94 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

Still, without any cuts to federal spending, there is no way to effectively balance the budget without killing the golden goose. The Buffett Rule is the equivalent of taking a bucket of water from the bow of a sinking ship and dumping it in the stern.

You can't look at taxation as a penalty for having a faultering business. That's not what taxation is for. It is for the govt. to pay for it's *functions*. So, penalizing a business that does poorly and lays off workers and then while down gets kicked by the govt with a heavy tax penalty is not a way to help them succeed. It is extremely economically unwise to penalize investors and venture capitalists in the forms of massive tax burdens.

That's the whole problem here. The govt. is so bloated they can not even tax the populace (at a sustainable rate) to pay fo ral their spending. So the immediate answer to balancing the budget and paying down the debt is to make massive spending cuts.

[deadheadskier]

You can look at that side, but you can also look at companies that post record profits, then turn around and layoff large percentages of their workforce because the stock prices aren't attractive.

[TakeAStepBack]

That theme seems to be the most common with state sponsored monopolies....go figure. i think it's just safe to re-establish what TtB said in this thread because the amount of changes to the system that are needed, are never going to happen. Fucked is fucked. And we are completely fucked.

[seany]

Case in point:

http://www.washingto...bUMQ_story.html

Make $20M+ from investments while not "working" and pay a 15.4% tax rate.

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, I get that. But it means absolutely nothing if the only reason to raise the rates on these people is to "punish" them with the fair share slogan. It's simply class warfare and envy if by raising these rates we make a small scuff mark on the deficit and debt mountain. Obama paid less taxes than Romney did. Obama paid less than his secretary. Romney made money on capital gains and paid less taxes than such and such. MOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!

[seany]

And, yes, we are absolutely fucked. Nobody is going to step up and institute the changes in the tax code and government spending that needs to happen. We can hope for another "boom" but the current political mindset will just fritter that away. Meanwhile, the GOP takes advantage of the deficit to attack food stamps and both parties are to beholden to the rich interests to do anything other than to prop them up more - all while saying they're not and it's the other sides fault.

Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. I can't afford to retire here or buy (self-employed) health insurance anyways. I'm just going to make my transition to Mexico at some point and die a happy death on the beach down there...

[TakeAStepBack]

There will be no retirement for my generation either. Worse, there will be no future for the generations to come. those being born are inheriting a giant turd sandwich. If you're getting out, i'd do it sooner than later. Because once the govt. becomes desperate, and they will, they will turn on the population to keep themselves going.

[seany]

Yeah, I get that. But it means absolutely nothing if the only reason to raise the rates on these people is to "punish" them with the fair share slogan. It's simply class warfare and envy if by raising these rates we make a small scuff mark on the deficit and debt mountain. Obama paid less taxes than Romney did. Obama paid less than his secretary. Romney made money on capital gains and paid less taxes than such and such. MOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!

And Obama made less than Romney, so there... Just like capital gains and inheritance used to be, restore some incentive to reinvest in something meaningful.

And, yes, this tax doesn't solve the debt. But maybe if people are given the incentive to reinvest in stuff that actually creates jobs, it might. No amount of government frugality is going to solve it without much pain and deterioration of an already crumbling infrastructure. The best way to solve the debt is job growth. Period.

[TakeAStepBack]

Agreed. And govt. does not create jobs, growth or wealth. If anything, the exact opposite. They strip wealth, jobs anf growth.

But most people today peg the task of creating jobs on govt. When govt. should be reducing taxes on everything and getting out of the way to allow for true growth. But then, there are the "somewhere in the middle" folks that want to keep doing the waltz with govt.

In the end, we'll see none of it since big govt. goose steppers, on both sides of the aisle, are about securing their preferred spending binges rather than their sworn enemies.

One more wasted vote from over here and then I resign politically and leave everyone to it.

[MeOmYo]

most people with/making millions are not going to reinvest. they know the economic situation and they are going to keep their $$ close. low overhead returns is what they're looking for and unfortunately, this often benefits some 3rd world country more than us.

[Joker]

I'm just going to make my transition to Mexico at some point and die a happy death on the beach down there...

Wastin away again in margaritaville
Searching for my lost shaker of salt
Some people claim that there's a Senate to blame
But I know it's my own damn fault
Yes and some people claim that there's a Congress to blame
And I know it's my own damn fault

[freerange]

in favour of the jimmy buffet rule
several reasons: the jimmy buffet rule suggests the chicago school of economics is bunk
: the jimmy buffet rule steps forward to attempt to help not hinder the majority of americans
: the jimmy buffet rule attempts to equalize offshore hidden wealth

[PeaceFrog]

Well, it's a lie to say that Government doesn't create jobs... a big lie.

back it up? why should I. it's obvious to me but ok I will... schools, jails, police officers, judges, politicians, mailmen, etc. etc. etc I could go on and on.

[vic]

Well, it's a lie to say that Government doesn't create jobs... a big lie. back it up? why should I. it's obvious to me but ok I will... schools, jails, police officers, judges, politicians, mailmen, etc. etc. etc I could go on and on.

and none of them should have unions

i don't give a fuck about economics, so i'll let y'all fight that out, and read in interest of learning something

i care about labor and people

[syd_25]

Well, it's a lie to say that Government doesn't create jobs... a big lie. back it up? why should I. it's obvious to me but ok I will... schools, jails, police officers, judges, politicians, mailmen, etc. etc. etc I could go on and on.

You had me until "politicians".

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, and government requires taxation off private sector wealth to pay public sector employees. So it isn't a lie, derp, it's the cold hard facts. OR, why not everyone be on the government payroll? How will that work out? Maybe the government should take over all businesses, the means of production, etc, and we can have a redo on failed attempts at this in histories past. It doesn't work. Not to mention, jails have been divied out more to private enterprise at this point. So fail there. Police officers are paid for by state and local taxation, not federal taxation. Fail again. USPS is a failing enterprise being beaten out by its private sector competition. Fail. Judges and politicians are all paid for with tax payer money. So fail again.

We've been over this ad nauseum.

[PeaceFrog]

yeah we've been over this, and as usual you spiral off into some tyrannical oblivion instead of admitting that we need a government.

You call me a socialist, I call you an anarchist, and there is a stale-mate which conservatives love, because stale-mate means they're still winning.

[TakeAStepBack]

and none of them should have unions i don't give a fuck about economics, so i'll let y'all fight that out, and read in interest of learning something i care about labor and people

Clearly you do not care. Which is why you keep saying ridiculous things like a "volunteer economic system". Whatever that is suppose to mean. People and labor are the make up of economics. Without people adn without labor there is no capital, no wealth, no increase in technology, living standards, means of production or any economy at all.. It is no wonder this country is in the shitter. People truly do not take out the time to figure out how any of it works. Grab a soundbite and run around shitting on cars and dumping piss/poop vats in stairways. It's over.

[vic]

hi. i don't support corporate anarchy. that is all.

[TakeAStepBack]

No one said anything about "no government". That is a really nice strawman you have there. Hey! Look! A red herring is on its head. That looks swell.

[PeaceFrog]

Politician is a job, which is why it's ultra-ironic when a politician says government doesn't create jobs. The government created their job.

Wah, I don't want to pay taxes, but I don't like vats of shit being dumped in public either, wah.

[TakeAStepBack]

hi. i don't support corporate anarchy. that is all.

That's a nice soundbite.

[TakeAStepBack]

Politician is a PUBLIC SERVANT, not a job. At any rate, the asylum doors were left open again, gotta go.

[PeaceFrog]

No one said anything about "no government". That is a really nice strawman you have there. Hey! Look! A red herring is on its head. That looks swell.

How can you have a government if you don't make people pay taxes?

Voluntary taxes?

[PeaceFrog]

public servant is not a job?

sorry, I didn't realize you were switching back to your libertarian cult lingo. In the real world public servants are paid to do a job.

[vic]

No one said anything about "no government". That is a really nice strawman you have there. Hey! Look! A red herring is on its head. That looks swell.

you tapdance around it

the thought of letting big business run amok the way you suggest is pure lunacy. to think that businesses would fail based on ethics is simply false. people don't work that way, or it would have happened already. guess what? wal-mart is doing just fine. so is mcdonalds. so is monsanto. so is nike. etc etc...why haven't those businesses failed based on public perception?

[PeaceFrog]

yeah all those companies would just disappear if Ron Paul got elected and we could all hang a welcome sign on our front doors selling whatever goods we wanted. It would be perfect... then we could ride off on our rainbow powered unicorns.

[TakeAStepBack]

The "way I suggest?"

And what way is that, vic?

[TakeAStepBack]

Frankly, you aren't even equipped to have this debate, vic. Grab a soundbite, fling it around. Besides, you don't care about economics, remember?

[PeaceFrog]

thing is I've barely scratched the surface of the amount of jobs the government creates. There's national parks, libraries, public transportation, national security, national defense, all the many clerical jobs associated with all the above... all the construction involved in building and maintaining it all... oh yeah national infrastructure (roads and bridges)... I might be repeating myself but really the more I think about it the longer the list becomes... the space program... see?

[TakeAStepBack]

And it got the money for all of those things from where? Out of thin air? Today, yes. Which is the whole problem of the deficit/debt that can not be sustained and will lead to a massive systemic collapse. .

But again, I'm not entertaining this. This thread is about the Buffett rule, not people's uncanny ability to no nothing about what they speak and say thousands of words anyway.

[TakeAStepBack]

[vic]

The "way I suggest?" And what way is that, vic?

yes...you want no rules or regulations for companies...no "handouts"...where do you want government to exist?

basically calling everyone out who disagrees with you to be idiots and giving snarky remarks doesn't really make people interested, btw

[TakeAStepBack]

I said nothing of the sort. The governments job is to protect the rights and property of the citizens. We have rules and they need to be enforced, which is the problem. Regulations that foster statesponsored monopolies are not good, they are worse than none at all. Regulations should be in place as per the constitution and the law of the land to protect rights and property. We have far reaching and more pervasive regulations and subsidies that do more harm than good economically for rights/property. I never said, no government, no rules. You'll continue to get snarky ass remarks if you keep making them yurself and then laughing about them. I don't really have an interest in this sort of "debate". Making shit up that I never said, twisting things around and a general lack of understanding of how an economic system, along with how our government is designed to work, makes for lousy discussion.

[TakeAStepBack]

[vic]

<sup>i'm not making shit up that you didn't say, i'm interpreting it that way

i see complete deregulation as corporate anarchy...i'd like to know how that is a false interpretation</sup>

[vic]

also, what does your view of how things should be do to help the poor?

[TakeAStepBack]

^{i'm not making shit up that you didn't say, i'm interpreting it that way i see complete deregulation as corporate anarchy...i'd like to know how that is a false interpretation}

That strawman has a red herring on its head and is squawking out soundbites. Deregulation does not mean what you think it means. Further, "complete" deregulation would be an improvement to the current system which is so completely soaking, we see fairly few new businesses at all in any sector of our economy.

also, what does your view of how things should be do to help the poor?

Offer them an opportunity to get out of poverty via a healthy economy instead of doing the democrat shuffle and preferring to keep them in poverty with a hand out so they can stay there and keep voting democrat...feeding the hand that holds you down, as it were.

[PeaceFrog]

And it got the money for all of those things from where? Out of thin air? Today, yes. Which is the whole problem of the deficit/debt that can not be sustained and will lead to a massive systemic collapse. . But again, I'm not entertaining this. This thread is about the Buffett rule, not people's uncanny ability to no nothing about what they speak and say thousands of words anyway.

yes, the buffett rule which increases revenue needed in order for the government to operate.

You're the one that needed the remedial explanation of what government does and why we need to pay taxes. I'm not the one claiming that government doesn't create any jobs or do anything productive, you are.

[TakeAStepBack]

So the money comes from where?

[TakeAStepBack]

Here is your dream. Embrace it and please, for the love of us all, watch all of it and dispute it with facts. Lets ee it. I'm tired of you progressives jargon.

[freerange]

i watched that it was interesting and depressing
i have noticed local economies even more left wing that are far more successful when they have more than one industry and less population.
rust belt cities who actively diversify before the market lull have been able to function far more successfully
as far as corruption goes, that is not the sole domain of the left wing
detroit seems to be a victim of crime in this regard
it's size made it very unweildly for leftist social engineering i will easily surrender that point to the documenter
he is on a mission to discredit leftists rather than chart detoits sad defeat

[PeaceFrog]

So the money comes from where?

what money comes from where? What is that supposed to mean?

All money comes from the same place which is the Department of the Treasury. More specifically, the US Mint which then passes it on to the Federal Reserve.

Are you going somewhere with this question?

[PeaceFrog]

There wouldn't even be a single currency across the United States if it wasn't for the Federal Government.

Printing currency is another sector of jobs created by the government.

[TakeAStepBack]