• 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!

House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

Conservative said:
What you are proposing is a trade war that will affect U.S. Companies that export goods and services to other countries. Not sure you are thinking clearly here.
Click to expand...

Oh I am thinking extremely clearly here. And so were the Founding Fathers when they included these powers in the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Oh I am thinking extremely clearly here. And so were the Founding Fathers when they included these powers in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where are unemployment benefits listed in the Constitution? Where are guarantees for healthcare insurance in the Constitution. Seems you want to determine what is in the Constitution all to promote a particular agenda. What is in the Constitution are references to personal resonsibilities which of course you want to ignore. Why do liberals need to create victims?

this thread is about GOP blocks bill to extend unemployment benefits yet I am still waiting for you to tell us all how many weeks of unemployment do you deem appropriate for the unemployed? Liberals always claim to want to help people, but what they really want a victims.
 
It's not just a trade war. It's substantially raising the prices of many, many manufactured goods, which will affect pretty much everyone adversely, and in the case of lowest income brackets, quite substantially. Haymarket, why do you want to punish the poor so severely?
 
Conservative - you misread or make a false assumption when I refer to the Founding Fathers .... I am talking about the power given to Congress to levy a tariff.

Harshaw - people without jobs cannot buy products be they cheaply priced, moderately priced or expensively priced. I do not want to punish the poor but rather eradicate most of the poor by elevating them into the middle class of workers. Eliminating good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for saying "welcome to Wal Mart" and inexpensive toothpaste is not my idea of The American Dream.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Dude, it's simply not possible. There's no way you can keep things competitive enough to keep manufacturing jobs here in the US or Canada. It's simply not a viable career anymore. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we can have people trained to do different jobs, and not have some of the old manufacturing towns I see here in Ontario that are messed up cause no one's in that field anymore and they didn't know how to do anything else.

No corporate tax rate is gonna change the fact that in China, or Vietnam or El Salvador, there's fewer labour laws, fewer restrictions on work hours and wages, and the ability to hire tons more people to produce more.

In America and Canada and the western world in general, we have an expectation of what we should get for doing a certain job, in essense we're a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...

MaggieD said:
Sorry, J-Mac. There's nothing we can do to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S. unless we put our Constitution aside. No way can companies be incentivized to pay American wages when they can go to Third World countries and pay pennies.

There's probably more information available for Nike than any other company in the U.S. Here are some stats:

Indonesian workers make $2.46 a day
Vietnamese workers make $l.60 a day
Chinese workers make $1.75 a day
You pay over $100 for shoes that cost less than five dollars to make.


That's where Nike production facilities are located....in Third World countries where it is illegal for workers to organize and collectively bargain for better wages.



Nike production facts
Click to expand...



Both of your statements have a strong level of truthiness to them, but they are not truely accurate


Germany for instance has a very vibrant manufacturing industry, it has a balanced trade relationship with China by selling manufactured goods to China, while receiving manufactured goods from China. This next part is for J Mac and other anti union types. German manufactures generally have fairly strong unions that have a seat on the board, and have a say in the direction of the company. They have good benifits and good pay. Labour laws in Germany make it far harder to fire those workers, instead companies tend to reduce hours drastically rather then cut jobs.

What Germany does try to ensure is that the workers in the manufacturing sector are skilled workers, not drones on an assembly line. It does not try to produce the cheapest product, for the cheapest price. It works at producing the highest quality good, that can command a premium price for it. The only thing Germany is not so good at producing is consumer electronics.


The majority of Germany companies are also mid level companies that are owned and operated by Germans ( many family still family owned)
 
As a conservative the answer to how long unemployment benefits should be is simple--
As long as it benefits the country.

To me, there's really no other answer.

According to the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11874/EconOutloook_SummaryforWeb.pdf
A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have a significant positive short-term effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. Such an increase would slightly raise unemployment among the affected individuals, but it would also raise people’s spending and thereby increase output and employment in the economy overall.​

One thing that really makes me sick is that there are suggestions in the CBO's report neither party is endorsing that seem like easy no-brainers. From this I conclude that the parties are more interested in playing their partisans peons and scoring points than in actually doing what they morally should be doing. Things like a payroll tax holiday. That benefits everyone and makes hiring more affordable. But, how does one party play that against the other?
Our system is broken. Who we put in isn't as import as what we put them into at this point. YMMV
 
Conservative said:
Don't know if anything will get through the think head of a liberal. You don't have to pay for people keeping more of their own money. That means less need for that so called "liberal help." Show me a line item on the budget that shows tax cuts? In order to pay for something it has to be an expense which destroys the liberal argument.

As for what economists think, I can show you economists that believe that tax cuts grow revenue but that is irrelevant because I have shown the actual numbers from the U.S. Treasury Dept which is the checkbook of the U.S. Please explain to me how tax revenue grew AFTER tax cuts? Bush tax cuts went into effect in July 2003

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072
Click to expand...

CBO projects that revenues will average 18.7 percent of GDP from 2008 to 2010 (close to the 18.6 percent level expected for this year) before jumping sharply in 2011 and 2012 with the expiration of tax provisions originally enacted in EGTRRA and JGTRRA. After that, revenues are projected to continue growing faster than the overall economy for three reasons: the progressive structure of the tax code combined with increases in total real income, withdrawals of retirement savings as the population ages, and the fact that the AMT is not indexed for inflation. Under the assumptions of the baseline, CBO projects that revenues will equal 20.1 percent of GDP by 2017—a level reached only once since World War II.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017
Click to expand...

Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin
Click to expand...

That increase of 1.9 percentage point of GDP can be traced to changes in different types of revenues (see Table 2). The bulk of the revenue increase was associated with corporate income taxes: Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006 (their highest level since 1978). That increase of 1.5 percentage points of GDP in corporate income tax revenues accounts for the bulk of the overall 1.9 percentagepoint rise in revenues. Revenues from individual income taxes increased 0.6
percentage points, from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003 to 8.0 percent in 2006. And revenues from taxes other than corporate and individual income taxes were relatively stable over the period from 2003 to 2006, slipping 0.2 percentage points, from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent of GDP.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
Click to expand...

So yeah, it's pretty simplistic how you present these numbers and your causes for the increase.
 
Conservative said:
You called tax cuts an expense and ignore that FACT that spending isn't A problem, it is THE Problem.
Click to expand...

Spending is a problem.

If spending is "THE Problem", why are you focusing on taxes?

Conservative said:
Social engineering is what liberal govt. always wants to do and that will always be the problem because all that does is give govt. more and more power by creating more and more dependence.
Click to expand...

The banks are dependent on the govt. because of liberals?

Conservative said:
Why are liberals fighting so hard to keep the American people from keeping more of what they earn?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to pass the cost off to the next generation. Spending is a problem. Borrowing money for that spending is a bigger problem.

Conservative said:
Which party cares the most about what individuals get to keep and what they pay in taxes?
Click to expand...

Which party wants to pay for current spending rather than pass it off to the next generations?

You guys aren't going to cut that much spending. It sounded good during campaigns, but when the rubber meets the road, they'll still be running a deficit.

Conservative said:
Think about it?
Click to expand...

Spending is a problem.
 
TurtleDude said:
its more like a ten percent increase in taxes. a 3% increase of the tax rate is much more than a 3 percent increase in the taxes
Click to expand...

:rofl

Sounds profitable.
 
haymarket said:
Conservative - you misread or make a false assumption when I refer to the Founding Fathers .... I am talking about the power given to Congress to levy a tariff.

Harshaw - people without jobs cannot buy products be they cheaply priced, moderately priced or expensively priced. I do not want to punish the poor but rather eradicate most of the poor by elevating them into the middle class of workers. Eliminating good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for saying "welcome to Wal Mart" and inexpensive toothpaste is not my idea of The American Dream.
Click to expand...

Do you realize what you are promoting here? Doubt is and wonder exactly what you learned in school about this country, its Founders, and its economy? Define for us good paying jobs? It isn't up to you or anyone else to tell business what to pay its employees nor do you have the right to force someone else to pay for services you deem necessary. You have the right to spend your money the way you want. I don't think you have a clue how business works, what risk taking is, what businesses do with their profits or why profits are necessary. You certainly don't understand Wal-Mart or the benefits Wal-Mart provides to its workers and the community. Some people are simply lost in their own world and cannot admit when wrong.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
So yeah, it's pretty simplistic how you present these numbers and your causes for the increase.
Click to expand...

CBO says this, CBO says that, why don't you find out how often CBO is correct and how often they are wrong? Stop using CBO as an expert because CBO is far from being the expert. They take the assumptions given them by the Congress and make projections based upon those assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong then the predictions are wrong and that happens most of the time. What I posted were actual numbers and I am waiting for you to explain to me how tax rates were cut and more revenue went to the govt? The fact is that reality flies in the face of liberal rhetoric which states that in no way can you cut rates and grow revenue. That is because liberals don't understand incentive, human behavior, and the economy in general that we have.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize what you are promoting here? Doubt is and wonder exactly what you learned in school about this country, its Founders, and its economy? Define for us good paying jobs? It isn't up to you or anyone else to tell business what to pay its employees nor do you have the right to force someone else to pay for services you deem necessary. You have the right to spend your money the way you want. I don't think you have a clue how business works, what risk taking is, what businesses do with their profits or why profits are necessary. You certainly don't understand Wal-Mart or the benefits Wal-Mart provides to its workers and the community. Some people are simply lost in their own world and cannot admit when wrong.
Click to expand...
please explain the benefits walmart provides to its workers and the community...
 
=independent_thinker2002;1059113909]Spending is a problem.

If spending is "THE Problem", why are you focusing on taxes?
Click to expand...

I only focus on taxes because that is what liberals want to focus on. I have given you what I believe the role of the govt. is and the line items that the Federal Govt. is responsible. Liberals are the ones that call tax revenue an expense to the govt.


The banks are dependent on the govt. because of liberals?
Click to expand...

Banks are dependent on individuals making and depositing money into their banks.


Because they don't want to pass the cost off to the next generation. Spending is a problem. Borrowing money for that spending is a bigger problem.
Click to expand...

Simple answer, stop the spending on items that are better handled at the state and local levels. Get the Federal Govt. back to the Constitutional requirements.

Which party wants to pay for current spending rather than pass it off to the next generations?
Click to expand...

When have liberals proposed spending cuts? PayGo is a lost issue with liberals, how do you pay for the extension of unemployment benefits?

You guys aren't going to cut that much spending. It sounded good during campaigns, but when the rubber meets the road, they'll still be running a deficit.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the GOP is going to do but the fact is we cannot continue like the Democrats have done for the past four years. The only way to get out of a debt this size is to grow your way out of it and do so by slowing the growth in the size of govt. and actually cutting some areas.

Spending is a problem
Click to expand...

It is THE problem. Stop forcing people to spend THEIR money on issues you deem important that they don't.
 
randel said:
please explain the benefits walmart provides to its workers and the community...
Click to expand...

Job, jobs, jobs, opportunities for advancement, benefits for their employees, personal development for individuals, and lower costs for the consumers in the area
 
Conservative said:
CBO says this, CBO says that, why don't you find out how often CBO is correct and how often they are wrong? Stop using CBO as an expert because CBO is far from being the expert. They take the assumptions given them by the Congress and make projections based upon those assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong then the predictions are wrong and that happens most of the time. What I posted were actual numbers and I am waiting for you to explain to me how tax rates were cut and more revenue went to the govt? The fact is that reality flies in the face of liberal rhetoric which states that in no way can you cut rates and grow revenue. That is because liberals don't understand incentive, human behavior, and the economy in general that we have.
Click to expand...

I did explain. Corporate income taxes accounted for the bulk of the increase.

Now attack everything that doesn't support your view. You posted numbers and attributed your own spin on those numbers. I showed you something that disagreed with it. You attack the CBO's predictions but this was a historical analysis. Tell me more about what liberals don't understand. :roll:
 
How about answering the question, how long should the taxpayer fund people who are unemployed
Click to expand...

When the harsh snows of winter ends one does not need to shovel the sidewalk anymore. I would have thought everyone knew that.
 
Conservative said:
Job, jobs, jobs, opportunities for advancement, benefits for their employees, personal development for individuals, and lower costs for the consumers in the area
Click to expand...
what kind of jobs? what do these jobs pay? what kind of benefits? is their perhaps a reason for their 'low' prices?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I did explain. Corporate income taxes accounted for the bulk of the increase.

Now attack everything that doesn't support your view. You posted numbers and attributed your own spin on those numbers. I showed you something that disagreed with it. You attack the CBO's predictions but this was a historical analysis. Tell me more about what liberals don't understand. :roll:
Click to expand...

Both corporate and personal income taxes went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts. Think that corporations pay higher taxes with lower profits? what do you do when you get to keep more of your income in higher take home pay?

I attack CBO predictions because history shows how accurate CBO. Why would CBO projections be more accurate than actual numbers? The historical data is there for all to see, you choose to buy projections over actual data thus cannot explain your position.

The only numbers that matter come from here.

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
Conservative said:
I only focus on taxes because that is what liberals want to focus on.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are a liberal? :rofl

Conservative said:
I have given you what I believe the role of the govt. is and the line items that the Federal Govt. is responsible. Liberals are the ones that call tax revenue an expense to the govt.
Click to expand...

No, a loss of potential revenue is being called an expense.


Conservative said:
Banks are dependent on individuals making and depositing money into their banks.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting analysis of TARP.


Conservative said:
Simple answer, stop the spending on items that are better handled at the state and local levels. Get the Federal Govt. back to the Constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

The states are broke. Are you suggesting that we let Alaska implode? They take in more federal money than they pay in.

Conservative said:
When have liberals proposed spending cuts? PayGo is a lost issue with liberals, how do you pay for the extension of unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...

PAYGO says that you can't have a policy in the red for more than 10 years.

Conservative said:
You don't know what the GOP is going to do but the fact is we cannot continue like the Democrats have done for the past four years. The only way to get out of a debt this size is to grow your way out of it and do so by slowing the growth in the size of govt. and actually cutting some areas.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going to raise THE debt ceiling. ;)

Conservative said:
It is THE problem. Stop forcing people to spend THEIR money on issues you deem important that they don't.
Click to expand...

Oh, like the money pit in Iraq?
 
Conservative said:
I only focus on taxes because that is what liberals want to focus on.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are a liberal? :rofl

Conservative said:
I have given you what I believe the role of the govt. is and the line items that the Federal Govt. is responsible. Liberals are the ones that call tax revenue an expense to the govt.
Click to expand...

No, a loss of potential revenue is being called an expense.


Conservative said:
Banks are dependent on individuals making and depositing money into their banks.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting analysis of TARP.


Conservative said:
Simple answer, stop the spending on items that are better handled at the state and local levels. Get the Federal Govt. back to the Constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

The states are broke. Are you suggesting that we let Alaska implode? They take in more federal money than they pay in.

Conservative said:
When have liberals proposed spending cuts? PayGo is a lost issue with liberals, how do you pay for the extension of unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...

PAYGO says that you can't have a policy in the red for more than 10 years.

Conservative said:
You don't know what the GOP is going to do but the fact is we cannot continue like the Democrats have done for the past four years. The only way to get out of a debt this size is to grow your way out of it and do so by slowing the growth in the size of govt. and actually cutting some areas.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going to raise THE debt ceiling. ;)

Conservative said:
It is THE problem. Stop forcing people to spend THEIR money on issues you deem important that they don't.
Click to expand...

Oh, like the money pit in Iraq?
 
randel said:
what kind of jobs? what do these jobs pay? what kind of benefits? is their perhaps a reason for their 'low' prices?
Click to expand...

Why don't you apply for a Wal-Mart job and find out. There jobs all over the spectrum with Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart always promotes from within. Lower prices means greater demand so instead of selling one item for $1 they sell 2 items for .50 and the customer is in the store buying other items. You really don't understand how retail works, do you?

Do you buy sale items only when you go to the store? Think businesses make money on sale items? I spent 35 years in retail, what is your experience?
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you apply for a Wal-Mart job and find out. There jobs all over the spectrum with Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart always promotes from within. Lower prices means greater demand so instead of selling one item for $1 they sell 2 items for .50 and the customer is in the store buying other items. You really don't understand how retail works, do you?

Do you buy sale items only when you go to the store? Think businesses make money on sale items? I spent 35 years in retail, what is your experience?
Click to expand...
my experience isnt the issue here, i asked you to explain to me what kind of jobs walmart offers, what kind of benefits.....either admit you don't know the answers, or quit insinuating that you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom