Do you expect a change when Utah sends Hatch back to Utah?Hatch
spent 11 million to get his $250,000 a year job back. According to his office
10 million of his campaign funds were sent in by citizens outside of Utah to
re-elect him. One million was all he could raise from his own state, does
anyone think that people outside of Utah number more than 10 times the people in
this state who want him elected?Large corporations seem to reach out
and touch everyone.As long as people who helped create the problem
stay in Washington they would have to admit they made a mistake if meaningful
changes were made. History has taught that is not likely to happen.To senator Hatch it is more important to be right than to be helpful, and so
for the rest of the country that spells we might end up being "dead
wrz:Mitt IS not a job creator. Notice the present tense, please.
Mitt is a long-term wannabe POTUS. Now he's just a retired rich guy. Maybe
he'll go back to Bain Capital and start doing leveraged buyouts again. Do
you understand what that means and how it works? If not, I suggest David
Stockman's Newsweek article explaining the nitty gritty. Most of the time
it ain't pretty. And for whoever brought up Staples, read the same article.
You'll find out that Mitt and his guys got out early, took a very small
gain, and left it to someone else to turn Staples into the "job creator"
it is today (2/3 of the jobs are part time with no benefits, by the way). LBOs
are not intended to create jobs. They are pursued for the sole purpose of
enriching a small cadre of "investors." In the '80s we called the
Tax Walmart if the congress is going to raise taxes on anyone "rich".
They add nothing to the U.S. economy except low paying jobs. They have very
little in their stores that isn't made in China or Bangladesh. They
don't buy from U.S. suppliers. I'll bet old Sam Walton is spinning in
his grave. His motto? "Buy American".
why stop reckless spending? Who cares what the national debt is anyway - all
sarcasm aside I see zero evidence that Americans give a whit how big the
national debt is. The American people just re-elected a president that increased
the debt by 6 trillion. Obama knows he can spend and borrow and borrow and spend
all the way up to and past 20 trillion for the national debt and no one would
blink an eye in the this country. I guess all this stuff about the national debt
is just a bunch of scare tactics by the GOP and really amounts to nothing.
Right? "What - me worry?" (Alfred E Newman)
We need a balanced budget amendment!
The value of work has been completely compromised by the fiat monetary system
that keeps that 1% in power.The right wingers say they hate fiat
currency but then revere the financiers that would have no way to suppress the
value of a Chinese worker to 1/100 th of an American worker without the
"magic" of fiat currency. They would have no way to capitalize on
anyone's labor to this extent without fiat currency. They can borrow
unlimited fictitious funds to control unlimited land and capital and leave the
rest of us born without any birthrights at all. And it's all based on thin
air.What sense does it make that gold has the same world market
value in all nations but an hour of hard labor has no common value? I don't
think that's a Godly idea from a father that prepared the entire Earth for
ALL his children. Mormons that so whole hardily support the idea of this version
of a "free market" should be ashamed of themselves. It's not free
or fair at all but contrived by lazy, slothful men that enrich themselves
dishonestly on other's labor.
“If we have to borrow money from China to pay for a program, thus putting
our children deeper in debt, then we need to learn to live without the program.
Sound familier?”-So AZRods, you are saying that we need to
live without defense, because, clearly, defense is funded in large part from
borrowed money.-Unfortunate that you feel that way, Killpack. I
don’t see labor as easily replaceable as you, and quite frankly, neither
do successful businesses. Successful businesses recognize that there is a rather
large investment involved in training someone to work within their system.
McDonalds clearly understands this and they do what they can to hang on to their
employees. If you run a business, and if you think your employees are easily
replaceable, you are doing something wrong. You are not hiring quality people,
and you are not training them well.And to think that McDonalds is
irreplaceable is absolute fantasy. If McDonalds were to disappear tomorrow there
would be dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of businesses rushing to fill the
@blue says ok, what is wasteful spending and why it's wasteful.Do you
want a list or can anyone seriously not see the waste in our government?Saying that the solution to the whole problem is more taxes is economic
suicide.Why would companies stay here to do business when they have a
dozen countries offering all kindsof benefits for them to go elsewhere.Many on this thread have got to look at the big picture, as in the world
economy because that's what we are competing against.And more taxes
without cutting back out of control spending gets us nowhere except fewer
companies that want to stay in business or stay in the US.So how do
you do it you ask?If we have to borrow money from China to pay for a
program, thus putting our children deeper in debt, then we need to learn to live
without the program.Sound familier?
mark,In this world, unskilled labor is very replaceable. To not have
that mindset, as you put it, is to be ignorant of economics and therefore a
poor, uncompetitive and irrelevant force in the business world. Believe me,
McDonalds did not become the great, efficient enterprise it is today because it
feels its employees, especially unskilled ones, are irreplaceable. That is just
the way it is. There are people in this world who would kill for a job as a
burger flipper at McDonalds, let alone minimum wage. Capital and real estate, on
the other hand, are not nearly as elastic. Especially McDonalds capital.
McDonalds capital owners have invested extensively for decades to build the
corporation that McDonalds is. I would argue that that decades-long investment
is quite inelastic and very IRREPLACEABLE.
The left wing on the dirty bird of tyranny refuses to cut welfare spending. The right wing on the dirty bird of tyranny refuses to cut defense
spending. We truly have a self serving dysfuntional government who
are in business for themselves and constiution be darned.
Roland Keyser"There is no developed country on the face of the
earth where rich people could move and pay less in taxes than they do in the
U.S."There is a place called Switzerland.
@Mountanman:"Anyone willing to wager... that when (not if) Obama
increases taxes on the 'rich' within less than two years, the IRS will
collect less money than before the tax hike?"The Republicans
should act smart and give Obama his tax increase. Sure, the economy will
suffer... but the blame will be pinned on Obama.@George:"The truth is both the worker and the owner rely on each other for
financial well being. Something that seems to get lost in this
conversation."Stop splitting hairs. If owners didn't have
capital to put up there'd be no business and... no jobs. The money up
front, then the jobs. Tax increases decrease capital and reduce the chance for
the creation of more jobs. It's not rocket science.@Kent C.
DeForrest:"Mitt, for instance, is not a job creator."Are you daffy? Mitt saved dozens of companies who would otherwise disappear
off the face of the earth. And these businesses put thousands to work."Corporations are sitting on piles of cash. Why don't they
hire?"They're waiting to see what's left after Obama
gets his hands outta their pockets.
So Boxerdog..I suppose you paid $250,000 cash for your house. Or $35,000 for
your car. Yes the principles are the same. Debt is a fact of modernity.
It's your ability to manage your debt that counts. Two points..GE in
'09 franticly pleaded with the government to bail out Lehman because they
knew if it didn't happen on that weekend they didn't have the cash for
their next weeks payroll..why because they borrow it every week..are they
broke..hardley. Secondly...the debt will keep them poor..that means they are
now poor. Really, no inflation and zero interet rates some poverty.
"Fail to pay the capital and real estate owners of McDonalds for their
capital and real estate, which are quite costly, and there simply is no
McDonalds. No place for employees to make hamburgers and no equipment to make it
with. That is about as simple as I can put it."Yes, Kilpack, you
are quite correct. And with no employees making the hamburgers, there also is no
McDonalds. So where are we? Maybe we have arrived at the
understanding that employees add exceptional value to a company, and that if a
corporation values its product that it will also value its labor force and do
what it can to reimburse its employees fairly, and honestly. And respect its
employees, and not have a mindset that the employee is easily replaceable and of
no intrinsic value, but a valued member of the company. -Boxerdog, I
sure hope you have been outraged about the national debt, and outspoken about it
ever since Reagan set us on this path. I have. If you are just a Johnny come
lately because of who the president is, I have no use for you.
So, what some of these comments are saying is they don't care how far the
debt of this nation goes, let the government do what they want, no matter the
consequences, simply because they are the government? If people only had a
$35,000 annual income, would you spend $100,000 a year? Anyone with common
sense knows that’s a massive fail on anyone’s part. We as Americans
are FORCED to live within our means and adjust our spending continually
otherwise we lose our homes, go into great debt, have to declare bankruptcy,
etc. Why is our government not held to this same standard?? Less spending is
the only answer and raising taxes on the wealthy only means the government
doesn’t want to cut spending, which says to me they don’t care about
the future of America or the debt we will never dig ourselves out of. This is
the sad truth and many of the comments I have read, it's sad for they are
all for it. Congratulations for giving your children, grandchildren,
great-grandchildren, etc., a debt that will keep them poor, because that is what
LDS Liberal said,"Every single 'Corporation' I have
ever worked for broke down labor expenses into 1 of 2 categories -- Productionand OVERHEAD"That is simply incorrect.
In ANY economy, there are the following factors of production: labor, capital
and real estate. Production is not a labor expense; labor is one of three
factors of production. Without capital and real estate (also called overhead by
accountants), a worker at McDonalds has absolutely NO WAY of making a hamburger.
Fail to pay the capital and real estate owners of McDonalds for their capital
and real estate, which are quite costly, and there simply is no McDonalds. No
place for employees to make hamburgers and no equipment to make it with. That is
about as simple as I can put it.
Here's the bottom line taxes aren't stealing but should in fact be the
grateful giving of those most blessed by an economic system. Most people want to
work and earn their way. Many people while working don't make enought to
support themsleves or their families and need help. The founding fathers did
not choose a small hands off government, but instead created a for the
circumstances large and involved national government. Lastly America is not a
white male patriarchial society anymore..if that's the end of traditional
America..welcome to the 21st century.
"unfortunately there are machienes that could do the same thing that the
burger flippers do. So again, what value do those people bring that
couldn't be automated?"Yes, they are called vending
machines and a microwave. But are you really trying to say, Redshirt, that the
line cook at a McDonalds, or the cashier actually add no value? It sure sounds
like it, "what value do those people bring. . .?"As far as
the burger flippers being able to open their own burger joint, yes many could
and many do. And even more could if they didn't have to compete with the
behemoth McDonalds. You realize, don't you, that few, if any, of the
executives at McDonalds ever opened or started their own burger joint?And absolutely my argument does not say that the only people that produce
anything work only in kitchens, mines, factories, or farms. What my
argument is, and it is really self evident to the rest of the world, that with
out those front line people making and serving a product there is no money being
made. Zilch, notta, bumpkis. None.
@thinkin man your right and when you have a spending problem and a revenue
problem you cut expenses wherever possible and get more revenue. and don't
listen to the whiners. So what's your point?
When you have a spending problem, the solution is to stop spending so much.Simple! Logical! Effective!Cut across the board.
Don't listen to whiners.
Let's see. Who herded the cattle, fed them, fattened them up, slaughtered
them, butchered them, planted the taters, harvested them, drove them to the
factory where machines peeled and sliced them? Who raised the grain, harvested
it, turned it into buns? Some corporate fat cat? Some fancy machine? In this
fantasy world, there are only inventors and executives. Everyone else
doesn't exist. But who is going to buy the Big Mac? Where is he going to
get the money to buy it?
And start with that our of control Department of Defense. We spend more on
defense than pretty much the rest of the world combined. The very first bloated
budget that should be looked at and cut is the DOD.
re:RedShirt"To "Truthseeker" actually, that is a lie. From
2001 through 2008 job creation was good, as evidenced by the unemployment rate
hovering around 5% and the high labor participation rate."During
Bush’s eight years in office, January 2001 to January 2009, the nation
gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs,
the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)Politifact
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtUsing your arguements, the only
people who actually produce anything are those that work in a factory, kitchen,
mine, or farm. Nobody else actually produces anything.=============== RedShirt -- Every single
"Corporation" I have ever worked for broke down labor expenses into 1 of
2 categories -- Productionand OVERHEADThe
customer pays for Production, and could careless about OVERHEAD.Overhead
is just that, an un-necessary organizational evil that customers never want to
pay for.It adds nothing to his purchase but higher expense.Same goes for the owner.If could get that burger cheaper without
that mooch taking his cut for doing nothing, I'd do it in a heartbeat. He
adds NOTHING of vlaue to my purchase, he simple takes something for nothing.BTW RedShirt -- You go ahead invent and market that magical
burger-flipping machine and make your $Billions - That IS the Capitalists
ultimate dream is it not?
To "mark" and "LDS Liberal" unfortunately there are machienes
that could do the same thing that the burger flippers do. So again, what value
do those people bring that couldn't be automated? If McDonalds wasn't
there do those teenagers have the desire, skills, knowledge, or capital to open
up a burger shop?Using your arguements, the only people who actually
produce anything are those that work in a factory, kitchen, mine, or farm.
Nobody else actually produces anything.Luckily most of the rest of
the world does not share your myoptic view of business.
Grover, I've tried to make your exact point numerous times on this blog and
got the same result as you....silence. My wife works with the wealthy, people
who have anywhere from a few million to over two hundred million, and they do
not, again do not use their own money to create jobs. They borrow the money in
order to leverage what they have. And by the way almost none of their borrowing
is to create jobs in the first place.
@killpackSandy, UTLDS Liberal,Unfortunately, economics
is much more complex than kindergarten level understanding. ============Classes?I live in the real world.Unfortunately, economics is not much more complex than that.You
missed the keyword -- I said OWNERS.Your rant implies I meant
executives and marketing folks - who are still just higher levels of worker
bee.I specifically refered to "Owners", as in stock holders
-- who do nothing, but call a broker, purchase stock and collect earnings checks
every quarter. They PRODUCE nothing.And you know what?I'm
guilty for it myself.I "own" tons of stock.My 401K
portfolio is stuffed with stocks.I've never even set foot in
most of "businesses", yet they pay me. Go figure.And If
I'm getting something for vitually nothing -- I can't even begin
to imagine it on the Mega-Billioare scale such as a Mitt Romney - who FYI never
once sold staples at Staples.Owners PRODUCE nothing...just skimming
earnings from that $7 per hour High School kid who did the work.[BTW
- I still get up and go to work everyday and pay MORE in taxes than they do.]
Eric,Recent statements by Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss have
given me some hope that Reason might be one day welcomed back into the Capitol
Building. She has wandered a long time, friendless.As to arm
twisters, Lincoln was a master of human motives. But LBJ was no slouch. The
man could log roll like a lumberjack.
"Only a small fraction of each McDonalds hamburger is unskilled, burger
flipping labor."You must be kidding, killpack. The vast majority
of the labor at McDonalds are the "burger flippers". The percentage in
upper management, or research, or marketing is very small comparatively. But
Liberal's point is very valid: without the low wage "burger
flipper" there would be zero value to McDonalds. They could have all the
capital raisers, branders and marketers, and Harvard Business Schoolers, they
can cram into their corporate headquarters, and with out the "burger
flippers" they would not make one red cent.Sorry, but that is
really not very complicated. And yes, the owners and executives,
when they take their vacations to exclusive resorts, are sitting around on a
beach somewhere while the high school kids, or, as is more likely the case with
McDonalds now days, the hispanic mothers, do all the work.But you
probably wouldn't understand.
>Twin LightsAs you may have noticed, this is not a particularly good
forum for a call to stop foolishness.I think you're right in
that there is a deal to be made here. I think the President and Speaker Boehner
could probably come up with at least a workable framework for deal, involving
modest tax increases and reasonable spending cuts. The problem is that the
Speaker would then have to sell it to his caucus, and the President to his.
We'll have to see.I thought it was a good sign, though, that the
President invited everyone over to the White House for a screening of Lincoln.
Great movie about the arm-twisting and deal-making and general skullduggery of
actual politicians trying to get something done.
LDS Liberal,Unfortunately, economics is much more complex than
kindergarten level understanding. Perhaps you had better attend some classes.
Only a small fraction of each McDonalds hamburger is unskilled, burger flipping
labor. The rest of it is years and years of raising capital on Wall Street,
branding and marketing, classes at Harvard Business School, etc. If you think
McDonalds owners and executives are sitting on a beach somewhere sipping
martinis while a bunch of high school kids do all of the work, well, forget it.
You probably wouldn't understand.
Actually not that simple. Ask Mitt Romney.
Folks,In my experience most small businesses that gain traction and
grow are not started by the rich. They are not usually started by the very poor
either (some exceptions). Large businesses and very wealthy folks tend not to
start new ventures but rather buy someone else's (making the seller
rich).The true entrepreneurs I know would create businesses under
most reasonable circumstances - because it is what they love to do. A few
points of taxation up or down is not going to motivate or demotivate them.There are good reasons not to over tax (eventually, but at levels well
above what we have today, it does become a disincentive to produce OR a huge
incentive to avoid or even evade) but that is not what we are talking about.This is all just so much class warfare stupidity being offered up to us
by the political talking heads. In both models the scapegoats (wealthy or poor)
are parasites on the economy - producing nothing and only taking. As a few
others have pointed out this is NOTHING like reality where real workers add real
value to real employers who create real opportunities.Can we please
stop this foolishness?
LDS Liberal: If your hypothesis is correct and the "uber-rich" guy
produces nothing and adds no value to the equation but instead just sips
martinis all day in the Cayman Islands....then it should be very simple to
replace him/her.Just get those "working poor" to bypass the
owner altogether. Produce all the goods on their own and reap all the profits
for themselves. Simple..right? What is stopping them?
I'll try my hardest to make this so a 5 year can understand it --- Say, I walk into a McDonald's and order a hamburger.Who
created the wealth?The worker who actually produced and provided me
with my hamburger for which I paid?orA facless owner/Corporate
entity on an island in the Cayman Islands sipping martini's 24/7?One PRODUCES, obeying the eternal law of the Harvest.the other is simply
an owner, and produces nothing.It's really no different than a
pimp and his working girls.So I ask again - Who REALLY and
truely creates the wealth?The worker or the owner?The
uber-rich?orThe working poor?
The tax increase which is proposed at 3% of income over 250k per year has no
direct link to job creation. Tax decreases for the rich don't get
reinvested they leave the premises. Let's get the accurate picture. Basic
economics would reveal to most that consumers create demand. Demand creates
jobs. Put money in the pocket of consumers you have the foundation of demand.
Trickle down does not, has not and never will work.
your right that is often but not always how owners first create enough wealth to
higher workers, however, a business owner can only grow their wealth beyond the
widgets they can make themselves by joining into a relationship with their
workers. again both rely on the other for their finical well being. @redshirtplease read the full post.The worker could go
out and create their own business making widgets, at a higher risk to themselves
of course, but the owner cannot create more widgets without the worker. The
reality is that both receive benefits from the relationship, the question is
when does it cross the line into exploitation one way or the other? When is a
wage to high to maintain a fair profit margin for the owner? When is a wage and
benefits to low to fairly compensate the worker for the wealth they help to
generate? At what point does the disparity start to effect the over health of
our economy and or society to the point we have right to intervene through the
use of our government? These are the types of questions I think we should be
asking rather then demonizing “those people.”
An excellent post, Grover.Thank you.
Nothing "wrecks" more things than the military. If we can't get by
on thousands of nukes and a military 1/2 the current size then we aren't
Just a spelling clue for the letter writer and a bunch of the commenters on the
DNews website:The word you're looking for is "lose."
You don't loose jobs. You lose them. One would think the editors would
catch a simple error like this. Then again . . .
If the world was only as black and white as the letter writer and montanman
suggest! Half truths are a terrible thing. They sound true when spoken but do
not hold up when scrutinized. Case in point: the rich are job creators. True,
you need money to start a business and hire people, but where do most people get
the money? Answer: they borrow it. Who holds the greatest percentage of the
wealth in America? Answer: retired people. How many jobs are they creating do
you think? Same for sports stars, entertainers, the super wealthy (is
Mitt's money in the Caymans and Switzerland creating jobs in America?),
people who inherited their parents and grandparents money, etc. etc. One thing is right that they say however...the higher rates on the wealthy
will not dent the debt burden of the country. The reason that increase is
justified is one of equity. Everyone is in this game and everyone needs to pay
their share. Warren Buffett paying lower rate than his secretary is insane. Short term: Expenses must be cut and "revenue" raised on the
wealthy.Long Term: Expenses cut and taxes raised on everyone until
the budget is in balance.
Ooooops!Sounds like I wasn't quiet enough and woke one of them
To "George" and who is buying the equipment and providing the working
environment for the poor people to work at?The money must be there
first so that a job can be created.A single lawyer may start out on
his own, but once he is busy enough and wealthy enough, he can hire assistants
and other lawyers to expand his business. This is true for any business, no new
jobs are created until there is money to pay the workers. The workers create
widgets, they do not create jobs.To "Kent C. DeForrest" I
think that the thousands of people employed by Staples would disagree with you
on Mitt's ability to create jobs. He saved the company and then expanded
it. When they expanded they needed more people to work for them.
Most high-income people are not "job creators." Mitt, for instance, is
not a job creator. For many years now, the rich have never had it so good.
Corporations are sitting on piles of cash. Why don't they hire? Because
there is insufficient demand. Where does demand come from? Not from the upper
class. It comes from the consumer classes, who have been getting a smaller and
smaller piece of the pie for 30 years now.Progressive taxation is
one solution to the imbalance, but not the best solution. The best solution is
for businesses to give more of their profits to those who actually created those
profits (those who work in the trenches) rather than those who sit in executive
offices or who have invested in the stock market. When we figure this out,
we'll stop having this stupid discussion.
You liberals just go right ahead and keep on ignoring the problem and live in
your little fantasy. Who knows, it may last awhile. I don't really care.
Myself and all of the other paranoid teapartiers that you've made fun of
the past couple of years, (well pretty much anyone who didn't vote for
Obama) is going to fair rather well. We've been hoarding golds, guns, food,
etc., for the past couple of years. We'll be fine when we turn into Greece.
However, it is going to be a very rude awakening for the typical Obama supporter
in Philadelphia or Chicago who goes to the store one day and finds out is EBT
card no longer works. That's if there is any food in urban grocery stores
to begin with. They'll probably have been picked clean by looters by that
Pretty fundamental concept; spend only what you have. Even so, it is far too
complex for politicians who want to be Santa Claus and don't want to do the
heavy lifting of public service.
@steve wPoor people do not creat jobs? Who is producing the products that
gives the business owner the revenue to grow his business and hire more workers?
The truth is both the worker and the owner rely on each other for financial well
being. Something that seems to get lost in this conversation.
Now you've stepped over the line, old man...
Anyone willing to wager me a steak dinner that when (not if) Obama increases
taxes on the "rich" within less than two years, the IRS will collect
less money than before the tax hike? Reason: the "rich" includes most
small businesses and increased taxes will force them to decrease expansion, not
hire or lay off workers. Big businesses will become less competitive and move
over seas or pass the tax increases along and that, my friends means fewer tax
payers! Tax increases on the "rich" is a war on business; those people
who generate wealth in the first place. When was the last time a poor person
offered you a job?
When it comes to job creation, Sherman has a very good point. Poor people
don't create jobs. If the filthy rich--i.e., the job creators--were taxed
very little or not at all, they could create even more jobs. Then, poor people
could stop whining about the lack of jobs. In fact, taxes on low-income people,
who are job consumers rather than job producers, ought to be increased
significantly until they finally get off their duffs and start creating jobs.Also, I think the IRS needs to get tough on panhandlers who fail to
report the donations they receive. Sure,they dress up all poor and scroungy, but
I suspect most of them are socking big bucks away in overseas accounts, which
creates no jobs here.
President Obama wants to increase the taxes on the high-income people in the
United States. ========= Wrong!Read
today's New York Times.It's not just Pres. Obama.The
Oracle of Omaha, every single Capitalist's mentor and hero -- Warren Buffet "I support President Obama's proposal to
eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a
cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 - maybe $500,000 or so," the Berkshire
Hathaway head wrote."Additionally, we need Congress, right now,
to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable
income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above
that."----------Who should we believe =>Warren Buffet?a true Capitalist and American?orAM radio blow-nothing's like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn
Beck?BTW - I agree, Congress needs to eliminate waste. But It's
gonna take compromising, and so far - the GOP and their 20 year old do nothing
pledges is ruining America.
Again with the whole "job creators" thing... Don't you understand
that was a label created by a republican hack specifically for low information
Please remember to be very quiet as you drive through Box Elder County or
Brigham City.You might wake some of the locals from their dream
There is no way this can only be addressed from the expenditure side of the
There is no developed country on the face of the earth where rich people could
move and pay less in taxes than they do in the U.S.
So why doesn't the GOP "Compromise" with the democrats and agree to
huge tax increases in exchange for promised spending cuts?Answer:
Because too many of them see such proposals as the huge scam that they are!
"Agree to jack up taxes today and we'll give you some spending cuts
over the next 10 years" is just a shell game. It doesn't matter if they
promise $3 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes (or $10 to $1, or $100 to $1).Until we get some drastic spending CUTS (and I mean real cuts, not phony
ones) the deficit and debt will continue to spiral out of control.The way it works now is: Spending this year = $3.5 trillion. Spending next
year = $3.7 trillion. Call that a $300 billion "cut" because you
didn't increase it to $4 trillion like you planned. Spend $4 trillion
anyway. Take every opportunity to talk about that huge spending cut you agreed
to (at great sacrifice), even though it never happened. Blame the
ever-increasing deficit on rich people not paying their fair share.
So Sherman if the President were to cut the annual deficit in at least half by
the end of his second term would that qualify as cutting "reckless"
spending and make him a great President, after all that would be something that
nobody except Clinton has done? Go check official government projections for
budgets into 2016 and that's exactly what's projected. 2013 is
projected to be under a trillion cutinng the deficit from it's high by
nearly 500billion dollars. Good start huh?..Go Obama..four more years, four more
years..oh wait that all ready happened.
To "Truthseeker" actually, that is a lie. From 2001 through 2008 job
creation was good, as evidenced by the unemployment rate hovering around 5% and
the high labor participation rate.The job market has been sluggish
since we started to see an increase in regulation and welfare spending.
I have rowed a few boats in my day. One thing is clear, no progress is made
unless both oars are in the water (and with some degree of coordination). In
this case, one oar is spending and the other is revenue. The problem is of
sufficient size that it will need both for there to be any real progress.Thankfully Senators on both sides are beginning to do the hard work of
compromise. The nation comes first, not our party and not our particular
political views. Time for all those involved to come to this understanding.
The talking heads on either side are not friends to our nation, to our
sovereignty, or to our solvency (and these are related).
Job creation has been lackluster since we lowered tax rates during the Bush
Administration. As wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top,
fewer jobs are being created.One factor:"The
financial sector, which includes lending, stock brokerage, complex securities
and insurance, among many other services, derives enormous profits from
collateralized debt obligations. These new products require such sophisticated
engineering that the industry now focuses its recruiting on new master’s-
and doctoral-level graduates of science, engineering, math and physics, and pays
them starting wages that are five times or more what they would have earned had
they remained in their own fields.“Because these new hires are often
the very individuals who otherwise would have comprised the most robust pool of
prospective founders of high-growth companies, the financial services
industry’s steady rise has had a cannibalizing effect on entrepreneurship
in the U.S. economy,” said Paul Kedrosky, Kauffman Foundation senior
fellow and one of the paper’s authors. “Excessive financialization
exacerbated and distorted the flow of capital in the economy, potentially
suppressing entrepreneurship by drawing away entrepreneurial
talent.”(Has the Growth of the Financial Sector Harmed the
Cut wasteful spending?Cool!Lets begin with the wasteful
funding of Hill Air Force Base. Close it down. We have enough bases around the
world. Let those workers up there get real jobs at Delta Airlines or something.
Then we can continue to cut wasteful spending in subsidizing
Utah's education and roads. Lets also cut federal aid to fire cleanup. Let
those folks who had their property damaged by fires this summer depend on
churches and charities. Lets also cut all federal funding to the shale and
natural gas industry which is essentially employing the eastern part of the
state. Let those companies fund themselves and not receive federal handouts.Remember, Utah is the "self-sufficient" state with the awesome
economy who wants to secede from the "Communist" Union. The letter
writer advocated that we cut spending! So lets do it!Perhaps if we
had stuff that we want cut, then we wouldn't look at such spending as
Research by the CBO has found that even moderate increases in the marginal tax
rates on the top 2% of incomes in our nation will have zero effect on the
economic behaviors of those taxpayers.What's being proposed is
for taxes on the very highest incomes to return to the tax rates of the
1990's, when these folks did extremely well in the economy."Wasteful spending?" OK, you tells us exactly what it is, why
it's wasteful, how you'll eliminate it, what you'll do about the
consequences of those cuts, and how much the cuts will effect the budget
deficit. Otherwise, you're just making noise.
Best estimates are that Obama's tax increases will temporarily increase
revenue by about $150 billion/year. The federal government spends more than that
in less than 10 days! Add to that the fact that Obamacare (subsidized healthcare
insurance for the "poor") has been projected to cost taxpayer's
about $1.2 TRILLION/year! Do the math! Americans committed economic suicide by
rejecting a problem solver and re-election the problem creator! But what do they
care, they will get their free stuff, at least for a little while!
Another rant n rave letter with no solution.From where does the
letter write propose we cut spending. The sequester is scheduled to hit, and
BOTH parties are trying to their hardest to make sure that doesn't happen.
Instead of second guessing everything our legitimately elected President
proposes...and ran on...why not run for office yourself?