GOP hurting economic recovery....

cincybearcat

whygohome wrote:

whygohome wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep if 2 guys say it, it must be true.

I never said it was the Truth, asshole.

Instead of using that weak smiley, I wish you would laugh in my face like that.

Stupid comments on my part. I apologize to all, especially "cincy." I think we are all a little stressed out these days, some more than others.
But, the smoke did help me chill a bit, as it always does! And the Dogfish will taste so good.

That dogfish will taste awesome!!!

Anyhow, your friends opinions on the financial areas (specifically about their own job's value) were very interesting. So thanks for that part.

Really, I think the ones hurting the economy are all of the politicians, not just the GOP. Although, it would be nice to see the current GOP leadership work with the president on this jobs bill. I'm not opposed to some tax increases, but I think they should be targeted more specifically, and I certainly don't think a family with a combined income of $250,000 = "millionaires and billionaires" as Obama does. You tax those people and they still feel it.... and they scale back their buying... and you hurt the economy. Just my 2 cents.

whygohome

cincybearcat wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Stupid comments on my part. I apologize to all, especially "cincy." I think we are all a little stressed out these days, some more than others.
But, the smoke did help me chill a bit, as it always does! And the Dogfish will taste so good.

That dogfish will taste awesome!!!

Anyhow, your friends opinions on the financial areas (specifically about their own job's value) were very interesting. So thanks for that part.

Really, I think the ones hurting the economy are all of the politicians, not just the GOP.
Although, it would be nice to see the current GOP leadership work with the president on this jobs bill. I'm not opposed to some tax increases, but I think they should be targeted more specifically, and I certainly don't think a family with a combined income of $250,000 = "millionaires and billionaires" as Obama does.

You tax those people and they still feel it.... and they scale back their buying... and you hurt the economy. Just my 2 cents.

Yes. All Pols deserve some blame. And yes, we can raise it to 500K or maybe more

And if we run into each other at a show, the Dogfish is one me. I will recognize you by your Boomer Esiason jersey

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not saying I don't believe you, but could you elaborate about the points they made in bold. I am interested in a discussion, not trying to antagonize.

I will try my best. They are the ones with the deep financial, economic knowledge; I am just a lowly English teacher.

1. They cite the fact that CEO pay is up (in a recession) and the fact that the market was experiencing a turnaround in April of this year--it peaked at roughly 12,800. They acknowledge that the rich and the corporate will begin to do better coming out of a recession more quickly than the middle class or Main Street, but they unfortunately see this trend not happening in the current situation. Many companies are turning record profits, but are also laying off workers. They also see that Obama has conceded the fact that he needs to work with (pander in their words) to the corporate elite to have any type of economic improvement begin in this country. They feel that he has done that.

3. Well, they simply do not see any trickle down when the number of millionaires is increasing and the number of those living in poverty is increasing as well, along with a declining middle-class that has seen wage stagnation for decades. people work longer hours for lower pay. And, both parents are now doing the same. They see the trickle-down as maybe successful on the global scale, but not in this country. The same can be said for the job-creators. They are not creating jobs in the U.S., but instead creating jobs in (mostly) Asia and central America. They do fault NAFTA a bit.

5. There's not much more I can say about this. they don't see the point in middle and lower class, mostly blue-collar workers taking to the streets to protect the interests of the rich and the corporate, the same people who are selling out he U.S. to line their pockets an send jobs overseas. They see it as a giant contradiction. Why are those who will not be affected by tax increases, rallying against them? Why are those who would benefit form infrastructure projects, medicare, and SS, taking to the streets in opposition?

6. One friend says this (and I paraphrase because he has said this often): "I make over 100K a month sitting in front of a computer screen and I play a game. Nurses, teachers, fireman, soldiers, etc. don't see that in a year. Something is seriously wrong. I contribute absolutely nothing to society, so I have no problem paying a higher tax rate to fund education, infrastructure, medicare, SS, etc."
Another friend, at PJ20, said this 9again, I paraphrase): "I'm a smart guy. I graduated #3 in our class, went to UPenn, and then went to work for the largest trading company in the country (Susquehanna), as a trader, then as a manager. I could have gone into the sciences, I could have been an engineer; I could have done something better to help people and to make a difference. But instead, I chose this because I love the markets and I love finance. I should give back; and I should give back to those who contribute to society, which is something I don't feel that I do"

Hope this helps.

That did, thanks. A little back up info is always nice.

1,3. CEO pay is up, companies are doing better, but why does anyone think that adding taxes is going to change the practices of MNC's? they are called that for a reason. The employees shouldn't be required to give more simply because they are successful. In fact, I would take it further and say I bet income tax revenue would increase if we took away tax loopholes and deductions and gave it a flat rate for everyone. But that doesn't seem to interest anyone.

5. Some people, believe it or not, do not want the government taking care of them. They feel that is in their best interest to be self sufficient and to never have to rely on the government for their every day needs. I am sure some are confused, and not sure why they support those types of policies, but I can tell you, I would rather live in a world of self sufficient people than live in a world where we all rely on a government program to survive. I am one of those people. I also think it is rather disingenious to call people who support that line of thinking as zombified, brainless hicks/fools who are rallying and voting against their best interests. Not one of those things applies to me. I truly believe the best thing someone can do for someone else is to teach them how to do things on your their own.

6. why do they need the government to take their money and give it to people? can they not figure out how to do that on their own?

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not saying I don't believe you, but could you elaborate about the points they made in bold. I am interested in a discussion, not trying to antagonize.

I will try my best. They are the ones with the deep financial, economic knowledge; I am just a lowly English teacher.

1. They cite the fact that CEO pay is up (in a recession) and the fact that the market was experiencing a turnaround in April of this year--it peaked at roughly 12,800. They acknowledge that the rich and the corporate will begin to do better coming out of a recession more quickly than the middle class or Main Street, but they unfortunately see this trend not happening in the current situation. Many companies are turning record profits, but are also laying off workers. They also see that Obama has conceded the fact that he needs to work with (pander in their words) to the corporate elite to have any type of economic improvement begin in this country. They feel that he has done that.

3. Well, they simply do not see any trickle down when the number of millionaires is increasing and the number of those living in poverty is increasing as well, along with a declining middle-class that has seen wage stagnation for decades. people work longer hours for lower pay. And, both parents are now doing the same. They see the trickle-down as maybe successful on the global scale, but not in this country. The same can be said for the job-creators. They are not creating jobs in the U.S., but instead creating jobs in (mostly) Asia and central America. They do fault NAFTA a bit.

5. There's not much more I can say about this. they don't see the point in middle and lower class, mostly blue-collar workers taking to the streets to protect the interests of the rich and the corporate, the same people who are selling out he U.S. to line their pockets an send jobs overseas. They see it as a giant contradiction. Why are those who will not be affected by tax increases, rallying against them? Why are those who would benefit form infrastructure projects, medicare, and SS, taking to the streets in opposition?

6. One friend says this (and I paraphrase because he has said this often): "I make over 100K a month sitting in front of a computer screen and I play a game. Nurses, teachers, fireman, soldiers, etc. don't see that in a year. Something is seriously wrong. I contribute absolutely nothing to society, so I have no problem paying a higher tax rate to fund education, infrastructure, medicare, SS, etc."
Another friend, at PJ20, said this 9again, I paraphrase): "I'm a smart guy. I graduated #3 in our class, went to UPenn, and then went to work for the largest trading company in the country (Susquehanna), as a trader, then as a manager. I could have gone into the sciences, I could have been an engineer; I could have done something better to help people and to make a difference. But instead, I chose this because I love the markets and I love finance. I should give back; and I should give back to those who contribute to society, which is something I don't feel that I do"

Hope this helps.

That did, thanks. A little back up info is always nice.

1,3. CEO pay is up, companies are doing better, but why does anyone think that adding taxes is going to change the practices of MNC's? they are called that for a reason. The employees shouldn't be required to give more simply because they are successful. In fact, I would take it further and say I bet income tax revenue would increase if we took away tax loopholes and deductions and gave it a flat rate for everyone. But that doesn't seem to interest anyone.

5. Some people, believe it or not, do not want the government taking care of them. They feel that is in their best interest to be self sufficient and to never have to rely on the government for their every day needs. I am sure some are confused, and not sure why they support those types of policies, but I can tell you, I would rather live in a world of self sufficient people than live in a world where we all rely on a government program to survive. I am one of those people. I also think it is rather disingenious to call people who support that line of thinking as zombified, brainless hicks/fools who are rallying and voting against their best interests. Not one of those things applies to me. I truly believe the best thing someone can do for someone else is to teach them how to do things on your their own.

6. why do they need the government to take their money and give it to people? can they not figure out how to do that on their own?

1, 3. Closing loopholes is synonymous with increasing tax revenues in our conversations. I should have clarified that. I, and they, do not feel a flat rate is a good option. it effects the poor much more than it does the rich. There is an imbalance there. It isn't always the individuals fault that what they chose to do in life does not pay well. Also, in this society, those who are paid the best, aren't the ones who provide importance services to society.

5. I don't think they see it as people simply not wanting gov't to take care of them. And, I agree, I too would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient people, but this society unfortunately is not structured that way. Gov't programs help many people in this country--the large majority I would say. I don't feel that SS, medicare, etc are any indication of the threat of falling into an Orwellian nightmare. I, and they, feel that this isn't a threat at all. And, I have no problem with people not having health insurance or opting out of SS. I don't think it is the best plan, but if someone wants to, then so be it.
And yes, calling these people names is uncalled for. They both simply seem to dislike the platform of the Tea Party and they simply feel that they do not have their own best interests in mind. I am doing some volunteer work--flood cleanup--where I live this weekend, but I still might go to a Tea Party rally tomorrow. i want some firsthand experience. I hope I have time.

6.They donate to charities. I know both also gave $$ to Haiti and Japan. They give money to homeless shelters and the ASPCA and Humane society. As far as infrastructure projects and Medicare, this money is funneled through the gov't. They can't do this on their own. I would love to see an Infrastructure Bank where private and public donations are possible.

Time for lunch!! Finally!

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

That did, thanks. A little back up info is always nice.

1,3. CEO pay is up, companies are doing better, but why does anyone think that adding taxes is going to change the practices of MNC's? they are called that for a reason. The employees shouldn't be required to give more simply because they are successful. In fact, I would take it further and say I bet income tax revenue would increase if we took away tax loopholes and deductions and gave it a flat rate for everyone. But that doesn't seem to interest anyone.

5. Some people, believe it or not, do not want the government taking care of them. They feel that is in their best interest to be self sufficient and to never have to rely on the government for their every day needs. I am sure some are confused, and not sure why they support those types of policies, but I can tell you, I would rather live in a world of self sufficient people than live in a world where we all rely on a government program to survive. I am one of those people. I also think it is rather disingenious to call people who support that line of thinking as zombified, brainless hicks/fools who are rallying and voting against their best interests. Not one of those things applies to me. I truly believe the best thing someone can do for someone else is to teach them how to do things on your their own.

6. why do they need the government to take their money and give it to people? can they not figure out how to do that on their own?

1, 3. Closing loopholes is synonymous with increasing tax revenues in our conversations. I should have clarified that. I, and they, do not feel a flat rate is a good option. it effects the poor much more than it does the rich. There is an imbalance there. It isn't always the individuals fault that what they chose to do in life does not pay well. Also, in this society, those who are paid the best, aren't the ones who provide importance services to society.

5. I don't think they see it as people simply not wanting gov't to take care of them. And, I agree, I too would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient people, but this society unfortunately is not structured that way. Gov't programs help many people in this country--the large majority I would say. I don't feel that SS, medicare, etc are any indication of the threat of falling into an Orwellian nightmare. I, and they, feel that this isn't a threat at all. And, I have no problem with people not having health insurance or opting out of SS. I don't think it is the best plan, but if someone wants to, then so be it.
And yes, calling these people names is uncalled for. They both simply seem to dislike the platform of the Tea Party and they simply feel that they do not have their own best interests in mind. I am doing some volunteer work--flood cleanup--where I live this weekend, but I still might go to a Tea Party rally tomorrow. i want some firsthand experience. I hope I have time.

6.They donate to charities. I know both also gave $$ to Haiti and Japan. They give money to homeless shelters and the ASPCA and Humane society. As far as infrastructure projects and Medicare, this money is funneled through the gov't. They can't do this on their own. I would love to see an Infrastructure Bank where private and public donations are possible.

Time for lunch!! Finally!

1.3 I think a flat tax is the fairest of all methods other than a simple VAT. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. The rich still pay more. Simply closing loopholes won't necessarily increase revenue. Confiscating half of everyone's wealth would increase revenues, doesn't mean it would be a reliable sustainable practice. And you are right, it isn't always someone's fault that what they do in life may not pay the most. But without a doubt if someone chooses to do something, it is their fault they don't make a lot of money. It was their choice, who would be at fault in that situation? If someone chooses to be a teacher and they are shocked by how much they make, they are either too stupid to teach my child, or were to clueless to pick a career that made more money if that was what was important to them. The state of MN pays about half its budget to education, yet we fall yearly in terms of effectiveness.
The idea that the government simply doesn't have enough to spend is strange to me. The idea that the government needs more revenue is strange. They (feds) get nearly 850 billion in income taxes a year, and 2 times that much in other revenue. Trillions of dollars. There is plenty to take care of everyone in that amount; they don't need more. That is enough to literally give everyone ~6000 dollars. Are you telling me there isn't enough as it is now to sustain the country? Of course it is. But going into debt, devaluing our currency, incomplete programs based purely on politics, these things hurt more than they help. So we are left with a jaded population full of class warfare from all directions, and a government that nearly shut down because they could not function with the idea they couldn't borrow anymore. what happens when they really cannot borrow anymore?
it isn't really about an Orwellian threat. It is about people choosing their future. The program of social security falls apart if you let people opt out. The disabled should be protected by something else, and there should be an opt in, not opt out, program if you so choose for social security.
This idea that no one will be taken care of because these programs don't exist is short-sided and really does underestimate the American people. Many feel it is our obligation to take care of each other(including Ron Paul), human to human, but it isn't the governments job to decide, or to take from someone else to make those things happen. Keep in mind we have had social safety net programs for a very long time, with the great society programs adding to it, and what do we have today, more and more people who cannot take care of themselves on their own. Some want to blame this on the rich trying to get richer, some want to blame it on the people themselves for being in that situation, the real answer lies somewhere in between. So if we cannot nail down the cause, how can we spend in a way that is best for everyone?

I think ultimately many conservatives and many liberals want the same ends, just will never agree on the means...sad really.

kind of rambled there, trying to do this and work at the same time. hope it made sense

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

That did, thanks. A little back up info is always nice.

1,3. CEO pay is up, companies are doing better, but why does anyone think that adding taxes is going to change the practices of MNC's? they are called that for a reason. The employees shouldn't be required to give more simply because they are successful. In fact, I would take it further and say I bet income tax revenue would increase if we took away tax loopholes and deductions and gave it a flat rate for everyone. But that doesn't seem to interest anyone.

5. Some people, believe it or not, do not want the government taking care of them. They feel that is in their best interest to be self sufficient and to never have to rely on the government for their every day needs. I am sure some are confused, and not sure why they support those types of policies, but I can tell you, I would rather live in a world of self sufficient people than live in a world where we all rely on a government program to survive. I am one of those people. I also think it is rather disingenious to call people who support that line of thinking as zombified, brainless hicks/fools who are rallying and voting against their best interests. Not one of those things applies to me. I truly believe the best thing someone can do for someone else is to teach them how to do things on your their own.

6. why do they need the government to take their money and give it to people? can they not figure out how to do that on their own?

1, 3. Closing loopholes is synonymous with increasing tax revenues in our conversations. I should have clarified that. I, and they, do not feel a flat rate is a good option. it effects the poor much more than it does the rich. There is an imbalance there. It isn't always the individuals fault that what they chose to do in life does not pay well. Also, in this society, those who are paid the best, aren't the ones who provide importance services to society.

5. I don't think they see it as people simply not wanting gov't to take care of them. And, I agree, I too would rather live in a nation of self-sufficient people, but this society unfortunately is not structured that way. Gov't programs help many people in this country--the large majority I would say. I don't feel that SS, medicare, etc are any indication of the threat of falling into an Orwellian nightmare. I, and they, feel that this isn't a threat at all. And, I have no problem with people not having health insurance or opting out of SS. I don't think it is the best plan, but if someone wants to, then so be it.
And yes, calling these people names is uncalled for. They both simply seem to dislike the platform of the Tea Party and they simply feel that they do not have their own best interests in mind. I am doing some volunteer work--flood cleanup--where I live this weekend, but I still might go to a Tea Party rally tomorrow. i want some firsthand experience. I hope I have time.

6.They donate to charities. I know both also gave $$ to Haiti and Japan. They give money to homeless shelters and the ASPCA and Humane society. As far as infrastructure projects and Medicare, this money is funneled through the gov't. They can't do this on their own. I would love to see an Infrastructure Bank where private and public donations are possible.

Time for lunch!! Finally!

1.3 I think a flat tax is the fairest of all methods other than a simple VAT. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. The rich still pay more. Simply closing loopholes won't necessarily increase revenue. Confiscating half of everyone's wealth would increase revenues, doesn't mean it would be a reliable sustainable practice. And you are right, it isn't always someone's fault that what they do in life may not pay the most. But without a doubt if someone chooses to do something, it is their fault they don't make a lot of money. It was their choice, who would be at fault in that situation? If someone chooses to be a teacher and they are shocked by how much they make, they are either too stupid to teach my child, or were to clueless to pick a career that made more money if that was what was important to them. The state of MN pays about half its budget to education, yet we fall yearly in terms of effectiveness.
The idea that the government simply doesn't have enough to spend is strange to me. The idea that the government needs more revenue is strange. They (feds) get nearly 850 billion in income taxes a year, and 2 times that much in other revenue. Trillions of dollars. There is plenty to take care of everyone in that amount; they don't need more. That is enough to literally give everyone ~6000 dollars. Are you telling me there isn't enough as it is now to sustain the country? Of course it is. But going into debt, devaluing our currency, incomplete programs based purely on politics, these things hurt more than they help. So we are left with a jaded population full of class warfare from all directions, and a government that nearly shut down because they could not function with the idea they couldn't borrow anymore. what happens when they really cannot borrow anymore?
it isn't really about an Orwellian threat. It is about people choosing their future. The program of social security falls apart if you let people opt out. The disabled should be protected by something else, and there should be an opt in, not opt out, program if you so choose for social security.
This idea that no one will be taken care of because these programs don't exist is short-sided and really does underestimate the American people. Many feel it is our obligation to take care of each other(including Ron Paul), human to human, but it isn't the governments job to decide, or to take from someone else to make those things happen. Keep in mind we have had social safety net programs for a very long time, with the great society programs adding to it, and what do we have today, more and more people who cannot take care of themselves on their own. Some want to blame this on the rich trying to get richer, some want to blame it on the people themselves for being in that situation, the real answer lies somewhere in between. So if we cannot nail down the cause, how can we spend in a way that is best for everyone?

I think ultimately many conservatives and many liberals want the same ends, just will never agree on the means...sad really.

kind of rambled there, trying to do this and work at the same time. hope it made sense

It does make sense. I would indicate where I agree and disagree, but I would rather leave it as it is, since this is my last post for a while (again). And I know that this is not a good way to go out (the anti-Costanza exit), but it is what it is. I only came on here to grab a picture from the Friday of PJ20 weekend to send to a friend.

....and to all, a good night