• 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!

Profits soar amid mass layoffs

What should be done about it?




How do you intend on paying for that, exactly? You won't be able to do it by just taxing the rich. You're going to have to tax middle class folks, too. How-da-ya think that's going to go over? Why does the Left have such a disconnect between tax revenue and revenue generation? Why don't you see that the easiest--and most politically expedient way--to create more tax revenue is help the private sector create more taxable revenue?

Nice use of the, "crumbling infrastructure", scare tactic talking point, too, BTW.

Well, the 700 billion dollars we flushed down the toilet labeled "bailout" would've been a good start. Another good one would be the $350 billion being thrown at the Joint Strike Fighter project. How many jobs could you make for a trillion dollars? That's just two off the top of my head.
 
What should be done about it?




How do you intend on paying for that, exactly? You won't be able to do it by just taxing the rich. You're going to have to tax middle class folks, too. How-da-ya think that's going to go over? Why does the Left have such a disconnect between tax revenue and revenue generation? Why don't you see that the easiest--and most politically expedient way--to create more tax revenue is help the private sector create more taxable revenue?

Nice use of the, "crumbling infrastructure", scare tactic talking point, too, BTW.
Here is another way to raise revenue. End the wars. Cut the MIC by at least 50%. As for taxing the working class, no. They have payed and suffered enough for the rich.
 
Last edited:
Well, the 700 billion dollars we flushed down the toilet labeled "bailout" would've been a good start. Another good one would be the $350 billion being thrown at the Joint Strike Fighter project. How many jobs could you make for a trillion dollars? That's just two off the top of my head.

Obama already spent a trillion dollars to crate jobs. What did we get for our money? 2 million fewer jobs.
 
Allow me to add to his post; private companies exist to make money...providing goods and services.

Now, that I agree with.

I don't think you addressed his point. All those things you listed are what caused the recession in the first place. Now, some businesses are starting to pick up again, but they're not hiring more people. They've learned they can get the same work out of fewer people, so why hire more? It's a self perpetuating cycle, because as long as there's a large pool of unemployed workers, businesses will be able to get more work for less pay out of the workers they do have.

To this I agree also. Companies won't hire if they believe they can "retool" using new technology or "refine" divisions or departments to perform similar taskings but achieve similar or better results. But that's usually an individual company and/or industry-wide solution. What's happening in the private and public sectors right now is a direct result of a systematic failure of our financial sectors! People need to understand that. And until these companies at the very top have replenished much of the capital they've lost, then and only then will they begin hiring again. But still there's a problem: How to foster small business growth?

Because of the changes in financial reforms, neither the big commercial banks nor the small community banks will lend as loosely as they did just a mere 2-3 years ago. These banks will now require collateral before they approve loans. This poses a problem for many small businesses because most of them don't have the kind of collateral banks require of them to support such loans. So, they're wondering how can they save their business and/or get back into the game?
 
Nice job of not answering my questions.

I didn't expect an actual answer, so that's ok.

Actually I did answer your question. You asked how to pay for it and said taxing the rich wasn't enough. So I suggested ending the wars and cutting all military spending by half and using that money on infrastructure. That did answer your question. Why does the Right always ignore evidence?
 
Obama already spent a trillion dollars to crate jobs. What did we get for our money? 2 million fewer jobs.

Obama gave a trillion dollars to the corporations, and shockingly enough, they kept it. What we need are public sector jobs.
 
Obama gave a trillion dollars to the corporations, and shockingly enough, they kept it. What we need are public sector jobs.

Public sector jobs are not self sufficient. We need jobs that are.
 
Public sector jobs are not self sufficient. We need jobs that are.
Norway has a very strong public sector and their unemployment rate is at 3.6%. So not only are public sector jobs sustainable they have proven to work well. It's telling that this bastion of capitalism has such a higher unemployment rate than socialist Norway.
 
Public sector jobs are not self sufficient. We need jobs that are.

If you mean that they don't produce as much as they cost, it depends on the job. An electric rail system would be extremely profitable in the long run, just as the freeway system is now. The same goes for power plants, upgrading the electric grid, and so on.
 
How do you intend on paying for that, exactly? You won't be able to do it by just taxing the rich. You're going to have to tax middle class folks, too. How-da-ya think that's going to go over? Why does the Left have such a disconnect between tax revenue and revenue generation? Why don't you see that the easiest--and most politically expedient way--to create more tax revenue is help the private sector create more taxable revenue?

Now, this is the problem I have with the GOP.

The President proposed generating revenue by closing some tax loopholes on those businesses that either have demonstrated their ability to make a profit WITHOUT generous tax breaks or indicated they weren't using the tax breaks available to them, i.e., purchasing private jets. And what did the GOP do? They bulked!

No one was suggesting raising the marginal tax rate on anyone until this last round of debt ceiling negotiations. And just so we're clear, the only reason the President insisted on tax revenue was because the GOP insisted on including entitlement reform in negotiations.

So, apdts, let me ask you the same question you asked of U.S. Socialist but in a slightly different way?

How would you go about raising revenue to help the private sector create more taxable revenue. You said it must be a shared sacrafic, but how can that be with the middle class can barely pay for gas, groceries, electricity...the basics in order to survive?
 
Boehner reportedly was giving $400billion in that area and Obama was reportedly giving around $300billion/year in spending cuts. That looks like give and take from both positions.
We cannot fix our spending issue without addressing entitlement reform and military spending---they make up around 70% of the budget together.

Maybe less emotion and more thought?
 
Now, this is the problem I have with the GOP.

The President proposed generating revenue by closing some tax loopholes on those businesses that either have demonstrated their ability to make a profit WITHOUT generous tax breaks or indicated they weren't using the tax breaks available to them, i.e., purchasing private jets. And what did the GOP do?

Which, "loopholes", would those be? I personally don't want any of my deductions taken away from me. I can't afford to pay anymore taxes.

I made 40 g's last year. I don't qualify for the earned income credit, because I'm self employed. I had to cough up 7 grand in taxes and now you think I should pay more goddamned taxes? I'll fight tooth-n-nail any regime that thinks that that's not enough. They can kiss my ass, in fact.


They bulked!

Balked, maybe?

No one was suggesting raising the marginal tax rate on anyone until this last round of debt ceiling negotiations.

that's not true. Obama's been talking about raising the marginal rate since before he got elected.

And just so we're clear, the only reason the President insisted on tax revenue was because the GOP insisted on including entitlement reform in negotiations.

Sounds like Obama is just trying to **** the people, however he can.



So, apdts, let me ask you the same question you asked of U.S. Socialist but in a slightly different way?

How would you go about raising revenue to help the private sector create more taxable revenue. You said it must be a shared sacrafic, but how can that be with the middle class can barely pay for gas, groceries, electricity...the basics in order to survive?

Stop holding up drilling permits. A recent study said that 230,000+ jobs would be created, if the permitting process wasn't all mucked up by the government. Stop over-regulating the coal industry. Obama has already promised to put them out of business. Stop trying to turn our food supply into our fuel supply. Ethanol subsidies have driven up the price of corn and thereby, the price of beef, pork and chicken. Stop with over-regulation by the EPA. Basically, Obama should halt 99% of his agenda. It's what's cocking things up.

A little free advice: you can't knowingly kill jobs, then bitch that you're not getting enough tax revenue.

I'm a small business owner. Yes, I work in the oilfield--an oil company shill according to some on this forum. Another hint: If I go out of business, and get a job where I do qualify for the earned income credit, I'll never pay taxes, again. Tell me who wins in that scenario.

Ya'll Liberals are always harping about raising taxes and closing, "loopholes", but I seriously doubt any of you have the first damn clue how it will effect real people. You all live in a bubble, where the only people who pay taxes and own businesses are the super rich.
 
Actually I did answer your question. You asked how to pay for it and said taxing the rich wasn't enough. So I suggested ending the wars and cutting all military spending by half and using that money on infrastructure. That did answer your question. Why does the Right always ignore evidence?

There's no way we can cut military spending by half. It's totally unrealistic.
 
Obama gave a trillion dollars to the corporations, and shockingly enough, they kept it. What we need are public sector jobs.

Man! Ya'll just don't get it. What grade are you in?
 
There's no way we can cut military spending by half. It's totally unrealistic.
If we want to maintain our Empire then yes it is. However, if you, like me, feel that the military should only exist for national defense then we could. We could end all the wars, close all overseas bases except for the rare cases where the nations truly need our help such as South Korea, get rid of all private contractors(groups like Blackwater get paid 4x as much as men in our own army). These polices alone will save a lot of money.
 
If we want to maintain our Empire then yes it is. However, if you, like me, feel that the military should only exist for national defense then we could. We could end all the wars, close all overseas bases except for the rare cases where the nations truly need our help such as South Korea, get rid of all private contractors(groups like Blackwater get paid 4x as much as men in our own army). These polices alone will save a lot of money.


Sout Korea actually pays for us to be there:

The latest Special Measures Agreement would begin in January and calls for South Korea to pay 760 billion won, or $585.4 million, in 2009 toward the cost of keeping 28,500 U.S. troops in the country, according to South Korean and U.S. foreign ministry officials.
But by 2011, the Korean payments for construction would be in goods and services, according to an official at South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Costs of Korean labor and munitions support on the U.S. bases would continue to be paid in cash, he said.


S. Korean security payments shift - News - Stripes
 
If we want to maintain our Empire then yes it is. However, if you, like me, feel that the military should only exist for national defense then we could. We could end all the wars, close all overseas bases except for the rare cases where the nations truly need our help such as South Korea, get rid of all private contractors(groups like Blackwater get paid 4x as much as men in our own army). These polices alone will save a lot of money.

I feel that the best defense, is a good offense. History has proven me correct.

As far as spending money such as Blackwater, yes, I think the military should have some fat trimmed off of it. However, when the Pentagon starts trimming fat, it's the enlisted man that gets cut the deepest and that's why I think that military cuts should be as shallow as possible. Everytime we've cut our military down to a skeleton crew, it's come back to haunt us.
 
There's no way we can cut military spending by half. It's totally unrealistic.

'Unrealistic' as in unlikely to occur in the present political environment. However, very little of military spending actually has anything to do with defense. It is the single greatest source of wealth. The obstinant refusal to cut military spending, combined with the equally dogged resistance to raising taxes, under any circumstances, speak volumes about all this fake outrage on the right concerning the deficit.
 
Sout Korea actually pays for us to be there:

The latest Special Measures Agreement would begin in January and calls for South Korea to pay 760 billion won, or $585.4 million, in 2009 toward the cost of keeping 28,500 U.S. troops in the country, according to South Korean and U.S. foreign ministry officials.
But by 2011, the Korean payments for construction would be in goods and services, according to an official at South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Costs of Korean labor and munitions support on the U.S. bases would continue to be paid in cash, he said.


S. Korean security payments shift - News - Stripes
That is all good and well, but that doesn't address all the other military bases we have around the world, the massive amount of money we spend on the Pentagon and MIC, the cost of our three wars. According to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government the cost of the Iraq war alone is 3 trillion dollars. That was in 2008. Harvard Kennedy School - The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond
 
That is all good and well, but that doesn't address all the other military bases we have around the world, the massive amount of money we spend on the Pentagon and MIC, the cost of our three wars. According to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government the cost of the Iraq war alone is 3 trillion dollars. That was in 2008. Harvard Kennedy School - The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond


Yep I'm in agreement. It is a great expenditure with little to no return at best.
 
Yep I'm in agreement. It is a great expenditure with little to no return at best.

When you wake up tomorrow in the freest nation in the world, you'll see the return on the investment.

You're welcome.
 
When you wake up tomorrow in the freest nation in the world, you'll see the return on the investment.

You're welcome.


Yes I know the debt racked up will still be there tomorrow and years to come.
 
Back
Top Bottom