CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

Conservative · Nov 28, 2011

treedancer said:
Unlike you, I’m looking for a real solution to our unemployment problem. You must have forgot the post where I showed you where some of the money will come from.

Here is where more of it will come from, third graph titled “corp taxes as a % of corp profits”.We can make that line a little more level. I’m sure that will knock some of the deficit down, if not here is plan B….A tax on financial transactions, as put forth by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio .:2wave:

In a global economy why would you make the corporate taxes higher than they are now which are the highest in the world? Tax this, tax that, tax everything? That seems to be the liberal solution without consideration as to the consequences. Not once have I heard a liberal talking about cutting spending, only tax increases and redistribution of wealth.

You didn't answer the question, do you think it is right to have the govt. take your money and give it to whomever they deem necessary? Don't you think you have the ability to make that choice yourself? When you give $100 to someone how much benefit does that generate for the individual? When you give $100 to the govt. how much of it actually gets back to the individual?

winston53660 · Nov 28, 2011

Conservative said:
You don't seem to understand the purpose of SS and supposedly the money you are setting aside mandated by the Govt. is to go to a retirement supplement. Seems that a business owner would have known that

So your argument is not about keeping more of "your" money...... But about funding SS.

Then I say get rid of the 106k cap.

AdamT · Nov 28, 2011

Conservative said:
In a global economy why would you make the corporate taxes higher than they are now which are the highest in the world?

Another dishonest response. Our effective corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Conservative · Nov 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
So your argument is not about keeping more of "your" money...... But about funding SS.

Then I say get rid of the 106k cap.

As long as SS is mandatory then the money should go where it belongs, into a trust fund and not on budget. Doing that would assure proper funding.

Conservative · Nov 28, 2011

AdamT said:
Another dishonest response. Our effective corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Again, why do you care what a corporation pays in taxes? All about revenue to the govt. with you, isn't it?

winston53660 · Nov 28, 2011

Conservative said:
As long as SS is mandatory then the money should go where it belongs, into a trust fund and not on budget. Doing that would assure proper funding.

It is not mandatory after 106k on a payroll.

Conservative · Nov 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
It is not mandatory after 106k on a payroll.

Do you have a point? Why should someone else pay for my SS? I learned personal responsibility a long time ago.

Donc · Nov 29, 2011

Quote conservative

In a global economy why would you make the corporate taxes higher than they are now which are the highest in the world?

Notice how I whittled this down? Wanna know the reason? I deemed that most of your post didn’t pertain a whet to what we were discussing, the part that I kept just barely qualifies.

I guess your saying that somehow in a global econmy that some giant corps would take there business elsewhere eh?Hhmm…lets see how they do attempting to sell their goods outside the largest econmy in the world. They sure wouldn’t be welcome in this country, if they tried to skate off because of the tax rate.

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 29, 2011

j-mac said:
No you won't. You don't address anything honestly. Like I said arguing with Jello.

That's it. I'm out.

j-mac

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks.

Blue_State · Nov 29, 2011

treedancer said:
Notice how I whittled this down? Wanna know the reason? I deemed that most of your post didn’t pertain a whet to what we were discussing, the part that I kept just barely qualifies.

I guess your saying that somehow in a global econmy that some giant corps would take there business elsewhere eh?Hhmm…lets see how they do attempting to sell their goods outside the largest econmy in the world. They sure wouldn’t be welcome in this country, if they tried to skate off because of the tax rate.

Are you saying boycot? Why wouldn't they be welcome in this country? We welcome cheaper goods and services daily.

1Perry · Nov 29, 2011

finebead said:
That is not the point. I agree people felt better about the end of the war. You said those positive feels led to a good economy, and that the govt. spending in the war did not. I showed you were wrong, since there was a recession right when the war ended, and a "huge drop in GDP".

Which I believe I addressed and obviously you felt no need to address yourself. If you wish to ignore the replies to your positions there is once again another reason to not bother.

j-mac · Nov 29, 2011

winston53660 said:
It is not mandatory after 106k on a payroll.

I actually to some extent agree with this portion of the argument. ALL of my income is subjected to the FICA taxation for the congress to pilfer. Why shouldn't someone who makes more than that $106K start getting breaks I don't get. However, if you really want to make my life better in about 15 years, you'd get behind privatization of some portion of SS and let me see how my money can grow rather than trying to make me dependent on government right before I die.

j-mac

Conservative · Nov 29, 2011

treedancer said:
Notice how I whittled this down? Wanna know the reason? I deemed that most of your post didn’t pertain a whet to what we were discussing, the part that I kept just barely qualifies.

I guess your saying that somehow in a global econmy that some giant corps would take there business elsewhere eh?Hhmm…lets see how they do attempting to sell their goods outside the largest econmy in the world. They sure wouldn’t be welcome in this country, if they tried to skate off because of the tax rate.

You make a lot of wild speculations yet never back them up. Prove that corporations are the problem and that they don't provide a "fair" wage and benefits? You want badly to demonize corporations yet never offer any solutions. You are just like the OWS crowd.

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

Dickieboy said:
REALLY???? Suprised...It appears that you and Conservative are not so far apart...I think based on YOUR statement above you and he could agree that BHO has done nothing hence it looks 'much like what he took over'...???

Wouldn't go that far. I believe no president can FIX the economy. Calls for one to do so is silly. I believe Obama did much of what could be done. The only other thing he could have done was spend more, which would have made tea party memebers heads explode.

Government can control the debte, which would help, but very little else. Business cylces, and any real solutiont o the economy will come from people outside government. Tax cuts won't save us. Government spending is only temporary relief at best.

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Hardly, it would require everyone to have "skin in the game!" Isn't that what Obama is calling for? What skin in the game do people who don't pay any FIT have?

Everyone has skin in the game. You msitaking believe that FIT are the only taxes that can give skin. That's a false assumption on your part. You want more paying more, help more people get back to the middle class. At least give them as much help as you freely give the wealthy.

Conservative · Nov 29, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Everyone has skin in the game. You msitaking believe that FIT are the only taxes that can give skin. That's a false assumption on your part. You want more paying more, help more people get back to the middle class. At least give them as much help as you freely give the wealthy.

FIT are the taxes Obama are proposing increasing but only on the rich and those are the taxes that fund the Federal Govt. Diversion to other taxes ignores the problem that FIT is supposed to fund the govt. and its operations.

j-mac · Nov 29, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Wouldn't go that far. I believe no president can FIX the economy. Calls for one to do so is silly. I believe Obama did much of what could be done. The only other thing he could have done was spend more, which would have made tea party memebers heads explode.

How much more? Double, Triple? How much debt must be out there to destroy our children's lives before you would say enough?

Government can control the debte, which would help

How does propaganda help? Obama had nearly the entire MSM running cover for him and his criminal policies and he still managed to reveal his plan of destruction.

Business cylces, and any real solutiont o the economy will come from people outside government.

Yeah, well you are certainly not going to get business to do these things while you threaten to confiscate their success if they do....Gheese!

Tax cuts won't save us. Government spending is only temporary relief at best

So then do we agree that Obama should get government out of the way of business?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

j-mac said:
How much more? Double, Triple? How much debt must be out there to destroy our children's lives before you would say enough?

Well, your new found interst in the debt is heart warming, but I never said he should spend more. Isaid it was all he really could have done. I suggest we stop asking government to fix it.

How does propaganda help? Obama had nearly the entire MSM running cover for him and his criminal policies and he still managed to reveal his plan of destruction.

That's your koolaid talking again. My comment was the government can control the debt. They can if they have the will too.

Yeah, well you are certainly not going to get business to do these things while you threaten to confiscate their success if they do....Gheese!

No one is trheatening to confiscate success. That too is your hyperbolic koolaid talking. We've taxed them much more and success was not confiscated, business thrived and the economy grew. You're buying into a premise that is patiently false.

So then do we agree that Obama should get government out of the way of business?

j-mac

Depends on what you mean by that. Should there be no regulations? No. Some are most needed. Shoudl we not tax business? No. They share responsibility for this country as much as anyone. However, if you ask government to do something, they will. And thatcan only mean more spending.

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

Conservative said:
FIT are the taxes Obama are proposing increasing but only on the rich and those are the taxes that fund the Federal Govt. Diversion to other taxes ignores the problem that FIT is supposed to fund the govt. and its operations.

They can handle it. I can handle it. Most of us won't even notice it.

Sheik Yerbuti · Nov 29, 2011

cpwill said:
and in the short run... but hey, movement in the right direction, and (politically) a welcome realization of reality by the CBO.

That's a rather biased article since the stimulus was never meant to be long term. The intent of it was to sustain the economy for the short term with the hope that the private sector could get back on its feet during that period.

But I believe I saw someone else point out that article was found in the Moonie Times, so that would explain the bias.

Conservative · Nov 29, 2011

Boo Radley said:
They can handle it. I can handle it. Most of us won't even notice it.

What makes you an expert on what everyone else can handle? Where does incentive reside in your world? Are you the only person in the world that doesn't react to having more and less money in your paycheck? Yours is an opinion but an opinion that ignores human behavior as well as Congressional actions. Name for me one time in modern history where there have been actual spending cuts and how do you justify the 3.7 trillion dollar budget today?

1Perry · Nov 29, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Wouldn't go that far. I believe no president can FIX the economy. Calls for one to do so is silly. I believe Obama did much of what could be done. The only other thing he could have done was spend more, which would have made tea party memebers heads explode.

Your arguement cancels itself out.

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

1Perry said:
Your arguement cancels itself out.

Meaning what? I didn't say it would fix the economy. I said it was the only action he could have taken. I did not say it would have been an effective action.

1Perry · Nov 29, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Meaning what? I didn't say it would fix the economy. I said it was the only action he could have taken. I did not say it would have been an effective action.

LOL, O.K. sorry. Fair enough, we agree. :mrgreen:

Boo Radley · Nov 29, 2011

Conservative said:
What makes you an expert on what everyone else can handle? Where does incentive reside in your world? Are you the only person in the world that doesn't react to having more and less money in your paycheck? Yours is an opinion but an opinion that ignores human behavior as well as Congressional actions. Name for me one time in modern history where there have been actual spending cuts and how do you justify the 3.7 trillion dollar budget today?

I did say us. And we actually have studies on this. Business actually was quite successful at the higher tax rate. Wealthy were still wealthy. The world did not crash.

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo