knew it was the president's job to get me a job. Yep, weve lost some manufacturing jobs. Sure have. Question. How many non-corporate, non-manufacturing jobs have been created? You know, small businesses, medium business, even large businesses or self-employment? The same people that complain about "jobs creation" complain about the smoke and chemicals these factories spew into the atmosphere or waterways. So, the cost of doing business in the U.S. goes up due to choking environmental regulations and inflated union wages. These same people prevent drilling and oil refineries from being built. Result? Dependence on Saudi oil and higher gas prices. It's much easier to blame Bush than the actual cause, isn't it?
For you economic savants out there, the top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of the taxes in this country. I don't want to hear this "tax cuts for Bush's buddies" crap. It's not true and you know it. Take an economics class. Easier tax burdens on corporations free up capital that ends up in the economy in the form of jobs, expansion, and research, not government coffers.
IP: Logged
11:45 AM
Fformula88 Member
Posts: 7891 From: Buffalo, NY Registered: Mar 2000
I usually don't get into this political discussions.
But could you explain to me, how can the president of the US stop XYZ INC. from not wanting to pay me $15.00/hour plus benefits when they would rather pay someone in X country $1.00/hour no benefits with no OSHA, no EPA, no worker's COMP Etc. Etc. Global Market/Economy, XYZ inc has got to reduce their overhead in order to survive.
Ed
PS: No flames intended, I would like to hear your ideas.
Currently, companies are allowed to bring foreign workers to the US to be trained in a job and paid a lot less than an American working the same position in the next cubicle over. Once they are trained, they are returned to their original country and put to work doing that job while the American worker that was in that next cubicle over is laid off. I think the President could push to change the laws concerning Visas to prevent companies from doing this. Would they still find a way to move jobs out? Sure. But why let them have the worker they are planning to replace train his own low wage replacement right here in the US.
Secondly, we do have trade agreements with a lot of countries with conditions built into them to help protect American workers. This could be based on labor conditions, pay rates in the other countries that have to be met, etc etc. The president has decided not to try and enforce any of the conditions in these agreements that could be protecting American jobs. Clinton is just as bad, since he did not try to enforce them either.
Neither of these things will eliminate global competition, or some sort of outsourcing, but they will protect a lot of American jobs that are currently in danger without adding big tarriffs to foreign goods, or other things that would cause a severe impact in the economy.
Just a couple of thoughts anyway.
PS: Don't worry, I didn't take it as a flame! In fact, I never take anything in these political threads as a flame (aside from personal attacks)! Not everyone agrees, and that is cool. Its the heated discussion that makes these threads fun!
[This message has been edited by Fformula88 (edited 07-07-2004).]
IP: Logged
12:20 PM
Fformula88 Member
Posts: 7891 From: Buffalo, NY Registered: Mar 2000
I want to get at this concept of the president only being able to "nudge" the economy. He may not be able to control it like his own piggy bank, but you also cannot dismiss the presidents role in the state of an economy during his presidency either. He does have influence, and can nudge it in many different ways. A nudge may also be all it takes to move something off a presipice and really get it moving.
The president through the Treasury influences the overnight lending rate. Now I know they generally just let Greenspan do what he thinks is right here, but this action alone is a might big nudge for the economy. It is a way of controlling spending and/or savings to prevent the economy from getting too hot, or going too cold. A high rate discourages borrowing, which cuts down on spending. A low rate does the opposite. The refinance boom, new housing construction, housing purchases, skyrocketing real estate prices, and also strong auto sales the last few years have been fueled by the low interest rate. A lot of money has been made and spent in real estate, and that is more than a small nudge for the economy. By the numbers, real estate and auto sales have been two of the healthier areas of the economy that have pulled us out of a recession.
To a lesser extend, the President also has control of the economy through government spending and taxation. Raising spending while lowering taxes helps put more money into the marketplace and can stimulate the economy. Raising taxes and or lowering government spending can be used to slow down an economy.
Finally, he has influence over consumer confidence. Americans buy more when they are confident, and buy less when they are concerned. Since consumer spending is 2/3's of the economy, this is very important. Confidence is composed of many things. Confidence you will have a job tomorrow, confidence there won't be a terrorist attack, confidence you won't be at war, and if you are you will win. Confidence that your leader is taking the country in the right direction, etc etc. Everything the president does affects all these things.
Each thing taken individually has a small impact. A nudge. But start combining them and you have a nudge, and another nudge and another nudge. If you get all those nudges in the same direction, your suddenly moving the economy.
So yeah, I think a president can take heat for a good and bad economy. Of course, there is more to it than just the president. Extenuating circumstances have a role, and a president may do everything right and the economy could still be bad. However, the president must be doing everything right during a bad economy to escape the criticism, and that does not happen too often.
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
I'll play Devils advocate for a while here. Answer this question ( a rhetorical question no real answer needed) why would a company want to stay in business if it has to pay a lot of taxes? Companies are in business to make money. The more demand there is for their product, the more people they can hire to make said product. If the profit margins get cut too far down by taxes and other costs, why stay in business? It is easier to cash out and close down. Do you know what this means? It means that all of those people that worked for that company have no more job or benefits. Let's put the shoe on the other foot know and shift the burden of taxes on the people. What happens then? They have less dissposable income and have to adjust their budgets to fit their new lower incomes. This means they will buy less products, which means there will be less demand for products, which will mean layoffs because of less need for workers, which will mean higher unemployment rates. It's easy to say that we have a huge deficit and someone has to pay for it, why? Why can't government live the way we do? If you have less money, you need to spend less so you can pay off your debt, not increase taxes. They have to remember that the money is ours not theirs, and we shouldn't tolerate their incompetence when it comes to wasting our money. I don't need to mention how many millions are wasted in stupid grants they hand out or loans that we give other countries that have no hope of ever being repaid. The worst part is that it doesn't matter which party is in power, they both are there to waste our money and ask for more. We need to put our government on a stick budget that is approved by the people, not some pork barrel senator or congressman with their own agenda.
So despite two rounds of tax cuts we're STILL losing jobs? IT AIN'T WORKIN' !!!
There's obviously more to it than that. Bush's policies have encouraged job exportation. We're moving toward a more stratified society, those who have to compete with foreigners and those who benefit from it. I predict the rich will need more protection in the future. Ever read The Running Man?
I wouldn't say all pork projects are good, but spending money puts people to work. You can't get a tax cut if you didn't have a job. Somebody with a job puts more into the economy (over being unemployed) than his neighbor getting a tax break. If the economy is better the neighbor will probably do better than if he got a tax break.
I wouldn't say all pork projects are good, but spending money puts people to work. You can't get a tax cut if you didn't have a job. Somebody with a job puts more into the economy (over being unemployed) than his neighbor getting a tax break. If the economy is better the neighbor will probably do better than if he got a tax break.
GL
Ok... let examine this statement for a moment.
Who has "the money"?
The government does not and even if they did they are some ubteen trillion in the red.
So we the people have the money... OK... well I must not be one of the WE because I have no money. I spent it all on an education that should be paying my education loan back BUT there are no jobs available... Well it was a "government loan" but the government does not actually have any money to loan so who loaned me the money?
OK... We the people again? NO! it was a loan from First Trust Global Mega Bank of America. So I loaned myself money to get an education that is not available that the government has garenteed First Trust Global Mega Bank of America that it will get paid back..... OK.... So I don't have a job because the government has seen fit to ALLOW corporate America to move its operations overseas and removed some 100,000 computer support jobs with it... THEN slanders me and beats me over the head with a bad credit rating because I don't make enough money to PAY MY rent, car insurance, electric, water phone then what I have left over I might have enough to buy a hamburgar at McDonnalds LET ALONE make a 100 buck a month GSL payment. I can default on the loan BUT I can't declare bankruptsy on it, it will be there for as long as I live or pay it off and I can forget about getting an IT Job at First Trust Global Mega Bank of America supporting their computer system because they kinda frown on those nasty criminals with bad credit... You know how much more likely thay are to steel money from others.
Sounds to me like my government is representing First Trust Global Mega Bank of America better than it does ME!!! The one it is supposed to be taking care of in THE FIRST PLACE!
Screw US Mega corp!!! Screw First Trust Global Mega Bank of America!!!!!!! Screw the US Government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Muthahumpers are pissen me off bigtime and best start paying a bit more attention to those who REALLY run this country.. WE THE PEOPLE.
IP: Logged
05:40 PM
Voytek Member
Posts: 1924 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
So despite two rounds of tax cuts we're STILL losing jobs? IT AIN'T WORKIN' !!!
There's obviously more to it than that. Bush's policies have encouraged job exportation GL
I don't get it. Are you saying that the corporate tax cuts, aimed at increasing companies' revenues and creating *more* jobs at home have encouraged job exportation??
I guess Mr. Bush is in a tough situation, then. Damned if he do and damned if he don't. Tax reduction to create jobs is labelled 'tax cuts for the rich', while on the other hand you cry that jobs are leaving the country.
Do you have any clue why jobs are leaving your country? It's because of profitability and competetiveness in the market (perhaps greed to some extent). One way to slow this trend is to allow higher margins at home (you guessed it - tax cuts for the rich).
I guess ideally you want this: 1. All jobs stay at home (what a wonderful world it would be) - not sure how you can control that. 2. Tax cuts only apply to poor and middle class - forget those who actually *provide* the jobs - they can be taxed to death. 3. GOVERNMENT somehow creates jobs. NOT companies - let's not forget, they're the rich bastards paying all the taxes.
Please allow me to tell you what this type of thinking leads to: Socialism. Unfortunately, socialism reaches a point where somebody has to pay for the free ride and all of the society picks up the burden in the form of insanely high taxes, which in turn deteriorates economy and jobs... yadda,yadda,yadda.
Hence, we arrive on the two party system of the US: a) the Republicans take over after years of high taxes and wild spending (the good years) b) the Republicans stimulate the economy through lower taxes for corporations and middle class to create jobs c) the economy recovers but by now it's too late and the people are fed up and elect the Democrats d) the Democrats inherit an economy on the upswing, taking full credit e) they increase taxes to benefit from this trend f) they kill the economy through over taxation and the downswing begins g) the Republicans take over and are blamed for the slow down
And the cycle begins again. I realize this is a rather simplistic view and there are other factors (wars, 9/11, world trends, etc.) but in general this is more or less what happens, hence the Republicans are blamed for bad economy and the Democrats are praised for fixing it until people get p/o'd with high taxes.
this I think sums up the CONN's so I borrowed from a F-1 site post by a race driver who now runs his own biz
""Try reading comrehension 101. I am b!Tching because the people who had a head start on life (as I did) are so greedy and self centered they do not want to create a workable society for all the citizens, but instead want to rape the country of everything they don't already have, which is 80% of it already, for themselves. They want an ever increasing portion of the pie for themselves, write the laws to benefit only themselves, and con the dumbest people in the country to vote for them, and then do nothing at all for them, while they go right back to padding their own pockets. And the vast majority did not get where they are by any personal achievement, but got there through inherited wealth, or crime. Crime usually of the white color variety and insider dealing. Or at the very least, a boost start through the good old boys network provided by the luck of the sperm lottery.
I am not b!Tching because anybody at all has it better than me. I rank in the top 20% myself. I say the fortunate people should look after those who did not win the lucky sperm lottery and help raise them up, not steal even more when we have enough already.""
""Yes to the extent you do not write all the tax laws for yourselves giving you and your country club friends all the benefits and then demand additional tax cuts for yourself all the time beyond the massive welfare for the rich you already have in place. Yes to the extent you do not constantly try to dismantle the safety net that provides a subsistence level existence for our poorest citizens. And tries to help them get out of their plight and to become productive citizens.
Yes to the extent you do not oppose every civil rights and environmental advancement for 100 years because you want to pollute the air and rivers from your factories and not pay a dime to clean it up. Or employ children in your factories under slave labor conditions. Yes to the extent you do not want to deregulate industries like the Savings and Loan industry so all the safeguards are gone and then you and your Republican buddies can pillage them and cost the country billions to bail them out. Yes to the extent you have no concept that because you were born into privilege you are not superior to those who weren't and feel no sense of social responsibility to anybody but yourself.
The Republicans have opposed every social advancement in the past 100 years, from giving women the vote to getting child labor out of factories, to women's rights. civil rights, pollution control, EVERYTHING. Everything that might harm their agenda which is to turn increasingly larger portions of the national pie over to the top 20% who already have 80% or more of it already. The history of the Republican party, once the party of Lincoln, over the past hundred years has been nothing but obstructionism opposing every social advance and delaying them for decades and nothing at all but setting up a welfare state for themselves, the richest and most privileged people. I could be one of them. They helped me out. Hey do you know how much I paid in federal taxes last year and the year before on an income well above 75% of the people of the USA. ZERO – NADA – SQUAT. The Republicans wrote the tax laws so people like me (and them) can bury income legally in hundreds of ways and then they still have the gall to want even more. F^^k them.""
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
08:19 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
To a lesser extend, the President also has control of the economy through government spending and taxation. .
Congress controls the spending and taxiation. The President has nothing to do with it. There is no Ways and Means in the Executive Office, there is no Appropiations in the Executive Office. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president.
IP: Logged
08:25 PM
Fformula88 Member
Posts: 7891 From: Buffalo, NY Registered: Mar 2000
Congress controls the spending and taxiation. The President has nothing to do with it. There is no Ways and Means in the Executive Office, there is no Appropiations in the Executive Office. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president.
Don't underestimate the ability of the president to influence budgets. He needs congress to agree with his spending programs to get them passed, but he does have a lot of influence over what many of those programs are and how it is spent. Sure, congress has the final say, but do you think they arbitrarily decide how much money to allocate to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security? Not exactly. They get the opinions of those departments, and consider their programs and operational needs. Those departments and others are under the executive branch.
Example, president Bush wanted billions to rebuild Iraq above what he had already been allocated. A lot of that money was going to end up in the pocket of US corporations that received contracts to do the work. Congress did give him the money and they are in the process of spending it. The situation really demanded congress give at least some of the money requested, but it was the President who asked for it. Congress didn't exactly dream it up from scratch.
IP: Logged
09:07 PM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Example, president Bush wanted billions to rebuild Iraq above what he had already been allocated. A lot of that money was going to end up in the pocket of US corporations that received contracts to do the work. Congress did give him the money and they are in the process of spending it. The situation really demanded congress give at least some of the money requested, but it was the President who asked for it. Congress didn't exactly dream it up from scratch.
And Bush actually dreamed it up from scratch? The President is a talking puppet of his party. He is not an independent thinker.
Sure! Congress knew that there would needed to be funding for rebuilding of Iraq, but they neogatiated the amount in committee, in which Bush was never apart of. Bush screamed out a number that the republicans in congress already had worked out in committee. It doesn't work the other way around. Yes the executive office does have their own investigating arm, and the departments are under the executive, But the CBO trumps the OMB anyday.
You think that the President is coming up with all the amount figures, ideas, and work? All the President is doing is campaigning 99% of the time. When he comes out in public for $40 billion dollars for Iraq, what he is going is trying to gather public support so the public can push the agenda to their congressional representatives, in which the republican delegation has already came up with. So in a sense, the President gets most of his figures and talking points from Congress.
So with the help of the bueracracy and Congress, yes! They did just dream it up from scratch, not Bush.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-07-2004).]
IP: Logged
09:37 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Don't underestimate the ability of the president to influence budgets. He needs congress to agree with his spending programs to get them passed, but he does have a lot of influence over what many of those programs are and how it is spent. .
No he doesn't. If he had a lot of influence on spending programs, the USA would be in a mulit trillion, trillion, countless zeros of debt. The Bueracacy (entire government as a whole) sends in their request for their budget, Congress looks at it, after negotiations, data, politics, etc... they approiate the monies to the bueracacy, some agencies, departments, buearues, will get more and some will get less than needed and thats it. There is emergency supplimentals that Congress passes for special cases. President does not have much influence at all.
IP: Logged
09:43 PM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
"What is wrong with those numbers? People earning $1M per year are paying more taxes to begin with than the average middle-class people. The $1M taxpayer pays $346,675 in base taxes."
People who earn $1M/yr are most likely multimillionaires, and they likely pay very little in taxes, especially when you factor in the rate of taxes based upon their gross income. These people have accountants ensure they pay little in taxes.
"The $50,000 (my number for the average taxpayer) pays $10,125 in base taxes."
I doubt the average person earns 50k/yr. It's likely 25 -30k/yr.
"So the $1M person gets a 0.8% to 1.4% tax rebate and the $50K person gets a 2.9% tax rebate."
Nice thought if you live in a vacuum. You're not factoring in any other variables such as ability to write off.
Let's all join Steve and bow our heads in sympathy for the rich.
Thank you - I was going to say the same thing. CTfiero - your logic is flawed (and so is ANYONE'S who believes that the rich got 'bigger' tax breaks).
Look at your own example CTfiero - take the average of what you state: $4k of $1,000,000. That works out to 0.4 of a percentage point in tax break. Now take the $300 for the average Joe. Assuming an average salary of $50,000, that is 0.6 of a percentage point.
Guess what! Based on these numbers the middle class got a 50% LARGER tax break!
"If you're complaining about this, what do you think the alternative is? The Democrats (Liberals up here) want to raise your taxes. Hmmm... So you'd rather pay MORE than see the rich get a break?? "
What's with the big worry of the Dems raising taxes? This isn't FDR anymore - wind your clocks. Not that the FDR era was bad. This, 'Dems raise taxes and Repubs lower them' is so antiquated that it's tiring. Look at recent history in regard to presidents and taxes and make that argument. And then factor in deficit. The Bush twins have set records for tax increases, and that doesn't even account for the war. Just because Clinton left a deficit doesn't mean he was an over-taxer. Jebus, quit with the erroneous arguments. What you're really saying is that you hate how the Dem presidents distribute the collected taxes.....ok, fine, but don't mislead the info by calling a tax redistribution a raise in taxes when they really have nothing in common.
IP: Logged
10:21 PM
I'm Back Member
Posts: 3780 From: Phoenix, Az, USA Registered: Oct 2002
I had never heard the term "jobs creation" until this election cycle. Never knew it was the president's job to get me a job. Yep, weve lost some manufacturing jobs. Sure have. Question. How many non-corporate, non-manufacturing jobs have been created? You know, small businesses, medium business, even large businesses or self-employment? The same people that complain about "jobs creation" complain about the smoke and chemicals these factories spew into the atmosphere or waterways. So, the cost of doing business in the U.S. goes up due to choking environmental regulations and inflated union wages. These same people prevent drilling and oil refineries from being built. Result? Dependence on Saudi oil and higher gas prices. It's much easier to blame Bush than the actual cause, isn't it?
"For you economic savants out there, the top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of the taxes in this country. I don't want to hear this "tax cuts for Bush's buddies" crap. It's not true and you know it. Take an economics class. Easier tax burdens on corporations free up capital that ends up in the economy in the form of jobs, expansion, and research, not government coffers."
This was typical of Hoover's arguments....
IP: Logged
10:22 PM
I'm Back Member
Posts: 3780 From: Phoenix, Az, USA Registered: Oct 2002
I don't get it. Are you saying that the corporate tax cuts, aimed at increasing companies' revenues and creating *more* jobs at home have encouraged job exportation??
I guess Mr. Bush is in a tough situation, then. Damned if he do and damned if he don't. Tax reduction to create jobs is labelled 'tax cuts for the rich', while on the other hand you cry that jobs are leaving the country.
Do you have any clue why jobs are leaving your country? It's because of profitability and competetiveness in the market (perhaps greed to some extent). One way to slow this trend is to allow higher margins at home (you guessed it - tax cuts for the rich).
I guess ideally you want this: 1. All jobs stay at home (what a wonderful world it would be) - not sure how you can control that. 2. Tax cuts only apply to poor and middle class - forget those who actually *provide* the jobs - they can be taxed to death. 3. GOVERNMENT somehow creates jobs. NOT companies - let's not forget, they're the rich bastards paying all the taxes.
Please allow me to tell you what this type of thinking leads to: Socialism. Unfortunately, socialism reaches a point where somebody has to pay for the free ride and all of the society picks up the burden in the form of insanely high taxes, which in turn deteriorates economy and jobs... yadda,yadda,yadda.
And the cycle begins again. I realize this is a rather simplistic view and there are other factors (wars, 9/11, world trends, etc.) but in general this is more or less what happens, hence the Republicans are blamed for bad economy and the Democrats are praised for fixing it until people get p/o'd with high taxes.
"Hence, we arrive on the two party system of the US: a) the Republicans take over after years of high taxes and wild spending (the good years) b) the Republicans stimulate the economy through lower taxes for corporations and middle class to create jobs c) the economy recovers but by now it's too late and the people are fed up and elect the Democrats d) the Democrats inherit an economy on the upswing, taking full credit e) they increase taxes to benefit from this trend f) they kill the economy through over taxation and the downswing begins g) the Republicans take over and are blamed for the slow down"
So how does the Carter-to-Reagan era fit into this? An abberation? :roleyes: I guess Jimmy left the economy in great shape and Reagan took the credit. Oh, and Hoover really set up the country to win, and then that tax raiser FDR took all credit and was elected/reelected 4 times.
You can't cut-n-patse this logic where you want it.
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
I'm Back Member
Posts: 3780 From: Phoenix, Az, USA Registered: Oct 2002
Congress controls the spending and taxiation. The President has nothing to do with it. There is no Ways and Means in the Executive Office, there is no Appropiations in the Executive Office. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president.
Uh, huh, and the president can't veto? Much of the time Congress won't even attempt an issue unless they feel that the pres will not veto it.
Presidents have little if nothing to do with the economy. They can talk, issue an agenda, or **** up, but that is about it.
ok.. good damn thing it was only a "nudge". I would hate to see what could happen when a president really starts getting greedy and pushing ideas with alot of force instead of nudging like Clinton did... Oh wait... Our hero Dubya is pushing terrorists off the planet with some force Hey that's great!!! nothing to see here but a bunch of dead bodies and headless, barbqued civillians, just move along.. nothing to see here, all is well. The inflation in living expences and the drop in salaries over the last 4 to 5 years is all just a fantasy cooked up by people who hate Dubya and Clinton because they were rich and successfull presidents.. 
