Page 69 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #681
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Zyphlin

    I wouldn't accept just an agreement either. But, written into the law, enacted, with the increase at the same time seems quite proper.

    You might also understand spending largely comes from us, the people. We demand services and actions. What do you think would have happened to congress had they not passed any stimulus?

    Taxes, espeically target tax increases, won't really be felt or noticed int he economy. They would only bring in ore revenue. Going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, for example, would not be noticed in any real way.

    You and I closer than Conservative and me, but compromise may be a way away yet.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #682
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'd give you this...

    Give me a 2:1 ratio in cuts to increased tax revenue...
    So you think that the Republicans have been absolutely unreasonable in their debt negotiations so far, give that Democrats have offered plans with as much as 6:1 cuts/revenue?

    Democrats Offer Significant Concessions — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

  3. #683
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You might also understand spending largely comes from us, the people. We demand services and actions. What do you think would have happened to congress had they not passed any stimulus?
    This is why we don't have a direct democracy. The individual citizens can't be in charge of the purse strings. Basic human nature is one where you look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. Basic human nature is that if you can get things given to you that betters your lot in life and do so without cost to you, you'll do it. Which is what "taxing the rich to demand services and action" basically is..its finding a way for you to better yourself without you actually having to pay for it.

    Just like parents don't give their Children cookies at will and allow them to play xbox every moment of their free time, Congress shouldn't be just giving the people whatever free services or actions they want simply because they want it.

    Taxes, espeically target tax increases, won't really be felt or noticed int he economy. They would only bring in ore revenue. Going back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, for example, would not be noticed in any real way.
    That's nothing but a guess however, and one I don't necessarily agree with (And neither did Obama in December).

  4. #684
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    So you think that the Republicans have been absolutely unreasonable in their debt negotiations so far, give that Democrats have offered plans with as much as 6:1 cuts/revenue?

    Democrats Offer Significant Concessions — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    1. The Democrats plans have largely been back loaded in cuts. IE, its not 6:1 spending vs revenue every year but rather that's the over all plans set up. As I noted in my previous post...that's bull****...as its enacting the full tax increase now while backloading "spending cuts" to between 5 and 10 years down the line when there's no garauntee those will actually happen.

    2. One of the large "cuts" is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, which is not really a cut as they are inevitably ending things anyways that are exceptions, not continued expenses. Would the honest alternative be that if we didn't pass the spending cuts Obama or the next President would just keep them going on forever and ever? No. This is like being out of your house due to it flooding and having to live in a hotel room for a few weeks, and convincing your wife to let you buy that new Motorcycle you want by saying "Honey, if you let me buy this new motorcycle then we'll move out of this hotel room and we'll save $100 a day!".

    3. Its not a "Cut", its a reduction of the amount that they'll increase the budget every year. That's not a CUT, that's a reduction in the amount of INCREASE.

    4. Also, as I've previously stated, if the bill doesn't have some mechanism that if the cuts DON'T occur the tax increase will be revoked then its rather useless as the tax increase goes on the board but then they just use some emergency spending or alternative bill to ramp the spending back up while leaving the tax on the board.

    5. I may be wrong, but this is again a plan where the increase in income tax burden would be on one group and one group alone. If you're going to increase taxes, everyone should feel it to some extent to remove the notion of "free money". It can be progressive, but it should be felt by all if its going to occur.

  5. #685
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    [QUOTE=Zyphlin;1059987266]
    This is why we don't have a direct democracy. The individual citizens can't be in charge of the purse strings. Basic human nature is one where you look out for yourself and your loved ones first and foremost. Basic human nature is that if you can get things given to you that betters your lot in life and do so without cost to you, you'll do it. Which is what "taxing the rich to demand services and action" basically is..its finding a way for you to better yourself without you actually having to pay for it.

    Just like parents don't give their Children cookies at will and allow them to play xbox every moment of their free time, Congress shouldn't be just giving the people whatever free services or actions they want simply because they want it.
    But people are paying a larger role today. Policiticans keep constant regard for polls, and they reacted based on what we want. While I agree policiticans shouldn't. Fact is they will.

    That's nothing but a guess however, and one I don't necessarily agree with (And neither did Obama in December).
    I think it is little more than a guess. We have history at higher rates, and they have largely made no difference at all. As for Obama, a politician I might add, he says what he has to say for good policitics, like any other politician.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #686
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Any plan that offers so called cuts that are not to take effect until up to 10 years down the road where there is no guarantee that a congress of that time will pass what is agreed to now, or that is not containing real spending cuts, and not baseline are lies from demo's. We have a track record of that to plainly see.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #687
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually business ARE hiring -- it's government that is shedding jobs, which I believe your side considers a positive. As I said, considering where Obama started, and where we could be if he hadn't generally made the right moves, and the level of wrong-headed opposition he faces, it's worked out pretty well so far.
    Private sector jobs are less now than when Obama took office so stop buying the liberal spin. I posted the bls.gov data. It does seem that nothing is going to change the mind of a leftwing ideologue including verifiable facts.

    Private sector employment by month and after spending trillions.

    2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
    2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
    2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109153 109170

    Obama inherited a private sector economy with 110.9 million private sector jobs that is 109.2 million in October 2011. Where is that private sector growth?

  8. #688
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Any plan that offers so called cuts that are not to take effect until up to 10 years down the road where there is no guarantee that a congress of that time will pass what is agreed to now, or that is not containing real spending cuts, and not baseline are lies from demo's. We have a track record of that to plainly see.


    j-mac
    Then make them for now. Don't whine about your side being unable to write a law that happens now. Simple propose the law goes into effect as the increases go into effect.

    You do understand both sides lie, right?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #689
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    1. The Democrats plans have largely been back loaded in cuts. IE, its not 6:1 spending vs revenue every year but rather that's the over all plans set up. As I noted in my previous post...that's bull****...as its enacting the full tax increase now while backloading "spending cuts" to between 5 and 10 years down the line when there's no garauntee those will actually happen.
    It depends on which plan we're talking about. I think that some have been back loaded on both cuts and tax hikes. In any case, I think it would be suicidal to immediately enact both spending cuts and revenue hikes when what the economy needs is additional stimulus. It makes perfect sense to back load the plan, preferably with triggers linked to unemployment and/or GDP growth.

    2. One of the large "cuts" is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, which is not really a cut as they are inevitably ending things anyways that are exceptions, not continued expenses. Would the honest alternative be that if we didn't pass the spending cuts Obama or the next President would just keep them going on forever and ever? No. This is like being out of your house due to it flooding and having to live in a hotel room for a few weeks, and convincing your wife to let you buy that new Motorcycle you want by saying "Honey, if you let me buy this new motorcycle then we'll move out of this hotel room and we'll save $100 a day!".
    That's a bit of semantics. It's a cut from current funding levels, whether it's inevitable or not.

    3. Its not a "Cut", its a reduction of the amount that they'll increase the budget every year. That's not a CUT, that's a reduction in the amount of INCREASE.
    The budget has increased every year, and it will continue to increase every year, simply as a function of population growth, inflation, and the cost of debt repayment. We don't need a literal reduction in spending. We just need to balance spending and revenue.

    4. Also, as I've previously stated, if the bill doesn't have some mechanism that if the cuts DON'T occur the tax increase will be revoked then its rather useless as the tax increase goes on the board but then they just use some emergency spending or alternative bill to ramp the spending back up while leaving the tax on the board.
    Unfortunately these kinds of triggers, whichever way they run, cannot be guaranteed short of a constitutional amendment. But that's not going to happen, so I think we have to proceed as best we can.

    5. I may be wrong, but this is again a plan where the increase in income tax burden would be on one group and one group alone. If you're going to increase taxes, everyone should feel it to some extent to remove the notion of "free money". It can be progressive, but it should be felt by all if its going to occur.
    I'm not sure of the exact details of the plan, but AFAIK you're right. It includes spending cuts that would largely impact the poor and middle class, and tax hikes that would largely impact the wealthy. I agree with you, though, that there should be a progressive, accross-the-board hike. Personally I would like to see the Bush tax cuts go away altogether.

  10. #690
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Private sector jobs are less now than when Obama took office so stop buying the liberal spin. I posted the bls.gov data. It does seem that nothing is going to change the mind of a leftwing ideologue including verifiable facts.

    Private sector employment by month and after spending trillions.

    2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
    2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
    2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109153 109170

    Obama inherited a private sector economy with 110.9 million private sector jobs that is 109.2 million in October 2011. Where is that private sector growth?
    Thanks, the numbers you posted confirm what I wrote: businesses ARE hiring. As your data points out, private employment has increased for 18 months running.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •