• 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!

114th congress can't be worse then the 113th was RIGHT?

J

Jaygodmedia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
2,178
Reaction score
260
Location
City of angles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The 113th congress was the worst in morden day history they nothing. Im sure the 114th will be even worse damn shame too the American people deserve better.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
The 113th congress was the worst in morden day history they nothing. Im sure the 114th will be even worse damn shame too the American people deserve better.
Click to expand...

We get the government we deserve.

And some people believe that a do-nothing congress is a great congress.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
The 113th congress was the worst in morden day history they nothing. Im sure the 114th will be even worse damn shame too the American people deserve better.
Click to expand...

The [R.I.P.] is for talking about deceased people.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
The 113th congress was the worst in morden day history they nothing. Im sure the 114th will be even worse damn shame too the American people deserve better.
Click to expand...

the job of congress is to pass legislation

the job of the president is to sign such legislation, or veto it

based on what i think will happen, congress will pass a lot of legislation

the question is, what will the president sign....and what will he send back

and if he sends it all back.....what does that say about him?

it wont be a do nothing congress......the question is will anything actually get done between the two parties
 
imagep said:
And some people believe that a do-nothing congress is a great congress.
Click to expand...

With most of the non-sense that goes on in our government, doing nothing is the best case scenario.
 
imagep said:
We get the government we deserve.

And some people believe that a do-nothing congress is a great congress.
Click to expand...
Count me as one of those. Congress and the president did nothing for two years and the economy is growing nicely. What I need from congress is to stay out of my way. So the less they do the better.
 
Fletch said:
Count me as one of those. Congress and the president did nothing for two years and the economy is growing nicely. What I need from congress is to stay out of my way. So the less they do the better.
Click to expand...

Precisely. What exactly does the government need to do? What earth shattering issue must be addressed, or all is lost?

In one of the most over regulated, over controlled, over burdened nanny states in the country, California legislators saw to it that almost 1,000 new laws were placed on the books effective January 1. When one thinks how many days they are in session, the pace is astounding.

I'd love to see a legislative session that ended with the statement, "we passed no new legislation, and instead focused on ridding some of the existing laws burdening citizens, and focused on doing a better less costly job with the stuff we already have".

That would be heaven.
 
gdgyva said:
...the question is, what will the president sign....and what will he send back

and if he sends it all back.....what does that say about him?...
Click to expand...

I would think that it would indicate that he thought the legislation was a bad idea. And if he thinks its a bad idea, why wouldn't he send it back? Wouldn't that make for a piss poor president and completely destroy our system of checks and balances that was intended in the constitution? And if congress can't get together the number of votes to override his veto, then maybe we didn't need that legislation after all. No importa.
 
ocean515 said:
...
I'd love to see a legislative session that ended with the statement, "we passed no new legislation, and instead focused on ridding some of the existing laws burdening citizens, and focused on doing a better less costly job with the stuff we already have".
...
Click to expand...

that would require some legislation.
 
imagep said:
I would think that it would indicate that he thought the legislation was a bad idea. And if he thinks its a bad idea, why wouldn't he send it back? Wouldn't that make for a piss poor president and completely destroy our system of checks and balances that was intended in the constitution? And if congress can't get together the number of votes to override his veto, then maybe we didn't need that legislation after all. No importa.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the Republicans felt the same way about the Obama agenda.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, that thought occurred to me. However, fantasies don't have to be grounded in reality.
Click to expand...

I highly suspect that if republicans in congress had spent the last two or four years passing legislation to repeal unneccesary legislation, the POTUS would have signed at least some of it.

I'm also disappointed that democrats didn't try to reach across the isle by proposing to repeal some legislation also. Surely there is something that dems and republicans can agree about.

I would think that a middle class tax cut would be appealing to everyone, and it certainly would have helped our economy, so a reasonable compromise would have been a deficit neutral bill simultaneously cutting middle class taxes while shrinking means tested welfare. But I guess I am foolish to believe that our current leaders at either extreme would be willing to "give in" to the other, even if it helped EVERYONE.

If Obama really cared about his party, and wanted to ensure that Hillary or some other dem becomes our next POTUS (which would at least somewhat vindicate his presidency), he should really be looking for some sort of grand compromise, even if that takes giving republicans a little more than dems get out of the deal. Of course maybe republicans are simply to smart for that - they want full control of both houses of congress and the POTUS.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
I highly suspect that if republicans in congress had spent the last two or four years passing legislation to repeal unneccesary legislation, the POTUS would have signed at least some of it.

I'm also disappointed that democrats didn't try to reach across the isle by proposing to repeal some legislation also. Surely there is something that dems and republicans can agree about.

I would think that a middle class tax cut would be appealing to everyone, and it certainly would have helped our economy, so a reasonable compromise would have been a deficit neutral bill simultaneously cutting middle class taxes while shrinking means tested welfare. But I guess I am foolish to believe that our current leaders at either extreme would be willing to "give in" to the other, even if it helped EVERYONE.

If Obama really cared about his party, and wanted to ensure that Hillary or some other dem becomes our next POTUS (which would at least somewhat vindicate his presidency), he should really be looking for some sort of grand compromise, even if that takes giving republicans a little more than dems get out of the deal. Of course maybe republicans are simply to smart for that - they want full control of both houses of congress and the POTUS.
Click to expand...

In my opinion action needs to be taken that benefits the small business owners across the country. Tax breaks, incentives, relaxation of burdensome regulations, the lot. These are the people that will help broaden the tax base, and get people back to work and contributing. The bickering of a few percent on income taxes here and there doesn't amount to anything.

Get people back to work. Priority one.

To do that, they must start listening to the small business owners, not the pathetic unrepresentative bloated cow the USCC has become.
 
ocean515 said:
In my opinion action needs to be taken that benefits the small business owners across the country. Tax breaks, incentives, relaxation of burdensome regulations, the lot. These are the people that will help broaden the tax base, and get people back to work and contributing. The bickering of a few percent on income taxes here and there doesn't amount to anything.

Get people back to work. Priority one.

To do that, they must start listening to the small business owners, not the pathetic unrepresentative bloated cow the USCC has become.
Click to expand...

Cutting middle class tax rates is the #1 most effective way to do that. Most small business income is taxed at the personal rate, and most small business owners are solidly middle class (only 2% pay the top income tax bracket). Not only would this allow middle class small business owners to have more capital to expand with, it would leave their customers and employees with more of their hard earned money, so that they can save, invest, and consume (with consumption being the most important factor to most small businesses).

I'm also all for getting rid of burdensome regulations, but aside from Obamacare, I've yet to see an list of any unnecessary overly burdensome regulations which are harming the small business sector, so I'm not so sure that regulations are as big of a factor as many people make them out to be.

I'm not for any special incentives, because that means special deals for special folks, and we've already got enough crony capitalism in this world. Incentives generally mean subsidies of some sort, and subsidies distort the market and result in less than optimal investment decisions and resource allocations.
 
imagep said:
Cutting middle class tax rates is the #1 most effective way to do that. Most small business income is taxed at the personal rate, and most small business owners are solidly middle class (only 2% pay the top income tax bracket). Not only would this allow middle class small business owners to have more capital to expand with, it would leave their customers and employees with more of their hard earned money, so that they can save, invest, and consume (with consumption being the most important factor to most small businesses).

I'm also all for getting rid of burdensome regulations, but aside from Obamacare, I've yet to see an list of any unnecessary overly burdensome regulations which are harming the small business sector, so I'm not so sure that regulations are as big of a factor as many people make them out to be.

I'm not for any special incentives, because that means special deals for special folks, and we've already got enough crony capitalism in this world. Incentives generally mean subsidies of some sort, and subsidies distort the market and result in less than optimal investment decisions and resource allocations.
Click to expand...

Incentives that promote expansion, capital investment, and hiring would be far more productive than providing a few extra percent in tax savings. Until the tax base can be expanded to include more people, l believe little progress will be made. The middle class is dwindling because of poor policies and the damaging impact of regulatory incrementalism. Focusing on middle class income "subsidies" misses the mark completely.
 
ocean515 said:
Incentives that promote expansion, capital investment, and hiring would be far more productive than providing a few extra percent in tax savings. Until the tax base can be expanded to include more people, l believe little progress will be made. The middle class is dwindling because of poor policies and the damaging impact of regulatory incrementalism. Focusing on middle class income "subsidies" misses the mark completely.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you want the government to pick winners and losers? I don't trust that our government is that competent.

In my mind, it's not so much the few percent tax savings to the business that will grow small businesses, it's the increase in demand that would be generated by allowing the worker/consumer class to keep more of their own money.

I own a small business, the ONLY thing that would motivate me to expand, is if my sales increased. No point in purchasing more equipment or hiring more people if I don't have a need for it - that wouldn't be profit maximizing.

So exactly what type of incentives are you thinking of?
 
imagep said:
So what you are saying is that you want the government to pick winners and losers? I don't trust that our government is that competent.

In my mind, it's not so much the few percent tax savings to the business that will grow small businesses, it's the increase in demand that would be generated by allowing the worker/consumer class to keep more of their own money.

I own a small business, the ONLY thing that would motivate me to expand, is if my sales increased. No point in purchasing more equipment or hiring more people if I don't have a need for it - that wouldn't be profit maximizing.

So exactly what type of incentives are you thinking of?
Click to expand...

So picking the middle class for a tax cut is not picking winners and losers?

We've had this "demand" debate before, and there is no reason to rehash positions we are both not going to change.

My reasoning is that the incentives I have suggested provide opportunity to reduce the cost of expanding a business. If the cost of procurement of capital equipment, whether it be machinery or a delivery truck, or whatever, is reduced, those getting orders for that new equipment will benefit. New products could then be developed, or improved efficiency could be reflected in a more competitive market, or even new markets tapped for increased sales. If the cost of hiring new labor could be lowered, it would lower the threshold to which new employees could be hired effectively.

All of these incentives require action on the part of business owners to take advantage of. A tax break, while I certainly support such actions, is like handing out employee bonuses when the year starts, as opposed to being done at the end.
 
ocean515 said:
So picking the middle class for a tax cut is not picking winners and losers?...
Click to expand...

It's far better than picking and choosing which businesses/industries will receive special deals.

Anyhow, a tax cut on the middle class is a tax cut for EVERYONE. Even the working rich have part of their income tax at the lower income tax bracket rates. And the poor are certainly welcome to step it up a bit and become middle class.

So let me make sure I have this straight. You are proposing that government should pay for all or part of the equipment that companies purchase. Correct?

The last time I purchased a piece of manufacturing equipment, I laid off an employee the same day the equipment was installed - didn't need him any more because the new machine was more productive and automated than the last. This might be a sweet deal for me, get the government to pay me to upgrade all of my equipment, then I can lay off some more workers, and increase my income. Yup, works for me, the owner of the means of production. Might suck for the workers that lay off though.
 
imagep said:
You are proposing that government should pay for all or part of the equipment that companies purchase. Correct?
Click to expand...

The government should never under any circumstances purchase anything for any private company with tax dollars ever.
 
blaxshep said:
The government should never under any circumstances purchase anything for any private company with tax dollars ever.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. That's my libertarian streak showing.
 
imagep said:
It's far better than picking and choosing which businesses/industries will receive special deals.

Anyhow, a tax cut on the middle class is a tax cut for EVERYONE. Even the working rich have part of their income tax at the lower income tax bracket rates. And the poor are certainly welcome to step it up a bit and become middle class.

So let me make sure I have this straight. You are proposing that government should pay for all or part of the equipment that companies purchase. Correct?

The last time I purchased a piece of manufacturing equipment, I laid off an employee the same day the equipment was installed - didn't need him any more because the new machine was more productive and automated than the last. This might be a sweet deal for me, get the government to pay me to upgrade all of my equipment, then I can lay off some more workers, and increase my income. Yup, works for me, the owner of the means of production. Might suck for the workers that lay off though.
Click to expand...

It's only for everyone if the small group of people getting the tax cut chose to do something with the retained earnings. In the approach I propose, the business owner actually has to do something to take advantage of the incentive. In yours, all they have to do is breath, and perhaps go out to dinner more often to enjoy the windfall.

Your story about firing someone after buying a new piece of equipment is an interesting one. It's been my experience that improved efficiency has allowed me to take that experienced employee and direct them towards other opportunities that helped grow my business. I guess that highlights the difference between investing in ways to turn on more lights, rather than finding ways to turn them off. Your way eventually ends up with a dark vacant building.
 
ocean515 said:
It's only for everyone if the small group of people getting the tax cut chose to do something with the retained earnings.
Click to expand...

Who said that only a small group would get a tax cut, or that the tax cut would only be on retained earnings?

In the approach I propose, the business owner actually has to do something to take advantage of the incentive. In yours, all they have to do is breath, and perhaps go out to dinner more often to enjoy the windfall.
Click to expand...

Makes my plan far more likely to actually work, doesn't it? I can breath.

Your story about firing someone after buying a new piece of equipment is an interesting one. It's been my experience that improved efficiency has allowed me to take that experienced employee and direct them towards other opportunities that helped grow my business. I guess that highlights the difference between investing in ways to turn on more lights, rather than finding ways to turn them off. Your way eventually ends up with a dark vacant building.
Click to expand...

A vacant building would actually be the dream business for a lot of CEO's and business owners. No employees to have to deal with, and I get to keep the ex-workers wages, in addition to mine. One day soon, there will be little need for human labor. The Jetsons was set in the year 2062, that's not that far off in terms of years, or technology, and George only worked a three hour work day, one day a week.
 
imagep said:
Who said that only a small group would get a tax cut, or that the tax cut would only be on retained earnings?



Makes my plan far more likely to actually work, doesn't it? I can breath.



A vacant building would actually be the dream business for a lot of CEO's and business owners. No employees to have to deal with, and I get to keep the ex-workers wages, in addition to mine. One day soon, there will be little need for human labor. The Jetsons was set in the year 2062, that's not that far off in terms of years, or technology, and George only worked a three hour work day, one day a week.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. Here we go.

Define the middle class tax cut you're proposing and how many people would benefit from it.

When I write "retained earnings" I mean the extra money they have because of reduced taxes.

As to the rest, I guess flat line businesses do have their place. It certainly makes the growing successful businesses that much more visible. I've always seen employees and really valuable parts of my business to be treated as such. I guess a dark building does have some merit, but I'm not sure how that helps grow the economy.
 
imagep said:
A vacant building would actually be the dream business for a lot of CEO's and business owners. No employees to have to deal with, and I get to keep the ex-workers wages, in addition to mine.
Click to expand...

Never have I seen a better justification for taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom