First is this answer to one more race baiting question from Juan
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka0LMt5ciRc[/youtube]
This one wasn’t bad either.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml1FYH-v7-E[/youtube]
You think Mitt will hire Newt as his Press Secretary? That man would be awesome at it.
See author page
Ya know, Curt, it’s quite depressing to think that the Republican nominee for POTUS is decided by two primaries, one caucus and three states. So the rest of the nation and their primaries are pate? Somehow, no matter how many are attempting to pre-anoint the Republican version of Obama, I don’t see it happening in this contentious race.
I didn’t get a chance to “see” the debate, but I did “hear” it. It’s my understanding that Newt got a standing O for his witty repartee with Juan. I also see the devoted Ron Paul types were ready with their Twit spam for feedback, skewing the Frank Luntz numbers. Easy to spot since when Paul was in the middle of his foreign policy melt down (sounded downright hysterical, he did… the benefits of no visual, just audio…), and got more than a few major “boos” from the audience, the Frank Luntz tweets showed Paul answered that category questions “best”?
right… Paul supporters are the perfect example of is why online voting for real elected offices should never happen. Spam voting is their forte.
All in all, a good political bloodfest and the moderators didn’t let them get away with much.
It will be interesting to see how the Thursday CNN debate goes, and how it all comes out in the wash on Saturday.
I think Newt was back in fighting form for this debate. He answered every question directly, and never waffled once. He made Juan look like a complete fool. Mata, you’re right about Ron Paul’s answers in national defense. He has such a hard time getting his point across, it is almost painful. He almost made sense when he was trying to explain that defense money should be spent at home, not overseas, but he just couldn’t connect the dots, and when he sputtered something about how we need to be catching terrorists instead of killing them, Newt pretty much kicked his proverbial ass in the exchange. Paul even got booed. LOUDLY. Sure he got cheered at the end of each diatribe, but it was obvious it was just his part of the audience being extremely loud.
Damn, I would love to see Newt debate Obama one on one. I’d pay good money for it.
exactly.
Newt is tone deaf. Fortunately for Newt, there were a lot of equally tone deaf people in the audience.
@Ivan: @Ivan:
It’s big $$$ in politics that’s also anointing Mitt. Newt is the only guy who could toe to toe with Obama. Mitt is beyond moderate. He is just going to get massacred not only on his similar liberal stances, but his flip flops on them …
@Wisdom:
Newt is just the smartest and most intellectually athletic (R) in the stage …the Establishment is against him tho
I think we saw Newt tonight in his best form. He let up on the Bain Capital nonsense and went back to running against Obama.
I with you on this, Wisdom – an Obama vs. Newt debate would be well worth the price of admission.
On the plus side, people can get into this race with very little money, camp out in a state, as Huntsman and Santorum did, and see if they can make a dent in public opinion in those states.
As we saw with 2008, Obama and McCain did not sew up the election until the very end. I still have that picture of McCain in my brain of him without money and carrying his own suitcases from town to town at the airport.
For me, the weak point in the primary is the people and the knowledge of the people. I think on this website, we could (and do) engage in vigorous knowledgeable debate as to who is the best candidate left standing. Outside of a relatively small percentage of voters, my guess is, 80% of the overall electorate could not name 2 or 3 Republican candidates at this time.
For me, the low point of this election was Gloria Allred and probably David Axelrod taking out Herman Cain with a few accusations and no proof. At this point, no one knows what Cain did, whether both or either of those ladies were lying, but, he was taken out as a candidate by the testimony of 2 or 3 women, whereas, the most he is guilty of is having an affair. The press was obviously complicit, as they had no interest, then or now, of determining the veracity of the claims of those women. Even FoxNews has done nothing by way of follow up. We already know from experience, had this been a democratic candidate, such claims would have been ignored until someone produced a blue dress with DNA on it.
For you and anyone else who did not see the entire event, I thought it was an excellent debate, the best so far, except for Huckabee’s forum from a few month’s ago. I thought that Newt shined and Perry acquitted himself quite well too.
I was glad to see that Newt stopped spending his time on the attack and simply stated what he stood for and what he has done in the past.
As stated above, I would also pay to see a Newt-Obama debate.
Finally a Repub. beat down on Romney who didn’t handle it well. Mitt’s gonna need to release his tax returns sooner than later. Thought Santorum most impressive in his one on one with Mitt. With recent Evangelical endorsement see him finishing 2nd with Newt and Paul close behind.
Rick Perry also ran.
Greg #4 I agree.Newt is in desperation mode.
@Gary Kukis, I “heard” the entire debate. I’m in the middle of a bedroom remodel and was texturing/painting walls in the next room. I did watch a bit of the rerun, but actually it was more informative with sound only.
It’s an interesting thing about the senses of hearing and vision… you can come away with completely different impressions when you separate them.
i.e. watch some of your favorite TV hour long episodics, or even films, without sound. You are then dependent upon the actor physically portraying the emotion without the benefit of dialogue. That’s when you learn most of today’s talent couldn’t act their way out of a paper bag.
Remove the distraction of visual, and concentrate of voices and inflections, and you hear emotions that may be masked by watching a person. Each sense is somewhat diluted when combined, and why those that have a loss of one of the senses have heightened abilities in those that are left.
Thus why I said Ron Paul pretty much had a meltdown on his long, babbled answers on foreign policy. He became shrill, repetitive and tried to mask the anger/emotion best he could. But the man has a temper, and his combination of frustration, anger and desperation to get his point across was evident in his voice.
Romney’s double talk always bothers me. He never answers a question and rivals Obama in the tactic of straddling the fence. His answer about tax returns is a prime example… if you either just “heard”, or even read his answer, you’d know he was furiously backpedaling in avoidance. No doubt he kept that pasty smile on his face the entire time. Sometimes I think that the pseudo adoration of Romney is his physical appearance, which many find clean cut, Presidential, professional, and sufficiently “pretty” enough to be in US photo ops (wish he’d stop using that cheap dye on his hair tho… LOL). Americans gravitate towards pleasant physical appearances… especially when they are clueless about the substance. If someone delivers what they think is a believable answer, and looks good doing it, it’s a thumbs up.
Greg and rich wheeler… there is nothing “desperate” about Newt. He was considered dead and buried back in the summer when his campaign staff left, thinking he wasn’t serious. He just plugged on and reorganized. On top of that, he’s maintained good to great debate performances, and relatively steady poll ratings despite being the butt of ads and establishment smears. This guy is a street fighter, and doesn’t buckle easily.
There is no “desperation” in his voice or his delivery. He’s a straight shooter and whether you like him or not, he doesn’t mince words to be politically correct. He can out debate any one on the stage with his hands tied behind his back because he’s a walking encyclopedia of facts and experience, and easily pulls them out with sharp wit.
Santorum did reasonably well, and had a few good moments. But again there is little strength and inspiration there. He tends to wander around questions like Romney. I think the difference between the two is that Romney wanders to avoid giving an answer he knows won’t fly, while Santorum hears a question and tries to wander around to a point he wants to make instead… even if unrelated.
BTW, I was listening to a talk radio show interview the man who hosted that “evangelical” meeting you mention, rich. It was not an “endorsement” of Santorum, and he was actually somewhat peeved that those in his campaign were seizing on that as representative of what happened. He was also peeved that the Newt people were trying to portray it as a fixed vote.
Here’s the real story, and it doesn’t mean much in the scope of things. They had a by invitation only gathering of many in the evangelical world, including many denominations. No formal sponsorship by any particular organization. Each candidate had a representative there to present the candidate’s positions… the candidates themselves were not present.
There were three votes… the took the best of the first vote of the five left, and ran a second vote to narrow the field. Then they took a third vote to see if they could actually find one candidate to rally around. They never could. About 71% went for Santorum, and 39% went for Newt.
It was not an endorsement of any formal body or organization. Nor was it supposed to be construed as such.
From what he said, most left the meeting feeling pretty much the same about their first choices, but perhaps felt a bit better if their guy didn’t win. He also suggested that all would likely give full backing to the eventual nominee, even if not their choice.
We get a real good look at the type of person who is represented by the GOP in these debates. The audiences applauded Perry’s execution record and yelled their approval of letting an uninsured accident victim die, they booed a gay soldier, they boo Romney’s Mexican heritage and they boo Ron Paul’s suggestion that we live by the Golden Rule in the way we treat our international neighbors. Republicans… in a nutshell. These regressive idiots need to go back to living in caves.
“Only the elites despise earning money,” Newt? Screw you! Juan pwned him. He exposed him to those who have any brains. They know it’s the GOP who has put more people on food stamps with their regressive policies-starting with Bush.
Newt is blaming Obama for things that the GOP are responsible for and the audience of lemmings applause while they are being bending over.
“Only the elites despise earning money,” Newt? Screw you! Juan pwned him. He exposed him to those who have any brains. They know it’s the GOP who has put more people on food stamps with their regressive policies-starting with Bush. And they know Newt is blaming Obama for things that the GOP are responsible for. And audience of lemmings applause while they are being bending over.
Liberalmann, you are a seriously dishonest hack of a liar.
Where in any video timestamp can you even remotely point out where people cheered over what you claim about Perry? Anywhere, proof would do you world of good. And the source you provide should come straight from MSNBC or CNN’s direct website coverages.
Liar.
And of that note, Juan didn’t, “pwn” anyone in this debate. He tried to bait and failed badly as the Troll he is as much of a fail troll you are. DId you even remotely watch the debate? No one cheered on Perry like what you claim and only cheering was during Newt’s moments.
Ah, Liberalmann is talking about the 2011 fall debates where a group of progressive trolls lead a cheerathon for the Canidate Perry in a previous debate during that question, as they were employed to do.
Nice attempt at contextually joining the most recent debate to a piror hack attempt at making the man look like a tyrant.
@liberalchild: You are amazing. You can type more than nearly anyone I know, yet say the least.
Again, it is odd that you would comment on this thread; no fatherless infants here.
The boos were because the GOP crowd disliked Juan Williams’ race baiting.
Newt got a standing ovation. Please remind us which Democrats have gotten standing ovations at Presidential debates…
How inadequate your life must be that the only joy you get is telling lies and saying vile, nasty comments on the internet. I pity you.
@liberalmann:
We all know that, if the recovery started on January 1, 2009, Obama and Democrats would be taking credit for it.
Now, if we have turned an economic corner, and things are getting better, then why is food stamp usage not going down? That is what all the economic news has been, is we have turned the corner, Obama’s liberal policies have worked, and we are slowly but surely coming out of it.
So, why are more and more people on food stamps? You can’t have it both ways.
Judging from a few of the comments, it is apparent why they are pro-Newt: He makes emotive argument which sound good to adherents of his beliefs but could not stand amidst rational evidence. Fortunately, people who believe like this are not the ones that win elections for President
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Yeah, sure, whatever. Liar.
If Newt is the GOP candidate, there will be no debates. Obama will stay away and count on his media friends portraying Newt as the Devil. Kind of like you’re already doing.
Newt is a deeply flawed man. They are all flawed, none more than Obama though. Hating the country you were elected to lead is a fatal flaw.
@Gary Kukis, #16:
Why would any American parent who works full time still not have enough income to provide for the basic needs of the family without food stamps?
Why–in one of the world’s wealthiest nations–would one out of every four children currently be living in poverty?
Who–in spite of all of that–have nearly all of the economic gains made over the past few years gone to?
@Greg:
Hmm. I’ve been gone from these parts for around 4-5 months now, and yet, your comments now are virtually the same as before. You insinuate that corporate America and the wealthy have made gains at the expense of the poor. No mention, of course, about how government’s intervention causes much of the pain and suffering economically by the poor. Same old Greg. I had thought, at one point last year, that you had at least put a foot on the path towards learning truth from fiction. Apparently I was wrong.
@Greg:
Gee, you are ignorant, Greg.
The other day news broke that the Obama Administration limits social workers who take applications for Food Stamps to a grand total of THREE MINUTES to decide to either approve or deny the request for the Food Stamps.
As a result, a whole bunch of people are gaming the system.
Firefighters, police, EMTs, teachers and other well-paid government workers used an innocent appearing ”mistake” to make it look like they qualify.
Tons of them are getting Food Stamps.
The ”mistake?”
The rushed social workers look at the ”take-home pay total AFTER deductions.”
But the deductions these cheaters add in include all automatic payments to their own bank!
So, if the bank collects their mortgage and their auto insurance and their car payment automatically, these cheaters do not include that money as part of their ”take-home pay!”
When you only have 3 minutes you don’t have time to 2nd guess each line on the form.
Ya mean like that hope/change thing didn’t work for Obama in 2008? LOL ah, the it’s okay for the goose, but not the gander spin.
@Greg, to your not-so-subtle mainstay mantra of wealth gap whining in your comment above… do ya think that inflation/cost of goods/energy has much to do with that?
And what is that attributed to? Flawed and continued monetary policies, spending, refusal to tap in to US energy resources, and the chart that has proved that the profits of the very corporations you hate have reached a new historic high under Obama.
Some people never learn…. as johngalt noted. Even when you show them pictures. Need a repeat?
Oh wait… you avoided the astronomical corporate under Obama, and just switched your argument to “it’s a trend”, and focused on the personal wage/salary as percent of GDP. Remember?
Then, of course, you didn’t bother to respond when I mentioned that only direct income is reflected there, and not additional wealth from assets, 401Ks, pensions, profit sharing and corporate stocks that are common perks given by employers in the past 20-30 years. To the benefit of the working “middle class”, since you like to think in classes, those benefits are income and wealth that is not taxed… ergo, a benefit.
It amazes me every time that particular combination of charts is posted. Apparently I’m supposed to have some sort of epiphany concerning the correlation between steadily rising corporate profits, steadily declining personal income, and the lowest effective corporate taxes in decades, that will make me slap my forehead and spontaneously become an advocate of union busting and still lower corporate taxes.
They don’t seem to be having that effect.
Don’t worry, Greg… we never expect you to have an epiphany. You’re pretty locked into your socialist mindset. The reason I bother to respond is to provide another opportunity for the readers, who may have missed the first run of your mantra, to see how desperately wrong and ineffective in reasoning you are. And to expose your talking points as the mistruths and propaganda they are.
INRE your observation of corporate taxes as a percentage of the GDP (chart #3), you’ll notice that the handling of recessions (a combination of tax increases and decreases) under prior POTUS resulted in a rising of corporate taxes as GDP%, and aided in coming out of the recession. That’s not happening with the Obama recession. You might want to ask yourself why that is? And where are the profits coming from?
Does “too big to fail”, “bailouts”, virtually zero interest Fed monetary policy mean anything to you? All tax policies are a combination of increases/decreases, regulatory and monetary policies that either work, or makes it worse. Apparently the ones before Obama knew that. Obama is working off the same corporate tax structures that Bush had.
Obama, apparently, has combined all the bad choices into one.
And yet again, I will remind you that corporations have stockholders and investors that are made up of employees, pensioners, 401K holders, etc. Wealth that isn’t reflected as part of their income statistics used here.
Here’s what you miss… you whine about corporate profits, never once considering who benefits when a corporation is profitable. I don’t. In fact, I don’t mind that corporations are more profitable under Obama because stocks,pensions and 401Ks are pretty much the only thing keeping some people afloat these days. Tho I find the bailout and monetary policies extremely dangerous, and only kicking the real problems down thd road.
The reason I throw this chart in your face yet again is it’s you, always on the Obama bandwagon, complaining about corporate profits…. and yet the statistics under your boy are everything you (not me) hate. You’d think you would prefer the Reagan or Bush combination tax/regulatory/monetary policies that actually started reaping more corporate taxes as a GDP %. Notice that with Clinton’s tax increases, and despite the advantage of two bubbles, there was no appreciable increase in the same. It’s quite likely that the reason that Clinton’s policies don’t look more like Obama’s was because we had the two bubbles.
@Greg:
And that should surprise no one here.
You still make the insinuation that wealth is static, and that rising corporate profits mean a smaller portion of the pool of wealth for personal income. And, of course, you discount, by omission, the fact that higher corporate profits allow a company to invest in itself, by expansion(of territory and market share amongst others). And that means more jobs, not only for the company itself, but all it does business with. The only reason this hasn’t happened yet is because of the threat looming above their heads of higher corporate tax rates, hence the trend to keeping that wealth gained from the profits tight. And why? Because wealth envy has turned people like yourself into wealth redistributionists, just like Obama. You won’t allow what needs to happen, to happen, because it means that someone will only get richer, and never mind the opportunities for those same poor you cry about that would be there. After all, collateral damage means nothing as long as your ideology comes out on top, does it?
Still the same tired message from you, Greg, even after, I assume, the continual education Mata and others try to provide to you.
As an aside, those “unions” you seem to like so much aren’t that much different than the corporations you are demonizing, as far as wealth gained is concerned. The biggest difference is that those unions don’t report a “profit”. Instead, they give ever increasing compensation to their management while at the same time continually reducing their memberships benefits. Unions “eat” wealth, instead of investing it. I know. I work with a bunch of union guys who bitch about this all the time.
All that average American citizens need to ask themselves before they vote this coming November is what the likely long-term effects of republican attitudes and proposals would be on the lives of average American citizens.
I don’t need “an education” at this point in my life, thank you very much. My education has been an ongoing process for nearly 62 years.
Odd that after nearly 62 years, you still haven’t figured out that the “trends” you deplore have primarily occurred under a Congress with both chambers controlled by your party – the Dems – for your entire life.
I would guess if you haven’t learned by now, you’re not likely to, Greg.
I manage a training program where people can earn , more by learning more and proving they have the skills for the higher income. Some people get the concept, follow the rules and make more money. Others can’t figure out the need for self-motivation and are always crying about how I don’t help them enough.
We’ve, as a nation, have lost our edge self-motivation.
Walmart and Sam’s club stores post Sam Walton’s creed. Beautiful, to the point. The American dream described in a few statements. Google it. Read and re-read it. Follow the creed and you will succeed.
Hi John:
You say:
Yes, that’s the conventional conservative wisdom. But there are two things that a business can do with profits. First, it can invest the profits in the business. Second, it can remove the profits and spend the money outside of the business. With higher tax rates, it is not certain that there would be less investment in growing the business. Arguably, there would be more investment in growing the business, as there would be less incentive to cash out. Money that a company invests in itself is not taxed. It’s only the money a company takes out of the business which is subject to taxation.
Anyway, it’s sophistry to put things into such stark terms (“wealth envy”). I don’t envy wealthy people. I simply think that they should pay taxes at a 39.6% marginal rate. This isn’t wealth envy and it’s certainly not class warfare. It’s simply about generating sufficient revenue to reduce the rate at which we are accumulating debt.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
You’re forgetting a third use of profits, that is getting to be more commonplace, Larry. And that’s the corporations are buying back their own stock to protect their share prices, and pay dividends to the share holders according to S&P research.
Berkshire Hathaway is just one of those corporations doing just that.
You’ll probably approve this source, since I’m no fan of Robert Reich (but you’re likely to be). But even he notes that the corporate profits are not leading to jobs, but that they are investing their profits in a buy back/dividend shares option. I might also add that he also observes they are taking advantage of US taxpayer cash to invest and grow in other countries, like China…. instead of creating jobs in the US.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, Obama has declared war on savers, private and business.
Back in Feb. 2011, Obama spoke to the US Chambers of Commerce.
Remember?
So, what to do to FORCE businesses to spend that money, even waste it?
Hmmmmmm…..
First off, Obama exaggerates.
Some of that money is already committed — it must be used to pay wages, suppliers, rent, utilities, etc.
However, even the Wall Street Journal admitted that there is more cash on the sidelines in America’s businesses since Obama’s policies of uncertainty and high spending/regulating than over 50 years!
With his zero interest rate policy, U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has declared a virtual war on the nation’s savers…..private and business.
As a result savings-conscious investors have been forced out of bonds and notes and into the markets these days in search of higher yields.
Obama quotes from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/07/remarks-president-chamber-commerce
Now, Obama gave the ”spend all your money NOW!” speech in Feb 2011.
How did consumer confidence do after that?
Take a look.
Note that the title of that graphic is: Consumer Confidence = Well Below Historical Average, Illustrating Uncertainty.
So, Obama was wrong and Business people were right.
It was the wrong time to willy-nilly invest.
Still is.
Today Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline.
In doing so he made a very telling statement about his priorities and beliefs:
he means government jobs will be created to take care of those the dems put out of work.
Hi Nan,
This statement is unsupportable. What is “uncertain” is the degree of consumer demand. What is “uncertain” is whether or not any President will ever be able to work with any congress to agree on any kind of long term policies.
Obama’s approval ratings are triple those of Congress. The GOP controls the House and has veto power in the Senate. The year 2011 (post-Tea Party congressional landslide of Nov 2010) was breathtaking year for dysfunctional governance.
So explain to me why Obama is more to blame for “uncertainty” than Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and the Tea Party.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Mata, Excellent points. The only thing I have to offer is to re-emphasize that it’s not a given that lower taxes (and therefore higher profits) means more re-investment in growing the business. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to re-invest profits in the business (so that the profits won’t be taxed). The lower the tax rate, the greater the incentive to take money out of the business (to pay dividends, buy yachts, or purchase stock in the business, which, in the case of public corporations, reduces public equity).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Actually, history shows that to be incorrect. But I will also say that all recessions are not equal and have their own nuances. Those nuances can be nudged via stated policies, however. And in this climate, where future profits are forecast to be lowered (both because of US and global economic conditions), some stability as to where tax policies would go would provide stability that is not being provided now.
All corporations know right now is that Bernanke and the monetary policies provide them with an opportunity of great profits with risk fee rates/money, plus a fed policy of QE when the going gets tough. However the demand for goods and the profit structures are down because of energy costs and uncertain tax policies. The threat of higher taxes loom large, and prohibit the risk taking mentality of corporations, watching the low rates dance on the expected (and needed) increase, the inflation costs affecting cost of production, plus the demand declining from a more frugal/troubled global economy.
All of these limit the future.. hence the investment of profits in a share buy back model. Since corporations need to please their investors… which includes ordinary working Americans… they will focus on securing their stock pricing as a hedge/bet. And they won’t be adding jobs in the US… even using the US tax dollars.
@Greg: I would say that this pretty much explains Greg’s position on the “wealth gap”…
It only takes 2 and 1/2 minutes, but well worth the watch.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
First of all, investing in the business, leads to spending the money outside the business, so they are one and the same. Secondly, doing both of those things helps grow the economy. When you have a President that detests business and capitalism in general, then the business community shrinks.
Hi Mata and Antics,
Most jobs in America are created by small business, and not by large public corporations. There are two opposing hypotheses here. The conservative hypothesis is that, with lower tax rates, a small businessman will invest more of his money in growing his business. But, first of all, I’m pretty sure that there are no data to support this hypothesis and, secondly, it’s contrary to a common sense analysis. If a small businessman thinks he can make money by expanding, he’ll expand. Whether that money gets taxed at 35% or 40% or even 50% is not a material consideration. What is material is whether or not the expansion will make money. Secondly, if anything, higher tax rates encourage business expansion, because re-investing the proceeds of a business into the business reduces tax liability, while taking the proceeds out of the business as profit to invest in equities or real estate or T Bills or art or gold or whatever increases tax liability.
And for the love of Mike (a figure of speech, but also an homage to a late, lamented F/A alumnus), Obama doesn’t “detest business and capitalism in general.” The most radical so-called anti-business proposal of Obama has been to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Given that we as a nation would today have been vastly better off had the Bush tax cuts never been put in place, it’s hardly a radically anti-capitalist position to take.
P.S. Here’s a classic economic study which showed that even the very high tax regimes of the 60s and 70s had no discernible impact on business investment.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w1704
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Mort Zuckerman, wealthy businessman, long time supporter of the Democratic party, voted for Obama, MSNBC/McLaughlin Group/US News and World Report contributor and associate professor at Harvard claims:
Lloyd Chapman says:
And I say:
Not anti-business? Got two words for ya’ – Keystone Pipeline
You can argue in the weeds all friggin’ day long that you believe higher taxes are something good. Lord knows that you are too hard headed to ever believe any of the indisputable facts that Mata, myself and others here on FA have shown you that higher taxes hinder businesses and the economy; but when you start saying that Obama is not anti-business? LOL
@Greg:
This is not rocket science. The federal and state governments encourage single motherhood by paying for it (when you subsidize something, you get more of it). So, single women do not have to worry about whether or not they get pregnant; they do not have to worry about making a marriage work; becuase Uncle Sugar is going to pay for them. Similarly, the husbands/boyfriends do not have to exercise any moral obligation to their children because Uncle Sugar will provide for them.
However, such families are not going to be making scads of money because Uncle Sugar is not going to support people who are making too much money. Therefore, these women must remain in a single state (or lie about that) and they must remain in a state of semi-poverty.
The problem is not that we live in this terrible, unjust and mean society; it is the our government encourages single motherhood and poverty, because there is no support for a single mother who gets out of poverty. So, women hold onto Uncle Sam support as they once held onto the support of a husband.
I know, you’re going to talk about abusive husbands and mean husbands; but, Uncle Sugar pays for women so that they do not have to exercise any judgment or morality.
So, are you trying to say that Obama’s economic recovery has been unfair and unjust? Does the champion of economic justice produce a wimpy recovery that is terribly unequal?
As Rush has said many times, liberals are only held responsible for their intentions and never for the outcomes.
Hi Antics (#39):
Regarding Zuckerman and Obama’s alleged “anti-business” policies:
And:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/business
Here’s what most bothers me about your comment:
I’ll repeat what I wrote in my last comment:
You blame me for not believing your “indisutable facts.” It’s because I’ve listened to too many economists discuss the relationship between taxation and economic growth and taxation and business investment and read summaries of formal economic studies, such as the above and such as one which Mata herself brought to our attention. What you represent as being “indisputable facts” are anything but.
I won’t “lol” over you taking the positions you take. I certainly acknowledge that there are many reputable people who share your points of view. But there are just as many equally reputable people who share my points of view. Back in the days when we were arguing the impact of tax policies on the federal deficit, I quoted 10 different conservative economists who all agreed that tax cuts added to the deficit. I’ve repeatedly asked for someone to provide not even an “indisputable fact” that tax cuts don’t add to the deficit but even a single mainstream economist who is willing to argue that tax cuts do not add to the deficit.
I am still waiting for someone to provide a reference to a credible mainstream economist who provides a defense of the position that tax cuts do not add to the deficit.
What it all boils down to is this: we have a debt problem. What’s the way to dig ourselves out of this hole? Every non-partisan or bipartisan committee or commission which has addressed this problem in the past several years has recommended a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. That’s the most “anti-business” thing which Obama has recommended and it’s not “anti-business” at all to put the economy on a long term sound footing.
With regard to Keystone, it’s not “anti-business” to listen to the residents of the state of Nebraska who don’t want a pipeline threatening their water supply. As Obama has said, the GOP presented an entirely arbitrary and unnecessary deadline.
Obama delivered the classic response. “If you demand an answer today, the answer is no.”
The pipeline will be re-routed to avoid the environmentally sensitive areas, and then it will be approved.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Several points here Larry:
-One, the issue isn’t only about the tax rate. It is also about how those rates are applied via “closing loopholes” that many liberals approve of. Guess what? Those “loopholes” tend to come in the form of deductions. The talk of removing those has many businesses, large and small, corporate or otherwise, on edge and hedging their bets on their profits by not engaging in the riskier investments regarding their businesses, like reinvestment in their companies.
-Two, not all profits get reinvested in the same calender year in which they are made. It depends on the makeup of the particular reinvestment strategy. What this means is that profits taxed for a given year at higher rates cannot be used as a reinvestment “tax shelter” for a future calender year. Businesses don’t just reinvest in, say, expansion, just because they have the funds available. Ofttimes it depends more on the timing of the particular reinvestment in comparison to their particular market, rather than depending solely on the point in which they gain the funds necessary for it.
-Three, not all businesses are taxed under the same code. This is particularly true of many small businesses where the actual taxes fall under the personal income tax code, rather than the corporate tax structure.
It is a fact that the talk from liberals during Obama’s presidency thus far, concerning taxation, has been on increasing rates, and closing the “loopholes”. It is this uncertainty that has resulted in businesses not doing much of anything but sitting on their profits, or, as Mata pointed out, buying back shares (which does nothing to actually build wealth. It actually has nearly an opposite effect, in that it removes a wealth generation opportunity at that point).
One last thing, regarding your post #38, you said;
I am not so sure that you can claim that and be truthful about it. For one, the truth of your claim depends on the particular entity you are talking about, ie. the Federal government or the economy. Neither are the same, although their are points of common effect between the two. Another point of contention is that you have to ASSUME, in order for your statement to be close to the truth, that the Bush tax cuts contributed NOTHING to the economy, or, that the Bush tax cuts resulted in loss for the Federal government in regards to revenue, vice breaking even, or even a slight gain.
In other words, in order to believe your statement, one has to believe that without the Bush tax cuts that the economy would have recovered at the same rate or better, and that the Federal government lost revenue with the cuts, resulting in less government consumption, causing an overall negative effect on the nation’s economy. Being that we cannot go back in time and try it your way, we are left with the words of economists to tell us either why we are “worse off” than without them, or that the end result is insignificant compared to without them, or, and this, of course, is what I believe, that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a gain for the economy vice what would have likely happened without them.
I have personal experience during this period of time, having been the manager of a “small business” during the years preceding, and following, the Bush tax cuts. The before and after pictures for my particular “small business” are quite different, and much better overall in the aftermath of those tax cuts. Consumption of my main product, service, nearly doubled in two years. Consumption of new parts nearly tripled, vice prior to the cuts where my customers opted to attempt to keep their boilers running by rebuilding old components or cannabalizing older boilers and doing whatever makeshift changes I could come up with to keep their main boilers operating. And finally, consumption of new boilers, either by new businesses, or by replacement of older units, shot up by leaps and bounds following the tax cuts. In the four years prior to the tax cuts being effective, only one new boiler was purchased, while the two years following the tax cuts effective dates saw seven.
I don’t consider my particular example an either/or proposition. Meaning, some of those new boilers would have been purchased with even a slight recovery of the economy following the dotcom bust and 9/11 even without the Bush tax cuts. Service as well, and including purchases of new parts for boilers would have increased. I don’t doubt any of that. The difference is that my particular “small business” saw increases that were unparalleled in the previous two decades of operation for any two year period, and this included the period under Clinton when the economy boomed. I experienced, personally, the results of those tax cuts, and not just for my personal income.
Hi John: Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Your own business experience is, I’m sure, mirrored by innumerable other businesses. We went into a recession. Businesses suffered. We came out of a recession. Businesses recovered. Tax cuts make sense in a recession. It’s classic Keynesian economics. Tax cuts were a very major part of the Obama “stimulus.”
The problem came from maintaining the Keynesian tax cut stimulus after the Y2K era recession ended. This did two bad things. Firstly, it added to the debt. Secondly, it added to the capital glut which fueled the demand for investment vehicles which supported the securitized sub-primes which created the frenzy to peddle the sub-primes which contributed to the financial collapse.
In my personal opinion, the Y2K recession was sufficiently mild that no Keynesian stimulus was needed. There will always be a business cycle, and the recession would have run its course. But, if a stimulus was required, then it should have been short term and limited in scope.
The other reason for the tax cuts was that there was projected to be a revenue surplus. This was felt to be undesirable. But, by the time the tax cuts were actually passed into law, it was already obvious that the revenue surplus was illusory. I think we’d all have been much better off, had the tax rates just been left the way they were in the 1990s.
Again, with regard to “uncertainty,” the only reason we have uncertainty is that we have a hopelessly divided and dysfunctional government. That’s not Obama’s fault.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Certainly not Obama’s fault. I agree. However, as divisive as Obama is, he does nothing but throw more fuel on the fire in that regard.
And on the Bush tax cuts, we can agree to disagree. I have my personal experience concerning them, along with historical evidence from the business I ran. That alone makes me lean heavily towards stating that the Bush tax cuts were a plus for the nation.
As for what followed because of them, I will just say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The different things that happened to bomb the economy in 2008 and later would, very likely, have happened anyway. The only real question is whether or not the magnitude would have been as high. What you are essentially arguing is that with higher taxes, the effects could have been controlled to a point where the economy wouldn’t have suffered as greatly as it did. And, IMO, that is a valid stance to take, I just happen to disagree.
Hi John, More good comments. You get the last word. – Larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: So you honestly believe that raising taxes makes businesses, large and small more productive?
HE is good speaker and he’s not lying ,his words come natural showing that they where there before in his mind, to just be retrieve at the right time, he is exactly as the first of all his speech when he began his CANDIDACY, RAISING THE CROWD UP AND CLAPPING NON STOP, HE SURE HAS THE GIFT AND WANT
TO GIVE IT TO AMERICA, THAT’S WHY HE IS SO CONFIDENT, BECAUSE HE’S GENUINE
Hi Antics (#46):
No, what I said is that, number one, there is no support for the claim that cutting taxes increases incentive for businesses to invest in their own growth and that raising taxes reduces the incentive for businesses to invest in theiir own growth. No data whatsoever to support this.
Number two, if you look at it logically, you would not expect that raising taxes would be a disincentive for growing business or that reducing taxes would be a disincentive for growing business. Money which is put back into a business to grow the business is not taxed at all. If you want to avoid paying taxes, then put the money back into your business. Hire more salesmen. Built more widgets. Lower the tax rates and there is more incentive to take money out of the business and buy stocks, or real estate, or art, or gold, or T Bills, or securitized mortgages.
Looking at it another way, let’s not talk business, let’s talk labor. Let’s say that I’m a doctor and I want to make more money (to buy a Maserati or send my kids to college or buy a larger house or whatever). If you raise my marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%, will I work harder/more hours or will I be disincentivized and then cut back on my hours/work? This isn’t my original idea, by the way, I heard an analogy like this from the discussion of a big time economist on PBS last week. The same thing applies to a small business.
It’s just common sense. Sure, if you raise taxes to the 91% level, that will have a very disruptive effect. But I think I’m on firm footing to assert that the sweet spot for the Laffer Curve is somewhere around 60% marginal tax rate (this is what the PBS economist said, and I think it makes sense). The point is, we could raise marginal tax rates a whole lot higher than they are now, raise a lot more money for the treasury to reduce our debt, and have no negative impact at all on the economy and possibly even have a positive impact, for reasons cited.
Obama just wants to raise the marginal tax rates back to where they were in the 1990s (39.6%) and yet this inspires charges of socialism and class warfare. Puulleeeeeze.
I previously quoted a classic economic study from the very high tax era of the 60s and 70s (a time when we were paying down our debt ratio, as opposed to adding to it), which showed that tax rates had no impact at all on economic growth.
It makes perfect sense, if you just look at it logically, and that’s what the numbers show.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: So let me get this straight. You are in favor of taking 60 cents out of every dollar American citizens earn?
Really?
Then they get to pay state taxes. And local taxes. And property taxes. And sales taxes. And…you get my point.
The simple fact is, that it is human nature that if you take more from people, they produce less. History bears this out.
Where in the principles and concepts of our founding is the philosophy that the government has a right to A MAJORITY of your property?
When you are working more than half the time (60% > half) just to pay the government, you are approaching slavery.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sounds fine to me. Let’s let government apply spending cuts first this time.
@johngalt:
Great point!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
We already knows that the actual amount of money brought in by this would be negligible compared to the overall debt, so why do it?
One of the things that Obama wants to do is redistribute income. If half the people are not paying taxes and many of them getting all kinds of government benefits, and the top 10% are paying the lion’s share of the taxes, that is a dramatic redistribution of wealth.
If the government actually came through with some real spending cuts that dug deeply into government spending and debt, and then if they said, “We need a little temporary help here” and then they raised taxes on everyone, including the taxless 50%, then I might possibly agree to this.
However, there is no argument that you can offer up to make me think that a redistribution of income is the way to go, which is what these tax raises are all about. They are patently socialismtic, totalitarian and based on class envy.
GARY KUKIS
how about a 12% tax on everything anyone buy, new or used,
and I mean everyone rich or poor, on all you buy, plus a cut tax on busyness, who have employees,
even one employee, a 5% cut on ALL WELFARE MONEY COMING OUT,
A 15% CUT ON ALL PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES, and 15% on the rest AND A 25% TAX ON ALL UNIONS TAKES AND PROFITS, ALL THIS GOING SPECIFICLY TOWARD THE PRESENT DEBT,
WHEN THINGS ARE LOW, the POORS should pitch in too, like everyone in the house,