• 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!

Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

VanceMack said:
It absoplutely was not. The investment bankers didnt drive housing markets higher and higher. The investment bankers didnt force people to get loans. That was the idiot that made 55k a year and decided if he rolled his truck, car, and television payments into his home loan and consolidated then he could afford a 600k home with a mortgage of 3k a month...provided they never went out to lunch, never had any car problems, convinced the kids to fast 1 day a week and only eat 1 meal a day. And of course once the variable interest rate kicked in they could refinance because the home value would have appreciated significantly...

Everyone plays a part...but its that 98% that you mention...they are the ones that drove the housing market into the toilet.
Click to expand...

What caused this crisis, for the most part, was the packaging of the mortgages, that the banks knew would never fly, into derivatives and onto investors. Once those investors realized they were stuck and the money lost, they whole sale flocked from the market and the Middle Class lost their jobs, which perpetuated the increase in foreclosures, and their 401k's dropped out the bottom so they lost that as well.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Except the wealthy are not investing nor creating jobs, so no they are not helping the economy in anyway.
Click to expand...

Their is no logic to the idea that the wealthy are not investing. You don't have to directly invest in a given business, all you have to do is put your money in a bank or in stocks or whatever which is what 99% of wealthy people do. So you cannot say they are not helping the economy "in anyway". It is the government by perponderance of the evidence who is not helping the economy in any way as in Stimulus = No net increase in employment.
 
phattonez said:
I had two questions: are the rich not investing in the stock market? Are the rich not saving money?
Click to expand...

I think either they are sitting on cash right now and or waiting for their equities to rebound.
 
Wiseone said:
Maybe I should have been clearer. What I meant was that there is no legal definition for a 'small business' so when someone, a politician or whoever else, refers to 'small business' there's no way to tell exactly what they are talking about because there's no universal definition. So when Mr. V says Obama hates small business and if someone else says he doesn't, they may actually looking at the very same facts and information, but still disagree because they have different personal definitions of the phrase small business.



But there's no universal meaning, so when a politician says he's helping small business can't actually help a legally defined term of 'small business' what he does is change part of the tax code that say affects the amount of money a business is taxed, or not taxed, based on how many and what type of employees they have. Now if he makes that change in the area for all businesses with less than 50 people then it helps those businesses and owners who hire less than 50 people. But if I was a business owner who owned a business which employed 75, 100, or 200 people I may be still considered "small business" in the minds of many other people depending on my profits and customers, but nothing was done for me even though he said he was helping small business.

'
Click to expand...

I'd like to focus on one small part of your post to point out how our tax system hurts jobs and prosperity.
I think in the HC bill there is a 50 employee cut off for small business benifits of some kind.
Lets use that number. If I employ 45 people, how much incentive do I have to grow if growth will hurt me?
How about if I employ 60 people? Wouldn't it be in my own best interest to down-size?
Obama and this adminstration does nothing to encourage growth. Everthing they've put forth so far has killed jobs. I think that might be the goal.
We need to keep the People's tax cuts in place for everyone. They should make them permanent if they want to see this country take off and really prosper.
These are not Bush tax cuts. He gave them to the People, and now Obama wants to take them away.
 
phattonez said:
You don't create jobs just with demand if you don't have the capital with which to furnish those jobs. Demand is well and good, but without capital (provided from the rich with their saving and investing) you have nothing.

If you want to know why unemployment is high, look to an uncertain business environment created by talk of new taxes and regulations.
Click to expand...

I fully realize there are other factors, but without slicing and dicing it, the cuts were supposed to create jobs and it's something that has not happened. The loss of revenue is greater than what the Iraq war has costed, so I think it's time to bring the tax back.
 
winston53660 said:
I think either they are sitting on cash right now and or waiting for their equities to rebound.
Click to expand...

So even if they are not investing (which hasn't been proved), they are saving money which is a source of capital. If capital is locked up (as it is) blame uncertainty created by government with proposals for tax increases and new regulations.
 
VanceMack said:
The middle income group is the majority consumer market. The upper income drives the investment and job creation market. You cant have one without the other. And your positions are 'populist'.
Click to expand...

Representing the greatest number is indeed my position. Also, there has to be a demand for a good before you can invest in one, so thus I believe it all rests in the consumer. Of course one may create demand through advertising and the lot, but it still remains dependent on those 98% to buy and if they have no jobs then the wealthy will not for long either.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Representing the greatest number is indeed my position. Also, there has to be a demand for a good before you can invest in one, so thus I believe it all rests in the consumer. Of course one may create demand through advertising and the lot, but it still remains dependent on those 98% to buy and if they have no jobs then the wealthy will not for long either.
Click to expand...

You can't just increase demand. Production needs to shift to meet new demands. Shifting production will create temporary unemployment, and it will last longer if you propose new taxes and new regulations which causes companies to not be able to predict how much it will cost to hire new workers.
 
jambalaya said:
Their is no logic to the idea that the wealthy are not investing. You don't have to directly invest in a given business, all you have to do is put your money in a bank or in stocks or whatever which is what 99% of wealthy people do. So you cannot say they are not helping the economy "in anyway". It is the government by perponderance of the evidence who is not helping the economy in any way as in Stimulus = No net increase in employment.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those who invest in such means are asking for it to be untouched through tax breaks, if there are no taxes coming from it, and banks are not using the money to loan, then what good is it doing for the economy as a whole, not just for those at the top?
 
Middleground said:
I fully realize there are other factors, but without slicing and dicing it, the cuts were supposed to create jobs and it's something that has not happened. The loss of revenue is greater than what the Iraq war has costed, so I think it's time to bring the tax back.
Click to expand...

You can't say that jobs weren't created because unemployment has risen. There are many other factors (as you said) you can't make that bold claim. It makes much more sense to blame threats of new taxes and new regulations.

Taxing the rich more means less money saved so less capital so less jobs.
 
All fuming, bitching, and bellyaching aside, it's a done deal. Deal with it.
 
phattonez said:
You can't just increase demand. Production needs to shift to meet new demands. Shifting production will create temporary unemployment, and it will last longer if you propose new taxes and new regulations which causes companies to not be able to predict how much it will cost to hire new workers.
Click to expand...

Of course you can create demand, Apple does it all the time! Marketing and advertising agencies exist to create demand through commercials and the lot. Make people think they need something to fit into society, such actions are done everyday!
 
Mickey Shane said:
All fuming, bitching, and bellyaching aside, it's a done deal. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

So the point of a politics DISCUSSION board should be to SHUT UP and accept what happens?
 
tlmorg02 said:
Of course you can create demand, Apple does it all the time! Marketing and advertising agencies exist to create demand through commercials and the lot. Make people think they need something to fit into society, such actions are done everyday!
Click to expand...

Advertising merely serves to inform people about products. When demand shifts, you can't keep production where it is. You should shift it to where it is most efficient.
 
Middleground said:
I fully realize there are other factors, but without slicing and dicing it, the cuts were supposed to create jobs and it's something that has not happened.
Click to expand...
How so? Unemployment was at historically low levels before the 2008 recession hit.
 
VanceMack said:
Id recommend you try reading a little about who actually is responsible for creating jobs.
Click to expand...

Lets see, in the modern economy jobs are created by someone or a group want to increase their money through creating a business or investing in one. So, they first need a building which they find by going city to city and getting the most tax incentives to come. They then create a few jobs when they open and pay an average of $35k per year to these employees and the government both local and federal give them further tax breaks for creating the jobs and paying benefits. The employees do not get many raises because profits always need to rise and after all the market is not great right now and if it were I could still go to a developing nation and get labor for the same cheap price or less. After my company has grown to a certain level, I offer options on it publicly and get tax breaks for that, then when I have squeezed my employees for all the production I can I hire a couple of other employees to fill the gaps and get more tax breaks. All the while I have accumulated millions off of the backs of the employees who make my products and have given them little raises because my investors are always wanting more and more on their investment, and I then proceed to bitch when the government looks to ease the burden on my workers and gives them a tax break instead of me. That is how it works.
 
Last edited:
Look at all the capital you needed to get all of that. You need the rich to back those loans.

And as an aside, if you offer wages that are too low, then you won't get people to work for you. Just saying.
 
Look at all the capital you needed to get all of that. You need the rich to back those loans.

And as an aside, if you offer wages that are too low, then you won't get people to work for you. Just saying.
 
phattonez said:
Advertising merely serves to inform people about products. When demand shifts, you can't keep production where it is. You should shift it to where it is most efficient.
Click to expand...

You are naive if you think that the majority of demmand is not artificially created through making sure that celebs wear certain clothes or use certain things, and by utilizing psychiatrists to get the strongest "gotta have it" response to the advertising.
 
phattonez said:
Look at all the capital you needed to get all of that. You need the rich to back those loans.

And as an aside, if you offer wages that are too low, then you won't get people to work for you. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Of course you can get people to work for you, don't create new jobs and those who work for you cannot ask for a raise because there is no where else to go if you do not give one.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You are naive if you think that the majority of demmand is not artificially created through making sure that celebs wear certain clothes or use certain things, and by utilizing psychiatrists to get the strongest "gotta have it" response to the advertising.
Click to expand...

I couldn't sell a vacuum tube no matter how many celebrities I buy off and how great me advertising is.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Of course you can get people to work for you, don't create new jobs and those who work for you cannot ask for a raise because there is no where else to go if you do not give one.
Click to expand...

Since when did I gain monopoly power?
 
phattonez said:
Look at all the capital you needed to get all of that. You need the rich to back those loans.

And as an aside, if you offer wages that are too low, then you won't get people to work for you. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Of course there is capital needed, but many times banks front the money or the government, that evil entity gives grants to start the businesses! How dare they!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom