• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

j-mac said:
Yep, and the American people would have seen the true cost of unions in this country. But I've got news for you, had that happened, and demand was still there for other American cars, another company would have risen to fill the demand...That is how the free market system works.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well it would have been how union busting works... and that apparently would make some here very very happy.
 
j-mac said:
More crystal ball predictions? Come on man, you can not say that absolute confidence. TARP was initially given to the banks, and how much of that money was released back into the economy? Very little from what we have been told. Then it was used to Buy GM and Chrysler for the unions....We got screwed on that one. Now instead of paying it back Obama has kept the money as a slush fund to pay off his supporters....Bush was wrong to enact it, and Obama was criminal to steal the money.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, you are just stating the obvious when you talk about "crystal ball predictions." We can only guess what would have happened if things had been done differently. You do exactly the same thing when you criticize Obama.

Most of the TARP money has already been repaid. If we hadn't passed TARP it is very likely that all of the major banks in this country would have failed. That, in turn, would have caused thousands of medium and small banks to fail. Most of the deposits in those banks are guaranteed by the FDIC, meaning that the government would have been on the hook anyway. For better or worse, businesses and the financial markets cannot function without a banking system. Thus, I can only conclude that it would have been an epic disaster if TARP hadn't been passed.
 
Conservative said:
No, that is an opinion, you believe that had GM/Chrysler failed completely that there wouldn't have been someone to come in and take over the company. Hundreds of thousands out of work? We have over 24 million out of work or under employed today. Doubt that those GM/Chrysler workers would have been out of work long. Where is your concern for the 24 million unemployed or under employed now due to Obama policies.
Click to expand...

It was very obvious that no one was going to purchase GM or Chrysler as a going concern. And it's purest fantasy to imagine that anyone would start up an enormous enterprise like an auto company at the height of a massive recession. How many new, American, large scale auto companies have been created in the last 75 years? Exactly zero.
 
haymarket said:
Well it would have been how union busting works... and that apparently would make some here very very happy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. So unions causing the companies that they bleed to fail under the weight of unsustainable union contracts would have some how been union busting? Wow, that is a magical world you live in hay.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
It was very obvious that no one was going to purchase GM or Chrysler as a going concern. And it's purest fantasy to imagine that anyone would start up an enormous enterprise like an auto company at the height of a massive recession. How many new, American, large scale auto companies have been created in the last 75 years? Exactly zero.
Click to expand...

how many have been squashed due to skirting the monopoly laws, and collusion? And how many does one country need?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
how many have been squashed due to skirting the monopoly laws, and collusion? And how many does one country need?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I can't answer the first questions. As to how many we need, the answer is, "as many as we can get."
 
j-mac said:
Nonsense. So unions causing the companies that they bleed to fail under the weight of unsustainable union contracts would have some how been union busting? Wow, that is a magical world you live in hay.

j-mac
Click to expand...

How is it you blame unions for both the contracts and the over all ability of a corporation to offer products tht the consumer buys or does not buy?

The last time I looked not a single union member made the executive decisions that ran the car companies into difficulty - not one. But you hate unions so they are your favorite whipping boy and scapegoat for all the nations ills.
 
haymarket said:
How is it you blame unions for both the contracts and the over all ability of a corporation to offer products tht the consumer buys or does not buy?

The last time I looked not a single union member made the executive decisions that ran the car companies into difficulty - not one. But you hate unions so they are your favorite whipping boy and scapegoat for all the nations ills.
Click to expand...

It is actually fun to read the two extremes come up with ludicrous statements. While it is true that the auto co. executives did a horrible job for decades it is also true that the unions and their employees pushed for contracts that made no long term economic sense, either for the companies or the employees themselves.
 
washunut said:
It is actually fun to read the two extremes come up with ludicrous statements. While it is true that the auto co. executives did a horrible job for decades it is also true that the unions and their employees pushed for contracts that made no long term economic sense, either for the companies or the employees themselves.
Click to expand...

It's also true that the companies agreed to those contracts, and in fact pushed the very changes that you're complaining about. It was the companies who wanted to keep down salaries, so instead they kicked the can down the road (phrase of the year) and negotiated relatively modest pay hikes but very generous medical and pension benefits that would hit future management.
 
washunut said:
It is actually fun to read the two extremes come up with ludicrous statements. While it is true that the auto co. executives did a horrible job for decades it is also true that the unions and their employees pushed for contracts that made no long term economic sense, either for the companies or the employees themselves.
Click to expand...

Apparently the executives who run the companies felt the contracts they negotiated were indeed in the best interests of the company and they could make money within them or they would not have negotiated them or singed them.

Or am I mistaken that they participated freely in that process?
 
Taylor said:
LOL -- are you being serious? We're on track to increase the debt something like 10 trillion over the next decade and you're whining about this being something significant?
Click to expand...

It's a lot of little things and letting them slide, to cut fat and waste out of the budget you have to consider that cost to the taxpayers and that is just on one expense and for one day. How can you gloss over a 1.7B expense that could have been easily avoided?
 
Taylor said:
LOL -- are you being serious? We're on track to increase the debt something like 10 trillion over the next decade and you're whining about this being something significant?
Click to expand...

It's all the little things - this here, that there - this over there .. . added together that equal such a large amount in the end. Like the grocery bill - nothing I buy is over $5.00 - but I still spend $200 each time I buy food for the family.

Quantity - things add up pretty quickly.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's all the little things - this here, that there - this over there .. . added together that equal such a large amount in the end. Like the grocery bill - nothing I buy is over $5.00 - but I still spend $200 each time I buy food for the family.

Quantity - things add up pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

So tax cuts would help you?
 
AdamT said:
Not if the goal is to lower the deficit.
Click to expand...

The way to lower the deficit is to cut spending but you know that. Tell me how you justify record spending of 3.7 trillion a year and generating these kind of results?
 
The way to lower the deficit is to cut spending
Click to expand...

The way to lower the deficit is to cut spending and raise taxes. When you cut tax you INCREASE the deficit -- assuming you don't pass equal or greater spending cuts.

Tell me how you justify record spending of 3.7 trillion a year and generating these kind of results?
Click to expand...

I don't justify it. We should have spent more in stimulus to achieve better results.
 
AdamT said:
The way to lower the deficit is to cut spending and raise taxes. When you cut tax you INCREASE the deficit -- assuming you don't pass equal or greater spending cuts.



I don't justify it. We should have spent more in stimulus to achieve better results.
Click to expand...

I can see you never ran a business. How does increasing taxes put 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work full time? Do you spend more money when your take home pay is reduced? Think about it? Looks like liberal brainwashing to me. don't worry, you will grow out of it, I did
 
Conservative said:
So tax cuts would help you?
Click to expand...

Why do you always respond like that... no, what she said had nothing to do with taxes. what she said was pretty clear... lol
 
SheWolf said:
Why do you always respond like that... no, what she said had nothing to do with taxes. what she said was pretty clear... lol
Click to expand...

But you were talking about the cost of groceries which of course you have to pay for with spendable income. Tax cuts certainly improve your spendable income, don't they?
 
Conservative said:
I can see you never ran a business. How does increasing taxes put 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work full time? Do you spend more money when your take home pay is reduced? Think about it? Looks like liberal brainwashing to me. don't worry, you will grow out of it, I did
Click to expand...


If Obama just hadn't raised cigarette taxes we'd be hiring people to pave the roads with gold.



:lamo
 
winston53660 said:
If Obama just hadn't raised cigarette taxes we'd be hiring people to pave the roads with gold.



:lamo
Click to expand...

Why should taxes on cigarettes pay for roads? Excise taxes on gasoline pay for the highway system or at least that was the intent before the politicians put that money on budget and spent it just like they did with yours and my SS "contributions."
 
Conservative said:
How does increasing taxes put 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work full time?
Click to expand...

Raising taxes doesn't put people to work: spending does. But we can't spend if we don't collect taxes. See how that works? So we should be borrowing to spend more NOW, and then raise taxes and spend less LATER when the economy is on a solid footing. It's not rocket science.

Do you spend more money when your take home pay is reduced?
Click to expand...

Well that depends, doesn't it? If you make $40k a year and that's reduced then it would likely affect what you spend. On the other hand, if you make $400 million a year, and that's reduced by 3%, it's probably not going to affect your spending one bit.
 
Conservative said:
Why should taxes on cigarettes pay for roads? Excise taxes on gasoline pay for the highway system or at least that was the intent before the politicians put that money on budget and spent it just like they did with yours and my SS "contributions."
Click to expand...


epic-fail.jpg
pencil.png
 
AdamT;1059709918]Raising taxes doesn't put people to work: spending does. But we can't spend if we don't collect taxes. See how that works? So we should be borrowing to spend more NOW, and then raise taxes and spend less LATER when the economy is on a solid footing. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You sure do have a lot of faith in the Federal govt. but very little knowledge of the components of GDP. A growing GDP 2/3 of which is consumer spending is dependent on the consumer, not the Federal govt. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn has a greater affect on the economy than govt. spending which is short term and always causes debt. When the govt. spends money, where do they get it? Taking money from you so they can turn around and spend it "on you" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


Well that depends, doesn't it? If you make $40k a year and that's reduced then it would likely affect what you spend. On the other hand, if you make $400 million a year, and that's reduced by 3%, it's probably not going to affect your spending one bit.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, those evil rich people employ people, yard people, house keepers, gardeners, etc. and they will be the first to go with tax hikes. Small businesses in that evil rich category will pass on costs to people like you. It doesn't appear to me that you understand basic economics and consumer behavior. Right now 47% of income earners, all under 50,000 a year pay zero in FIT, 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans are paying very little in FIT now so you have over 80 million Americans capable of paying taxes that aren't paying anything yet you want to raise the taxes on the rich? Do you realize that will generate about 80 billion a year and we have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit?
 
Raising taxes doesn't put people to work: spending does. But we can't spend if we don't collect taxes. See how that works? So we should be borrowing to spend more NOW, and then raise taxes and spend less LATER when the economy is on a solid footing. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You sure do have a lot of faith in the Federal govt. but very little knowledge of the components of GDP. A growing GDP 2/3 of which is consumer spending is dependent on the consumer, not the Federal govt. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn has a greater affect on the economy than govt. spending which is short term and always causes debt. When the govt. spends money, where do they get it? Taking money from you so they can turn around and spend it "on you" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Click to expand...

You seem to think you know a lot more than you actually know. The truth is that economists have studied these things and it's clear that tax cuts are among the least efficient means of stimulating the economy. That is true for the fairly obvious reason that many people who receive a tax cut will not put the money back into the economy. A number of people will put the money in a savings account. Others will pay down debt. Laudable things to do, for sure, but not the inetent of stimulus.

Well that depends, doesn't it? If you make $40k a year and that's reduced then it would likely affect what you spend. On the other hand, if you make $400 million a year, and that's reduced by 3%, it's probably not going to affect your spending one bit.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, those evil rich people employ people, yard people, house keepers, gardeners, etc. and they will be the first to go with tax hikes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is my opinion that if you raise someone who makes $400 million a years taxes by 3%, that person is not going to start cutting his own lawn and cleaning his own toilets because of the additional tax burden. If you think that's not true then you aren't thinking rationally.

See, here' the deal: we have a choice to raise taxes on someone who has virtually no disposable income, or we can raise taxes on someone who has a sh*t-ton of disposable income. Seems like kind of a no brainer to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom