• 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!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goldenboy219 said:
So what you are saying, the issue is that businesses do not need to hire? Please remember the difference between a want and a need.
Click to expand...

Businesses want to have the need to hire. Needing more manpower, means that the volume of business has increased and they want business to increase.

Until the government gets the hell out of the way and stops trying to fix the economy, that ain't gonna happen.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Wouldn't it make sense to look at what has worked in the past?

Why cloud the issue with all this partisan gum flapping?

The issue for the People is domestic stability, growth and security. Period. The American People, by and large, have no foreign interests.

Cutting the military back to 2001 or even 2003 levels will still give us the ability to reduce any country on earth to rubble in a week or less... never putting a boot on the ground. Every patriotic American should know this, and know that every other country on the planet knows this.

The only foreign interests America has... are business interests. Not freedom or democracy (though it's a nice side benefit if it happens) as we have supported or installed over 25 tinpot dictators. Business interests dictate foreign policy for the most part. Therefore, if we find ourselves fighting somewhere, you can bet more often than not there is a profit motive behind it for a very few but influential. Our military is too often used to enforce those business interests.

These business interests exercise super human influence among Our Public servants. By shear fact that the directors can and do add the voice and resources of those corporations to their own constitutionally protected individual voice, they subvert the constitutionally protected guarantee of equal representation.

Raising taxes to levels consistent with past successful emergency debt reduction is also common sense. The wealthy were still wealthy, the super wealthy still became more super wealthy.

Cutting entitlements only by ridding the system of abusers which would result in massive savings and allow those left on entitlements (those that truly need it) to see meaningful streamlining of the programs. Social Security for seniors is NOT an entitlement. Each working adult pay in... it's their freakin money.
Click to expand...

Actually, SS and medicare are entitlements. Welfare and foodstamps, aren't.
 
apdst said:
Businesses want to have the need to hire. Needing more manpower, means that the volume of business has increased and they want business to increase.

Until the government gets the hell out of the way and stops trying to fix the economy, that ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

We have a 3.7 trillion dollar a year govt. that has expanded beyond comprehension and along the way generated a 14.5 trillion dollar debt. Amazing how many people want that to continue and ignore the results that govt. has generated. Anyone payng attention to what is going on in Britain? The people there are burning down their communities and have what many here want, an entitlement state. Those people have guaranteed healthcare and pensions yet are protesting having to pay for any of it. People in this country want that here?
 
apdst said:
Because no one is going to spend $30,000+ to hire an employee they don't need, just to save a couple thousand on their taxes.

Tax credits don't = tax cuts.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying, the issue is that businesses do not need to hire? Please remember the difference between a want and a need.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
So what you are saying, the issue is that businesses do not need to hire? Please remember the difference between a want and a need.
Click to expand...

What do you expect to accomplish by posting that over and over?
 
Occam's Razor said:
Wouldn't it make sense to look at what has worked in the past?

Why cloud the issue with all this partisan gum flapping?

The issue for the People is domestic stability, growth and security. Period. The American People, by and large, have no foreign interests.

Cutting the military back to 2001 or even 2003 levels will still give us the ability to reduce any country on earth to rubble in a week or less... never putting a boot on the ground. Every patriotic American should know this, and know that every other country on the planet knows this.

The only foreign interests America has... are business interests. Not freedom or democracy (though it's a nice side benefit if it happens) as we have supported or installed over 25 tinpot dictators. Business interests dictate foreign policy for the most part. Therefore, if we find ourselves fighting somewhere, you can bet more often than not there is a profit motive behind it for a very few but influential. Our military is too often used to enforce those business interests.

These business interests exercise super human influence among Our Public servants. By shear fact that the directors can and do add the voice and resources of those corporations to their own constitutionally protected individual voice, they subvert the constitutionally protected guarantee of equal representation.

Raising taxes to levels consistent with past successful emergency debt reduction is also common sense. The wealthy were still wealthy, the super wealthy still became more super wealthy.

Cutting entitlements only by ridding the system of abusers which would result in massive savings and allow those left on entitlements (those that truly need it) to see meaningful streamlining of the programs. Social Security for seniors is NOT an entitlement. Each working adult pay in... it's their freakin money.
Click to expand...

I will agree to tax increases when someone explains the following to me

Why did Democrats agree to $1 in tax increases for every $3 in spending cuts during the GHW Bush Administration and then renege on the spending cuts?

Explain to me how tax increases put 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans back to work full time paying full taxes?

Who pays those tax increases and does that change the 70 million income earning Americans who pay zero in Federal Income taxes forcing them to pay something?

Answer those to my satisfaction and I will agree with tax increases
 
Goldenboy219 said:
So what you are saying, the issue is that businesses do not need to hire? Please remember the difference between a want and a need.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
What do you expect to accomplish by posting that over and over?
Click to expand...

Businesses don't hire unless the marginal efficiency of investment is going to be worth it. As of right now, most businesses simply find it cheaper to increase productivity through buying more machinery and capital than through hiring additional workers.

But I disagree with the notion that, with regards to hiring at least, a tax credit =/= a tax cut. In both cases the business owner is being given back money by the gov't. In BOTH cases it is entirely possible for the business owner to simply pocket/save the money and not hire the workers if the marginal efficiency of investment is simply not worth it.
 
Conservative said:
I will agree to tax increases when someone explains the following to me

Why did Democrats agree to $1 in tax increases for every $3 in spending cuts during the GHW Bush Administration and then renege on the spending cuts?

Explain to me how tax increases put 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans back to work full time paying full taxes?

Who pays those tax increases and does that change the 70 million income earning Americans who pay zero in Federal Income taxes forcing them to pay something?

Answer those to my satisfaction and I will agree with tax increases
Click to expand...

What a silly argument. The point of raising taxes is to reduce the deficit -- not to create jobs. The same goes for cutting spending. Cutting spending reduces employment. So why should we cut spending? Because we have to lower the deficit -- same reason we need to boost revenue.

You need to get over your obsession with people who aren't paying income taxes. Most of them are poor/unemployed, students, or elderly/retired people. You've previously stated that you are retired. I guess we can assume, then, that you are primarily living on benefits and capital gains, and thus paying an exceptionally low rate?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Businesses don't hire unless the marginal efficiency of investment is going to be worth it. As of right now, most businesses simply find it cheaper to increase productivity through buying more machinery and capital than through hiring additional workers.

But I disagree with the notion that, with regards to hiring at least, a tax credit =/= a tax cut. In both cases the business owner is being given back money by the gov't. In BOTH cases it is entirely possible for the business owner to simply pocket/save the money and not hire the workers if the marginal efficiency of investment is simply not worth it.
Click to expand...

Nice post!

I would only add that this is more true of established business. Most businesses don't turn a profit until after year five. Once this has been achieved capital investment into new equipment is easier than hiring. Prior to that, hiring is the best way to manage growth.

For this reason, growth among smaller businesses is percentage wise, exponentially higher than that of established business, and why most job creation is with small business, not large corps.
 
AdamT said:
What a silly argument. The point of raising taxes is to reduce the deficit -- not to create jobs. The same goes for cutting spending. Cutting spending reduces employment. So why should we cut spending? Because we have to lower the deficit -- same reason we need to boost revenue.

You need to get over your obsession with people who aren't paying income taxes. Most of them are poor/unemployed, students, or elderly/retired people. You've previously stated that you are retired. I guess we can assume, then, that you are primarily living on benefits and capital gains, and thus paying an exceptionally low rate?
Click to expand...

Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue when you have 25 million unemployed or under employed not paying much in taxes. Do you spend more of your money when you have less take home pay? You think that human behavior doesn't play a role in the amount of revenue collected?

You don't seem to get it, over 65 million INCOME EARNERS9(NOT UNEMPLOYED) aren't paying ANY FIT because of tax laws yet your obsession is raising taxes on the employers and rich people as if they aren't going to change their behavior with less personal income due to tax hikes. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt.

Haven't seen an answer to the questions posed, not surprising because the answer would destroy your argument.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Nice post!

I would only add that this is more true of established business. Most businesses don't turn a profit until after year five. Once this has been achieved capital investment into new equipment is easier than hiring. Prior to that, hiring is the best way to manage growth.

For this reason, growth among smaller businesses is percentage wise, exponentially higher than that of established business, and why most job creation is with small business, not large corps.
Click to expand...

No one is hiring as evidenced by the unemployment data, 25 million Americans are unemployed, under employed, or dropped out of the labor market because large and small businesses are certain that their costs aren't going down until this Administration is replaced. The best phrase small business can hear today is "Barack Obama, your fired!"
 
Conservative said:
Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue when you have 25 million unemployed or under employed not paying much in taxes. Do you spend more of your money when you have less take home pay? You think that human behavior doesn't play a role in the amount of revenue collected?

You don't seem to get it, over 65 million INCOME EARNERS9(NOT UNEMPLOYED) aren't paying ANY FIT because of tax laws yet your obsession is raising taxes on the employers and rich people as if they aren't going to change their behavior with less personal income due to tax hikes. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt.

Haven't seen an answer to the questions posed, not surprising because the answer would destroy your argument.
Click to expand...

Huh, it's gone from 70 million income earners to 65 million income earners who don't pay taxes in one post. Do you have any links for these figures you're citing?

In any case, of course raising taxes increases revenue. We saw that very clearly under Clinton, and we saw very clearly under Reagan and Bush that cutting taxes reduces revenue.

You seemt be arguing against yourself. On the one hand you complain because x number of people aren't paying taxes, and then you complain that taxes should not be reaised. Which is it?

What you really seem to be saying is that we should cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Isn't that right? And that, of course, WOULD reduce consumer demand, because the poor and middle class have comparativel little (or no) disposable income. Raise their taxes and it will translate directly to reduced consumption. The same is not true of very wealthy people who have more disposable income than they typically utilize.

I have answered your question on whether we need a $3.7 trillion government at least three times now and you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you have no answer to my response.
 
Conservative said:
No one is hiring as evidenced by the unemployment data, 25 million Americans are unemployed, under employed, or dropped out of the labor market because large and small businesses are certain that their costs aren't going down until this Administration is replaced. The best phrase small business can hear today is "Barack Obama, your fired!"
Click to expand...

To the contrary: the private sector is hiring but that hiring is being offset in large part by layoffs in the public sector -- the consequence of lowering government spending.
 
Conservative said:
tell me how raising taxes puts 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work? The only ones calling for tax increases are those liberals who haven't a clue and believe we have a revenue problem and not a spending problems. When you compromise with a liberal you always get tax increases but never spending cuts.
Click to expand...

You're the one who called for massive tax hikes on american workers
 
Polotick said:
Tell me why some here are screaming to increase taxes on "the 47% who pay no taxes". I still call BS on that number, BTW. At $42K we are going down the tubes and will still pay taxes. Like so many of that mythical 47% we simply don't have the deductions to file the long form.

Why was my call to roll corporate taxes back to pre-cut days and offer tax incentives for jobs created ignored? If tax cuts create jobs then those corporations would still get exactly the same tax rate, why the fear?

This mess was caused by both parties and allowed by apathetic Americans who get easily sidetracked by shiny things. I can find no one who is without guilt.

The financial market has demanded by their own actions strong regulation. Many Americans have accepted job downgrades and many more will before the end I expect.

Where we are right now demands that action is required, not phoney math and bull**** from the political pulpit. Certainly not partisan parroting and finger pointing.
Click to expand...

It's because the rightwingers are hypocrits who claim to be against taxes, but want massive tax increases on the american worker
 
AdamT said:
Huh, it's gone from 70 million income earners to 65 million income earners who don't pay taxes in one post. Do you have any links for these figures you're citing?

In any case, of course raising taxes increases revenue. We saw that very clearly under Clinton, and we saw very clearly under Reagan and Bush that cutting taxes reduces revenue.

You seemt be arguing against yourself. On the one hand you complain because x number of people aren't paying taxes, and then you complain that taxes should not be reaised. Which is it?

What you really seem to be saying is that we should cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Isn't that right? And that, of course, WOULD reduce consumer demand, because the poor and middle class have comparativel little (or no) disposable income. Raise their taxes and it will translate directly to reduced consumption. The same is not true of very wealthy people who have more disposable income than they typically utilize.

I have answered your question on whether we need a $3.7 trillion government at least three times now and you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you have no answer to my response.
Click to expand...

It went to 65 million because the number of jobs has decreased thus the number of income earners has decreased thanks to Obama economic policies. 47% of 140 million employed Americans gives the 65 million.

Under Clinton we had the dot.com bubble that increased employment. There weren't 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans during the Clinton years nor the Bush years.

I have never claimed that taxes should be raised, only that those who believe we have a revenue problem are looking in the wrong places to get their revenue and ignore the impact that increase in taxes will have.

What I am saying is we need to cut spending, not increase taxes. You seem to believe we need to pay for a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. I am saying we need to cut that size of govt.

You have yet to answer the question about the 3.7 trillion dollar govt. or I haven't seen it. Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt paying for these expenses when many of them are duplicated by the states.

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

By the way, do you notice anything on the list of expenses that shouldn't be in the general budget of the U.S?
 
sangha said:
You're the one who called for massive tax hikes on american workers
Click to expand...

Having trouble reading? No, you want more revenue, I showed where you can get it. Keep ignoring reality.
 
sangha said:
It's because the rightwingers are hypocrits who claim to be against taxes, but want massive tax increases on the american worker
Click to expand...

Well you have to understand! If a blue collar family ends up not paying taxes because of child credits and college savings deductions and earned income tax credits, those are terrible loopholes. But if a corporation gets preferential tax treatment for it's fleet of private jets, those are tax loopholes one must fight to the death to preserve!
 
AdamT said:
To the contrary: the private sector is hiring but that hiring is being offset in large part by layoffs in the public sector -- the consequence of lowering government spending.
Click to expand...

You keep buying what you are told by the leftwing media and that is making you look foolish. get the facts, the private sector isn't hiring enough to keep up with the retirements and population growth and never will until Obama is fired. There are fewer people working today in the private sector than when Obama took office, why?
 
AdamT said:
Well you have to understand! If a blue collar family ends up not paying taxes because of child credits and college savings deductions and earned income tax credits, those are terrible loopholes. But if a corporation gets preferential tax treatment for it's fleet of private jets, those are tax loopholes one must fight to the death to preserve!
Click to expand...

Wonder who works on those private jets, who builds them, and then who maintains them?
 
Conservative said:
Having trouble reading? No, you want more revenue, I showed where you can get it. Keep ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps calling for tax hikes on millions of working americans. Keep ignoring your own words and principles; it's what the rightwing does
 
StillBallin75 said:
Businesses don't hire unless the marginal efficiency of investment is going to be worth it. As of right now, most businesses simply find it cheaper to increase productivity through buying more machinery and capital than through hiring additional workers.

But I disagree with the notion that, with regards to hiring at least, a tax credit =/= a tax cut. In both cases the business owner is being given back money by the gov't. In BOTH cases it is entirely possible for the business owner to simply pocket/save the money and not hire the workers if the marginal efficiency of investment is simply not worth it.
Click to expand...

Even in the event of increased use of automation e.g. electronic telephone answering systems, new jobs will be created from technicians to designers to inspectors.

The notion that there is some glut of business demand being drown out by regulation is nonsense. Maybe this crowd can put together a valid case of the most labor intensive production and services feeling a pinch from regulation (the largest would be the minimum wage), but this is only a positive reaction in both the short and long term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom