| Author | Message | ||
     Rocketsprink |
I'd like some direction to the Conservatives answers that are facing America today. Namely the jobs, health care, security, that don't have anything to do with tax cuts. How will their ideas be paid for, other than curbing spending, because let's face it, neither party knows what that means. I'm not looking for a "what's in it for me" thing. I want to know WHAT the plan is to get people back to work? Again, no tax cuts for the wealthy to create jobs, because that just doesn't work, unless the cut is given to keep the jobs here. | ||
| Sifo |
So basically other than conservative values, what do conservatives want? Seriously, you are simply refusing to listen to basic conservative values. If tax cuts don't work, then why did tax revenues rise after the GWB cuts? I've pointed that out to you many times and all I've ever gotten from you is chirping crickets. Then you wonder why I tend not bother reading your posts. I guess the religious discussion is over??? Time for bed...  | ||
| Blake |
Rocco! . . . r e l a x You are among friends. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
Tax revenues went up? Is that what was used to pay for the wars? Did they go up for a short time after GWB told everyone the answer to 9/11 was to "go shopping"? how did the tax revenue go up after the tax cuts? Why did GWB and the Republican party chose to end the cuts a couple months ago? That was the date they picked to end them? So really Obama isn't raising taxes as claimed, he's allowing the preset date that was chosen by the Conservatives, to lapse? how is that raising taxes. Again, I am waiting for a link to some sites that point out the Republican plan to get the Country out of the mess, that in my opinion, they started. Can anyone post anything? Rather than tell me to relax Blake, put up or shut up. I want plans for the future that don't mirror failed plans of the past. Where are they? Anyone? I look forward to reading them. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The reason for the deficits was excess spending not lower tax revenues:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bus h-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/ The tax revenues actually climbed as a RESULT of the tax cuts:  Here's what that increase looks like compared with the rest of the history back to 1960:  Note the decrease in 2000 with the start of the recession and then the continued drop after 9/11. Note where the curve turned after 2003 when the tax cuts were enacted. They were ABOVE the baseline average of 18% until 2008/2009 when the next recession happened. Most importantly, note the spending by congress. The increases above the baseline were more than enough to pay for both wars with room to spare. It was the spending that stripped away the surplus. The Republicans didn't "plan" for these tax cuts to expire. It was all that they could get passed in the compromise (a word we don't hear out of Washington much these days). As far as what the plan is? How bout a government that isn't growing faster than the tax revenues? How about a government someone isn't willing to spend $200M to become President of? The greatest "plan" is for government to get the hell out of the way and let the individual have the greatest opportunity to make and keep wealth. Period. I would like to see corporate tax discounts based upon percent of US employment. Have 100% of your employment US based, receive a 50% corporate tax reduction. Have 50% of your employment US based, receive a 25% corporate tax reduction. Incentivize US labor. Trying to collect taxes on income after the fact simply encourages tax avoidance behaviors. It also allows the Federal Government to pick "winners and losers" and make select, government supporting individuals rich rather than helping anyone. Government redistribution of wealth simply doesn't work. Tax revenues increase as tax rates are cut. Basic Laffer Curve stuff:  Tax revenues will fall with tax increases as investors to into wealth preservation mode instead of wealth expansion mode (investment). Here's a few "Bad Ideas" from Democrats: http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/5-ba d-democratic-policy-ideas/ For equal time, a few from Republicans: http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/5-ba d-republican-policy-ideas/ The problem is spending not tax cuts. Here's a link to information from the Small Business Administration that's interesting: http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24 "Small firms: • Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. • Employ just over half of all private sector employees. • Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. • Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. • Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). • Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). • Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. • Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. • Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited." The problem isn't even outsourcing, your hot button topic Rocco. It sucks when it happens, but the economic impact isn't as great as you might expect. The problem is that the Federal Government is starving out the incubator for new small businesses to be created. Once that happens, it won't matter what the tax rates are. The economy will be dead. 95% of small businesses fail within 5 years and yet small businesses are STILL the engine of our economy. Want to make things better for the little guy, increase the likelihood of small business success. | ||
| Court |
>>>>>I want to know WHAT the plan is to get people back to work? We all do. I watched the neighborhood organizer tell us we were "well on the road to recovery" and 3 days later the largest single week of new unemployment claims were filed. Businesses are not hiring and won't be until they know what the playing field looks like. You may recall we were recently sold a healthcare bill (of goods) and told, by Speaker Pelosi, that we could only know what it would cost AFTER it was passed. Well we are starting to get some glimpse, 4 years before any benefits kick in, and we're seeing healthcare providers tendering to regulators some of the largest increases in history. If you understand this healthcare bill, the one we were not allowed to read prior to passage, God bless you. The folks, those employers you want to create jobs, don't and when they don't understand something they go into the "hold" routine. Don't look for any job creation, I suspect Nevada will continue to languish around 17% unemployment, until there is a change in administration. When you have an entire White House administration with less than 4% of the folks ever having worked anywhere other than local governments or academia you can bet they'll have trouble getting in touch with reality. If you want to see jobs . . . create a tax environment that encourages consumption (I just cancelled 2 major purchases and redirected funds to another, much safer investment) and create an incentive for entrepreneurship. Very telling some of the responses that Mr. Buell is getting from American companies when he asks them to build and supply something. I'm betting the next year, as we continue this tirade of spending money we don't have, is going to provide some excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I'm hunkered down till 2012. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Additionally, there is this misguided notion that it's the government's responsibility to come up with a "plan". It's the government's responsibility to get the hell out of the way and let the individual do what they do best. Want to see what that looks like, visit the sponsor's section. | ||
| Spike |
Since you brought it up:  Sources: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_wa r_that_broke_us_not.html http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update .pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federa l_govt_finances_employment/federal_budget--receipt s_outlays_and_debt.html | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Additionally, there is this misguided notion that it's the government's responsibility to come up with a "plan". It's the government's responsibility to get the hell out of the way and let the individual do what they do best. Want to see what that looks like, visit the sponsor's section. here here! | ||
| Court |
The cost of wars pales in comparison to the cost of foolish and wasteful "plans". Although I find it fascinating that a Yale Sophomore is 3 times as likely to "hook up" after drinking beer . . . I'm not sure it warranted $7,000,000 of my taxes dollars. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I am forever amazed by the propensity for some to feel the need to have someone else advocate on their behalf. No one sells you as well as you. No one selling you does so without something being in it for them. This goes double for unions and governments. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Think of a country in the world with a limited/weak central gov't and limited/weak judiciary. Laissez-faire. Once you have that country in mind, think about what trying to start & run a small business there is like. Nirvana? Or perhaps a new set of headaches? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
That's why the framers sought to provide a strong government in limited ways. Strong judiciary in limited ways. When the Federal Government is allowed to operate without limits, you have tyranny. When the judiciary is allowed to operate without limits, you have an oligarchy. The "strength" was to exist in the states. That way, individuals had the ability to remain within the nation without having to flee that nation in order to flee tyranny. If the state of New York goes off the rails, you can flee New York to another country in the union. You wouldn't have to renounce your citizenship. The framers understood that America is unique in that it was the last unclaimed real estate on the planet and as such were there the need to flee a tyrannical government, there would be no place to run from here. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
Let business do what it does best? I think we are seeing the result of that right now. Does doing it's best include sending out a half a billion tanted eggs? Self regulation doesn't work. I'm stll waiting for some site outlining the GOP's answers to today's problems. Having a hard time coming up with them I see. | ||
| Rainman |
So is Harley moving or what? | ||
| Buellkowski |
My point is that when "official" arbiters of business rules are forced back, other "non-official" arbiters will step in. Crime bosses, nepotists, resource thieves, etc. It would be naive to believe that these non-official arbiters care a whit for your personal business liberty. That is, unless you agree to their terms... | ||
| Slaughter |
Harley moving? I had a movement this morning, does that count? | ||
| Hootowl |
One could make the argument that government regulation doesn't work, since the eggs came from government regulated facilities. | ||
| Court |
Interesting that Obama did his $8,000 "stimulus" to spur home buying . . . . Home buying was off a record 27% last month. The "stimulus" did nearly nothing. Interest rates are the lowest in history, down around 3.5%. The "Loan help" program that Obama instituted has seen something like 42% of the folks they "helped" fall back into arrears and get foreclosed upon. If a person is irresponsible no "90 day government crutch" will change that. Until PRIVATE business has the confidence in the tax system and government to start creating jobs no amount of money (as the current crop of idiots has just brilliantly illustrated) will do anything. Let's see if HD is around long enough to move . . . . I'm not sure they've any clearer vision than the feds. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Rocket, I provided you with the answer. You choose not to read or hear it. What law, specifically, passed since January 2009 has or will provide one single objective you are seeking? What passed under this administration will increase jobs? Prevent outsourcing? Increase wages? Promote personal prosperity? If so, how? Did you even read what I wrote? "Businesses" aren't the fortune 500. The vast majority of "business" is you and me. When the government attacks "business" they are attacking you and me. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I HAVE read the new healthcare bill. It took me a month to do it. There is some very messy, ugly, behavior, agencies, legislation, taxation and regulations in it. There is very little Health. I am working my way through the finance bill now (since I still have my 6 & 63 licenses) So far they are just as bloody and ill advised. Both bills were written by poeple with wikipedia knowlege polly-anna socialist ideals and lacking any real world grounded underwriting, or financial modelling. At least in Vegas, you could win. In DC, you cant ever. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Interesting that Obama did his $8,000 "stimulus" to spur home buying . . . . Home buying was off a record 27% last month. The "stimulus" did nearly nothing. Inaccurate analysis. The home-buying tax credit expired at the end of April. Why are you citing a July figure and ascribing it to the tax credit? I'll bet home-buying was spurred in April. Do you have those figures? | ||
| Spike |
Newsflash- The government already regulates eggs: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/uc m170640.htm Any more bright ideas? Maybe next you'll propose gun laws to prevent shootings. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
As an indicator that the tax credit, described to provide a lasting boost to the housing market did nothing but cannibalize later sales. It's the same idea behind the taxation of the "rich" to provide prosperity to the poor. It sounds great in theory, but in principle it equates to taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right pocket. Zero net gain. | ||
| Buellkowski |
You're assuming the folks who rushed to buy before April 30 would have done so anyway without the tax credit. We don't know that. And even if they would have bought without the tax credit, that's still up to $8,000 more cash in the homeowner's pocket to spend as they please that won't go into the gov't's coffers. Fewer taxes: you guys like that sort of thing. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
$8000 isn't going to qualify someone who isn't already qualified and able to buy. All the credit did was speed up the process. Same for cash for clunkers as we saw auto sales drop after the program ended. The $8000 came from those paying taxes and were given to those paying less or no taxes. The burden for those tax credits falls on the top 50% paying 97% of the taxes. It's a credit not a deduction. These home buyers were given cash taken from tax payers rather than a reduction in their own taxes. The bottom 47% actually MAKE money from the Federal government (receive more in credits than they pay in taxes). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Maybe next you'll propose gun laws to prevent shootings. Or immigration laws to prevent illegal immigration. | ||
| Hootowl |
"that's still up to $8,000 more cash in the homeowner's pocket to spend as they please that won't go into the gov't's coffers. Fewer taxes: you guys like that sort of thing." You don't get it do you? That $8000 was borrowed money, and will have to be paid back with tax money. Making tax payers foot the bill for handouts is not lowering taxes. | ||
| Sifo |
Why did GWB and the Republican party chose to end the cuts a couple months ago? That was the date they picked to end them? So really Obama isn't raising taxes as claimed, he's allowing the preset date that was chosen by the Conservatives, to lapse? Rocket about the only thing I didn't see addressed in a quick skim of what I missed while at work was why the Republicans chose to end them on a future date. It wasn't a couple of months ago either, I'm quite sure it's at the end of this year. Here's your answer though... That wasn't the choice of the Republicans at all. It was the choice of the Democrats who held Congress at the time. That was one of the compromises that the Republicans had to make to get the tax cuts established. It's a shame that you are against a solution that has been tried and proven. There was a time when even Democrats understood how tax cuts stimulate the economy and provide higher tax revenues. Unfortunately since the time of JFK the Democrats have simply gone the way of tax & spend. That's proven to dig you into a hole. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There was a time when even Democrats understood how tax cuts stimulate the economy and provide higher tax revenues |
