• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Not that much, no. I'm sorry that you government is the answer, but frankly business adjusts just fine and has managed to prosper even with high tax rates. History shows this.

:coffeepap

Govt. is never the answer but it sets the policies that affect the business world, sorry you don't understand that. What is your experience in private business to know how they adjust to changing ecomonic policies? History shows that when taxes go up the consumer pays for them and in a global economy that doesn't bode well for the smaller businesses that cannot compete.
 
There has been positive job growth in the private sector for 18 months, and of course it has made a difference. Unfortunately it has been offset in significant part by layoffs in the public sector, which is something your side applauds.

Bush had 52 straight months of private sector job growth but of course that doesn't matter. This is a private sector economy, something your side doesn't understand, and requires a strong private sector which Obama has demonized.
 
Bush had 52 straight months of private sector job growth but of course that doesn't matter. This is a private sector economy, something your side doesn't understand, and requires a strong private sector which Obama has demonized.

Not at all. Job growth is good, whether it happens under Bush or Obama. But it's not much good in the end if it isn't sustainable, and unfortunately most of Bush's job growth was related to the real estate bubble. It's that context thing you can't seem to get right.
 
This is a prime example that gives away the so called "moderates" that think somehow they are above those out there that make up the "working class". Calling people idiots never works for any solution, and serves to divide. So after this opening to set up your self fulfilling prophecy of divided extremes, why should anyone read beyond this 6 word opening to your post?

Obviously you read beyond those 6 words. If not for my attention grabbing introduction would you have gone any further? I represent the real working class. Not some old folks scared about "their" country getting taken away or some apathetic college graduates that thought a 6 figure job would have fallen in their lap after they never held a real job and mommy and daddy paid for everything else. The rest of your responses seem misinformed or confused which could have been my fault. Towards the end I talk about the 32 hours thing, that is directed towards the OWS crowd not the Tea Party crowd.
 
There has been positive job growth in the private sector for 18 months, and of course it has made a difference. Unfortunately it has been offset in significant part by layoffs in the public sector, which is something your side applauds.

Question for you...

Are you equating the 18 months of private sector job growth to Obama's policies or simply the economy bouncing back on its own?

Similarly, if you equate the 18 months of private sector job growth to Obama's policies, do you attribute the 52 months of job growth under Bush to his policies or simply to the economy functioning on its own?

Finally, if you are saying that sustainability is what is important, why are you so quick to just buy into the positive signs of Obama's without having a withdrawn and wait and see type of attitude with it while having no issue in simply shrugging away Bush's results?
 
Last edited:
The world would be full of candy canes and gum drops. Every child would have a future, and every mother would have new car.

/sarcasm



Darn I was hoping the answer to the eternal question "how many licks does it take to get to the center of tootsie pop?" would finally be answered.
 
Not at all. Job growth is good, whether it happens under Bush or Obama. But it's not much good in the end if it isn't sustainable, and unfortunately most of Bush's job growth was related to the real estate bubble. It's that context thing you can't seem to get right.

It is the Obama economic policies that remain the issues here. He doesn't have a clue how to be a leader as no leader demonizes any sector in the economy. You buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama policies and actions. Why is he held to a different standard than any other leader? could it be that you don't understand leadership?
 
Govt. is never the answer but it sets the policies that affect the business world, sorry you don't understand that. What is your experience in private business to know how they adjust to changing ecomonic policies? History shows that when taxes go up the consumer pays for them and in a global economy that doesn't bode well for the smaller businesses that cannot compete.

If government has a huge effect on business, then government is the answer. You can't have it both ways.
 
Question for you...

Are you equating the 18 months of private sector job growth to Obama's policies or simply the economy bouncing back on its own?

Similarly, if you equate the 18 months of private sector job growth to Obama's policies, do you attribute the 52 months of job growth under Bush to his policies or simply to the economy functioning on its own?

It's not an either-or proposition. I think that Obama made most of the right calls to prevent the economy from sliding into a depression or more prolonged recession, so I give him credit for that. But I also think that government generally has limited power to move the economy, so some of the change was inevitable.

Same goes for Bush. I think that the real estate bubble and associated job growth was fueled in part by excess liquidity from his tax cuts in conjunction with a loose money supply that he did not discourage. It was also dependant on lax regulatory enforcement and the non-regulation of derivatives trading, which he did nothing to address. And the deficits Bush ran up have hamstrung Obama in responding to the recession. Out of that group I would assign less blame for regulatory enforcement and non-regulation because few people were sounding the alarm prior to the real estate bust. But in short, I would say that he contributed to 52 months of jobs growth, but those same contributions contributed to recession that wiped out the jobs growth.
 
Ok, then I am sure you would be easily able to type something other than constant condemnations, and derision about your fellow posters in here, and come up with some enlightening pronouncements that lead everyone to have that ah ha moment.

Care to share, or just take the easy road and bitch about others?


j-mac

I have never, as far I know, ever condemned or derided others - only the half-baked opinions they borrow from their masters. I do not admire master or slaves.
 
I have never, as far I know, ever condemned or derided others - only the half-baked opinions they borrow from their masters. I do not admire master or slaves.

Then you should not be wasting yours, and everyone else's time in a message board. I would have to say that 90% of what is given is opinion driven by the MSM in some sort or another. And since this opinion is what you seem to have disdain for, then you are really doing little here but derision.

j-mac
 
Then you should not be wasting yours, and everyone else's time in a message board. I would have to say that 90% of what is given is opinion driven by the MSM in some sort or another. And since this opinion is what you seem to have disdain for, then you are really doing little here but derision.

j-mac

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

MSM? Funny stuff that. Funny stuff.
 
Then you should not be wasting yours, and everyone else's time in a message board. I would have to say that 90% of what is given is opinion driven by the MSM in some sort or another. And since this opinion is what you seem to have disdain for, then you are really doing little here but derision.

j-mac

Yeah, that's what they said on Fox & Friends so it must be true. :lol:
 
If government has a huge effect on business, then government is the answer. You can't have it both ways.

Huge? Well you tell me....

Obama's disastrous energy policy
Obama energy policy: The president is leading us to slow national suicide - Baltimore Sun

Lack of Jobs Increasingly Blamed on Uncertainty Created by Obama’s Policies
Lack of Jobs Increasingly Blamed on Uncertainty Created by Obama

Obama job plan may slow corporate jet business
Obama job plan may slow corporate jet business - Business First

Regulation ad Absurdum
Regulation ad Absurdum | Hoover Institution

How many voices would you like Joe? Maybe you can google Krugman who hasn't been right yet...

j-mac
 
Yeah, that's what they said on Fox & Friends so it must be true. :lol:

Someone has to combat your steady regurgitation of Chrissy Hissy Fit Matthews.


j-mac
 
Huge? Well you tell me....

Obama's disastrous energy policy
Obama energy policy: The president is leading us to slow national suicide - Baltimore Sun

Lack of Jobs Increasingly Blamed on Uncertainty Created by Obama’s Policies
Lack of Jobs Increasingly Blamed on Uncertainty Created by Obama

Obama job plan may slow corporate jet business
Obama job plan may slow corporate jet business - Business First

Regulation ad Absurdum
Regulation ad Absurdum | Hoover Institution

How many voices would you like Joe? Maybe you can google Krugman who hasn't been right yet...

j-mac

Do you even look at what you're citing? Seriously.

Nothing up there is any better than the American thinker. The Heartland institute? Do you know who they are and how much credibility they lack? And you have the nerve to whinme about the MSM?

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

J, you need credible voices. You need real and reasonable voices. You need to put the koolaid down, stop drinking the liberal hyperbole, the wild generalizations, the partisan silliness, and seek something that actually makes a valid case.
 
BTW, You too j are arguing government is the answer. I linked soemthing for you a while back that you didn't respond to where an econimst argued if you really believed what you're spouting, you'd argue for more government spending. You might go back and revisit that article. ;)
 
Do you even look at what you're citing? Seriously.

Nothing up there is any better than the American thinker. The Heartland institute? Do you know who they are and how much credibility they lack? And you have the nerve to whinme about the MSM?

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

J, you need credible voices. You need real and reasonable voices. You need to put the koolaid down, stop drinking the liberal hyperbole, the wild generalizations, the partisan silliness, and seek something that actually makes a valid case.

I noticed that you didn't address anything in those articles, not one thing, only offer attack of the source which my friend is an admittance that you concede.

Show me where each one of those is factually wrong.

j-mac
 
BTW, You too j are arguing government is the answer. I linked soemthing for you a while back that you didn't respond to where an econimst argued if you really believed what you're spouting, you'd argue for more government spending. You might go back and revisit that article. ;)

No, that is you being disingenuous as usual. Government is limited, and should be more so.

j-mac
 
The rates you showed in the table were marginal rates.

I have not posted a table previously. I will now however, and it compares the actual tax rates paid in 1961 with 2011:

"This graph from the report compares the actual income taxes paid by the rich in 1961 and 2011. As it happens, 1961 falls right between the time covered by seasons one (March to November, 1960) and two (February to October 1962) of “Mad Men.”

ips_2011_taxes.png


Back in 1961, Don Draper and his partners at Sterling Cooper paid somewhere between 27 and 43 percent of their income in federal income taxes. Their counterparts today pay somewhere between 20 and 24 percent. As the IPS report argues, we don’t need austerity, we need tax increases at the top."



US tax rates for the rich then and now « Real-World Economics Review Blog

And here is how the Dividends and capital gains rate has changed from 1961 - 2011:

Dividend-Cap-Gains-tax-Rates-US.png


http://topforeignstocks.com/2011/08/07/u-s-dividends-and-capital-gains-tax-rate-since-1961/
 
Last edited:
I have not posted a table previously. I will now however, and it compares the actual tax rates paid in 1961 with 2011:

Well yeah, that's why no rich people lived in the U.S. prior to 1982. ;)
 
I noticed that you didn't address anything in those articles, not one thing, only offer attack of the source which my friend is an admittance that you concede.

Show me where each one of those is factually wrong.

j-mac

When will you learn, stupid is not something that anyone should address. The articles present no real facts, but wildly gross hyperbolic nonsense. Only a fool takes something like those things seriously or worthy of addressing. Try finding something more acurate and less hyperbolic. Like I said, if you ever really present anything factual, I'll address it.
 
Back
Top Bottom