[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Valox]

This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.

You mean the Republican Congress.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers

 

[PMZ]

How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?

The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers.

Other than that, it's product developers that create economic growth.

Hey now, there is some truth to that.
So where is that growth in developing products?
Horse and buggies or technical applications that require an educated work force that is trained for what the market DEMANDS?
We spend too much time and money appeasing the uneducated masses that time has passed by bitching about low skilled jobs gone to Timbuktu.

What should we do about the ''uneducated masses''?

How about, educate them.

 

[Foxfyre]

This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.

You mean the Republican Congress.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers

Sorry, but we have not had a Republican congress since Obama took office or for two years prior to his taking office. And it was not the majority of Republicans who ordered the job killing initiatives I listed up there. And if any Republicans DID vote for any of those things, a pox on their houses too.

 

[PMZ]

This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.

You mean the Republican Congress.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers

From your reference.

Posted on October 15, 2013 at 3:34 pm.
''The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy
Even as Congressional leaders and the president discuss a potential temporary solution to the current stalemate over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling, the repeated cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis has significant and real costs to the U.S. economy.

A new report, prepared by Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, examines the cost of crisis-driven fiscal policy over the past few years by looking at indicators including GDP growth, the unemployment rate and the corporate credit spread. The paper considers recent policy and political battles including the sequester, the government shutdown and brinksmanship on the debt ceiling.

Top-level findings include:

Fiscal Policy Uncertainty: Since late 2009, fiscal policy uncertainty has raised the Baa corporate bond spread by 38 basis points, lowered GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points per year, and raised the unemployment rate in 2013 by 0.6 percentage points, equivalent to 900,000 lost jobs.

Government Shutdown: A 2-week partial government shutdown would directly trim about 0.3 percentage points from 4th-quarter growth.

The Debt Ceiling: The paper considers two scenarios. The first assumes a brief, technical default that is quickly resolved, and the second assumes an extended, two-month stalemate.

In scenario one, risk aversion rises, financing costs rise, prices of risk assets fall, and the economy enters a recession. Exacerbated by the Fed’s inability to lower short-term interest rates, growth only begins to rebound at end of 2014 and the unemployment rate rises to a peak of 8.5% before starting to decline. At its peak, 2.5 million jobs would be lost.
Scenario two implies a longer and deeper recession than in the first scenario, but one characterized by extreme volatility. Annualized GDP growth fluctuates rapidly between plus and minus 8% until the oscillations diminish in 2015. Unemployment rises to a peak of 8.9% — equivalent to 3.1 million lost jobs — before trending down.
Discretionary Spending: Reductions in discretionary spending have reduced annual GDP growth by 0.7 percentage points since 2010 and raised the unemployment rate 0.8 percentage points, representing a cost of 1.2 million jobs.''



- See more at: http://www.macroadvisers.com/2013/10/the-cost-of-crisis-driven-fiscal-policy/#sthash.qO2tw5mp.dpuf

 

[Peterf]

Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?

Assuming that you're not, the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them, get to keep their jobs.

The good news for you is that you get to vote.

If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified? See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision. None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever. (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).

 

[bripat9643]

Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?

Assuming that you're not, the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them, get to keep their jobs.

The good news for you is that you get to vote.

If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified? See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision. None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?

 

[PMZ]

If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified? See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision. None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever. (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).

My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have.

They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us.

They have to choose between freedom and power.

So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.

Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.

 

[PMZ]

If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified? See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision. None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?

No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President.

You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking.

No balls?

 

[PMZ]

This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.

You mean the Republican Congress.

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers

Sorry, but we have not had a Republican congress since Obama took office or for two years prior to his taking office. And it was not the majority of Republicans who ordered the job killing initiatives I listed up there. And if any Republicans DID vote for any of those things, a pox on their houses too.

This is what limited the House to shutting down Congress. Not passing nefarious laws.

 

[Spiderman]

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever. (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).

My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have.

They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us.

You mean like forcing people to buy health insurance? Or forcing some people to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes so people like you don't have to pay?

They have to choose between freedom and power.

So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.

Freedom means just that. You want to restrict people's freedom by not allowing them to keep as much of what they earn as possible.

And sorry but it's people like you that whine. You cry that "the rich" are keeping you down and you want someone to punish them when in reality you are the one responsible for keeping yourself down.

Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.

Carry your own water and stop whining.

 

[kaz]

Yes.

And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...

It's an inaccurate insult.

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

 

[kaz]

There is a solution. Business growth. No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.

PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives? And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

 

[dcraelin]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

 

[kaz]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats. Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?

If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.

 

[PMZ]

Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever. (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).

My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have.

They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us.

You mean like forcing people to buy health insurance? Or forcing some people to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes so people like you don't have to pay?

They have to choose between freedom and power.

So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.

Freedom means just that. You want to restrict people's freedom by not allowing them to keep as much of what they earn as possible.

And sorry but it's people like you that whine. You cry that "the rich" are keeping you down and you want someone to punish them when in reality you are the one responsible for keeping yourself down.

Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.

Carry your own water and stop whining.

Apparently, the way that conservatives feel better about themselves is put others down. Typical of propaganda victims.

Typical propaganda strategy is to get people angry then give them a scapegoat. It's as old as history. Self centered people fall for it like a ton of bricks.

 

[PMZ]

If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified? See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision. None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever. (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).

The Constitution did not set what's best about America. While the plutocracy the founders set up was an improvement over the European models they had, it was only remarkable by the provisions for the people to amend it.

We the people created the freedom of democracy that made it remarkable.

If you thought that there was a movement set on subjecting you to their control, wouldn't you act?

The beauty of democracy is that it tolerates all ideas and any movement can offer votes in support of it.

But look, as an example, at Republican behavior in Congress. Anti-American. Anti democracy. Plutocratic.

I'm quite serious about citizenship being a free market in today's world. If you don't like it here, and I certainly wouldn't if dixiecrats were anything more than a noisy minority, find someplace better.

Grow a pair

 

[PMZ]

And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...

It's an inaccurate insult.

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

What would that evidence be?

 

[PMZ]

PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives? And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

 

[PMZ]

PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives? And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.