How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 2

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He won't listen and will continue to be willfully ignorant. A good post, but a waste of you're time...I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ". I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending. It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month. I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.

Originally Posted by Camp David

Your point would be valid if all Americans were paying taxes equally but as I am sure you are aware, a greater majority of the U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy; while 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all! Thus what Baracky is pushing is a true socialist entity where only a small percentage pay for all - unfair, unamerican, and discriminatory.

Originally Posted by jimmac

That small percentage wouldn't be the top 1% would it? The one's that make so much money our ordinary lives seem like we're living on a different planet.

I'm sorry but I really don't think our forefathers could have dreamed of the accumulation of so much wealth.

Originally Posted by Talon8472

Some people wouldn't have dreamed that people could one day fill up a 1 GB drive - or even that it would ever be built. Luckily, those limited-imagination people are not the type of people our founding fathers are.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ".

Originally Posted by jimmac

I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending.

Originally Posted by jimmac

It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.

Originally Posted by Camp David

Your point would be valid if all Americans were paying taxes equally but as I am sure you are aware, a greater majority of the U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy; while 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all! Thus what Baracky is pushing is a true socialist entity where only a small percentage pay for all - unfair, unamerican, and discriminatory.

Originally Posted by tonton

If it's true that the vast majority of profit is made by the wealthy, it should follow that the vast majority of taxes should be paid by the wealthy. Duh.

Originally Posted by tonton

And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,

Originally Posted by tonton

there are a hell of a lot of people who can't afford to survive if not for assistance.

Originally Posted by tonton

And before you start telling the poor to get off their lazy asses, you should be reminded how "uniquely American" a mother holding down three jobs is.

If there is a theme to all this, it has been to try to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality. Growth in the decade that just ended was the slowest in the post-World War II era, while inequality has been rising for most of the last 35 years.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Good for those women. They are working, being productive. They should be applauded. Is there something wrong with that?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Hard drives don't put food on the table for their families is the point. So saying " It's unamerican " by what standard? I think if you're going to use the basis of our country and what those people wanted for a comparison I think they'd look at the super rich of today the same way they looked at the British government at the time.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Economics isn't my strong area however I work at a local university and have a economics professor for a friend and he doesn't come to the same conclusions as you.

Originally Posted by tonton

Are you honestly denying that income disparity has been increasing at an out of control pace?

Originally Posted by tonton

Yes, there is. It should not be required to work that hard to make a living...What would be "good for those women" would be to be compensated in a fair manner for their work.

Originally Posted by tonton

while bankers can collapse entire industries and get billion-dollar bonuses.

Originally Posted by Talon8472

#1: The founding fathers were well aware of history up to their time. The "rich" class have always figured out how to somehow become "richer" by past comparison. Only an unaware fool (or someone who doesn't know economics like yourself - as you yourself have previously admitted)* could not imagine that this progression would continue.

#2: No one contended hard drives put food on the table. Are you arguing with yourself? (Rhetorical question just so your not confused.)


*Support: (Just in case you said you never said that or demand support)

No one contended hard drives put food on the table. Are you arguing with yourself?

Originally Posted by tonton

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/bu...leonhardt.html

That's how.

For me the money quote is this:

It's been clear to me for the longest time that supply-side economics lead to income equality and income equality stifles the economy and with it, growth.

When people wonder why the rich pay a higher share of taxes (ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich pay a lower percentage than the moderately rich), I wonder if those people look at income disparity at all. I don't mean among the low-skilled or the unemployed... I mean the disparity between say, a fresh grad and the first CEO he goes to work for. I mean the difference between a teacher and a stock broker. I mean the difference between a welder and a fund manager. I mean the difference in profit increases at a bank and teller-level salary increases at a bank.

The rich get richer and the poor stay the same or get poorer (when inflation is factored in). These are direct results of Reaganomics that need to be addressed. The only thing keeping these market forces from collapsing the economy altogether are social programs.

So when you ask how can anyone support social spending, I respond with incredulity that the vast majority of the same people have ignored the economic trends of the past 35 years, which have been driven by voodoo economics and supply-side wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.

And Talon there's no way the founding fathers could have foreseen just how rich the top 1% would get or how they would dodge paying for things to get there.

You don't have to be an economist to see that.

Originally Posted by trumptman

...avail themselves of work and education... ...attributable to choices made...

Originally Posted by jimmac

Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.

Originally Posted by jimmac

<snip>nonsense<\\snip>

Originally Posted by Talon8472

You extended an analogy which was clearly crafted for limited scope of "imagination" to absurdity. It's not my fault your reasoning skills and comprehension of English is so horrible.



Trumptman already responded to the rest of your post.

Originally Posted by trumptman

It's clear to me that chasing unicorns and playing with giraffes is what causes income equality and that this also stifles the economy and with it, growth.

Sadly that made up silly statement still makes more sense than your statement.



It's much easier to pay a higher share of taxes when half of all people are not even on the tax rolls. You put forward this strange reasoning that income disparities are somehow related to the rate at which someone is taxed. That is the purest non sequitur I have read in a long time. One does not follow the other at all.



Again, pure non sequitur, government tax policy does not determine what a business will pay someone. It might determine how much they keep of it, but income disparities are not related to tax policy in any fashion or form.

Household incomes and their growing disparity can be attributed almost exclusively to trade and traits related to the culture war. Those parties who are questionable high school graduates or drop outs, have fewer manual labor jobs, factory jobs and union jobs to try to raise their living standard. That is the trade side of the equation. On the culture war side, you have many women who have decided to have children outside of wedlock. When they have their child, they become a "household" by government definition. The number of such households have dramatically increased since the 60's. These households reject marriage for a number of reasons.

So you have a growing number of semi-employable men and women, who reject marriage, still have children, have the government be the head of both households (they count as two) and the government controls their lives via family courts and assistance programs. They won't combine into a single household (which would almost immediately lift them out of poverty) because the women are married to the government for income and housing, and "get the cow without the milk" by having the government extract the income from the men without having the actually deal with the men.

Such households will never catch up with the households where the "rich are getting richer" because they reject education, marriage and desire the government be involved to solve for what they have rejected.

On the flip side of this, you have women who have entered the work force and become educated at amazing rates. They not only avail themselves of work and education but also still get married. Their household, by government definition, now contains two college educated, working adults. Such households are of course going to earn 5-700% more income than the other households. However all of this is attributable to choices made. When one party is gong to work part time at Walmart or McDonalds with questionable education and the other household is going to have two college educated adults working full time, the differences there are going to be 400-800% higher income.

Unlike the made up nonsense, rates of child birth outside of marriage follow the income traits. Most children living in poverty do so because their parents are not married.



There is some wishful thinking in there, and it has to do with wishing that tax policy was responsible for all these people unwilling to get married, grow up, get educated and raise their kids. When you look at communities that are supposedly oppressed due to race, look at their high school graduate rates, rates of marriage and rates of legitimacy.



You also don't have to be an economist to just make up stuff. Please provide a source for what you claim because it is made up nonsense. The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth and also to limit direct Democracy. You are simply making crap up.

The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth

Originally Posted by jimmac

They were already running from an elite group. I doubt they'd feel good about one right here at home!

Originally Posted by jimmac

For the people in general. Not the top exclusive 1%!

Originally Posted by MJ1970

The problem is that in modern America, especially under liberal Democrat rule, some people's property is deemed to be less worthy of being protected and, in fact, is considered fair game for confiscation to pay for whatever those folks wish. Most liberal, leftist Democrats today are on pretty thin ice on the subject of any property rights protection.

Originally Posted by Camp David

Obama's big socialist government approach has been shown to fail by like models in Soviet Union, Venezuela, Greece and the like. Thus, when we hear of stories such as this =>

Obama land grab...
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...s/blog-324247/

we as citizens see Obama as the tyrant he is to America and its citizens. Do citizens matter anymore? Farmers matter anymore? Does the US Constitution matter anymore?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Obama has not implemented Chavez-like socialism. But his policies are socialist, relatively speaking. He favors redistribution of wealth. He favors large government. He favors greater government activity in the affairs of the people. He favors high spending, particularly on social welfare programs. Most importantly, he looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his plans to "remake America." In other words, he's the most "Left" of any President we've had, perhaps with the exception of FDR.

And please, stop comparing the US to The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. I realize your point is to illustrate that "socialism" actually works. It may work in those countries, but we are simply different-- from our economies to cultures, to our responsibilities in the world, to population size. It's not a valid comparison.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Define "unfair".

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Define "unfair".

Originally Posted by SDW2001

-Most importantly: Are we doing what's right for the country? Our children? Grandchildren?

Which do you believe?

Originally Posted by Frank777

At the risk of making Tonton's head explode, I thought I link to a discussion that Canada is starting to have concerning the possible abolition of corporate tax.

I don't expect to see this happen completely in my lifetime (class warfare from the far left will provoke a backlash) but I'd love to hear what both the left and right on AI thinks about the idea.

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

Any tax at the corporate level just gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so what's the point?

And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, "high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992over $15 billionin order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994."

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year?

In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The result could be a new wave of foreclosures

The Obama administration's flagship effort to help people in danger of losing their homes is falling flat.

More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out. That's more than the 27 percent who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.

Last month alone, 150,000 borrowers left the program bringing the total to 436,000 who have exited since it began in March 2009.

Administration officials say borrowers will get help in other ways. But analysts fear the majority will still wind up in foreclosure.

A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

Treasury officials have directed lenders to shift to a new system. They are now required to collect two recent pay stubs at the start of the process. Borrowers have to give the Internal Revenue Service permission to provide their most recent tax returns to lenders.

The growing number of people leaving the program could lead to a new wave of foreclosures. If that happens, it could weaken the housing market and hold back the broader economic recovery.

Another 340,000 homeowners, or 27 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.

Another option is a short sale one in which banks agree to let borrowers sell their homes for less than they owe on their mortgage.

A short sale results in a less severe hit to a borrower's credit score, and is better for communities because homes are less likely to be vandalized or fall into disrepair. To encourage more of those sales, the Obama administration is giving $3,000 for moving expenses to homeowners who complete such a sale or agree to turn over the deed of the property to the lender.

Administration officials said their work on several fronts has helped stabilize the housing market. They cited government efforts to provide money for home loans, push down mortgage rates, and provide a federal tax credit for buyers.

"There's no question that today's housing market is in significantly better shape than anyone predicted 18 months ago," said Sean Donovan, Obama's housing secretary.

The mortgage modification was announced with great fanfare a month after Obama took office.

It is designed to lower borrowers' monthly payments reducing their mortgage rates to as low as 2 percent for five years and extending loan terms to as long as 40 years. Borrowers who complete the program are saving a median of $514 a month. Mortgage companies get taxpayer incentives to reduce borrowers' monthly payments.