The wealthy, economic elites, aristocrats, or simply the rich, are what they have been known as for many years. Now through the indoctrination machinery of the Right, they are the “job creators”.
Never mind the pathetically sluggish job growth since fellow aristocrat Bush gave them all tax cuts. He never did reduce unemployment to the level he inherited in 2000. No, they are not creating very many jobs, or if they do, most of them are in Asia. This is beside the point.
The point is we are being indoctrinated. The Right’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been unilaterally redefining terms to tilt public policy debates to the advantage of the wealthy elites. “Job creators” is this year’s Right wing “newspeak” propaganda success.
Rather than a cautionary tale of warning, the Right embraces “1984” as a “How to Guide” on winning elections and governing. The Decider practically quoted the “War is peace” slogan when he said, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”
The Right likes to paint all small business owners as job creators too. There’s one so-called “job creator” who admits he never created any jobs. And Dana Milbank dares to say most others didn’t either.
Notice all the parrots now squawking on about not taxing “job creators” are the same ones who squawked hysterically about the health care act being a “government takeover of health care”. Dutiful dupes they are. So duped and dutiful they eagerly parroted Politifact’s 2010 Lie of the Year. Also dutifully parroted was the 2009 Lie of the Year, the infamous Palin-esque “death panels”.
Anybody else see a pattern emerging from these lies? Yes, they are Republican lies, proving again the only way they can attain power is by lying.
Specifically, “job creators” and “government takeover” are the products of Republican Minister of Propaganda Frank Luntz.
And Luntz is worried about the Occupy Wall Street message, as all the greedy aristocratic elites should be. In fact, he told the recent Republican Governors Association in Florida, "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”
He even suggested they avoid the word “capitalism”. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
I guess they have a problem, since more and more people are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the top defenders of Wall Street, along with generous help from corpodems. Unregulated capitalism is not only an immoral, or at least amoral, system, it has proven to be a failed system as well. As we know, there’s no such thing as the “free market” but that won’t stop them from perpetuating the lie.
For the latest on the Right’s Orwellian newspeak, see last Thursday’s Yahoo News article, “How Republicans Are Being Taught to Talk about Occupy Wall Street”.
Along with avoiding the word “capitalism” we learn that we shouldn’t say, “Government taxes the rich”. Most Americans want the rich to pay what they did before Bush. And Luntz warns about uttering the term “middle class”. “We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
“Not sure about that” indeed.
And speaking of Wall Street, one very important word on the “Do not use list” is “bonus”. Hmm...I wonder why?
It’s probably a safe bet to predict the Lie of the Year for 2011 will also be a fabrication by the Right.
“Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense.” – Mark Twain - 1888
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dave Dubya
- History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy. I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom. I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.
Posts
95 comments:
"Unregulated capitalism is not only an immoral, or at least amoral, system, it has proven to be a failed system as well."
I think if the choice for voters is between Republicans who defend capitalism or Democrats who are anti-capitalist and sound like you, Republicans win every time.
Heathen,
But don't Republicans often lose?
As of now, Democrats aren't anti-capitalist. OWS and Dave's words make me think that may not always be true.
Laissez-faire capitalism, a.k.a. unregulated free markets, is an amoral mechanism and no more suitable for a civilized society than all-out Stalinist Soviet communism. Both are extremes destructive of liberty and self-governance. As history amply proves.
Capitalism isn't under attack, and Republicans aren't defending it. They're doing the bidding of wealthy and powerful funding sources who spend big to keep their Republican agents in government in office and to the greatest extent possible, in power. It's an incestuous relationship among people who intend to get more wealth, power and job security for themsevelves, regardless of what happens to the country or their fellow Americans.
The talk about "job creators" is the latest euphemism for trickle-down economic policy, which is all Republicans have to offer. There is a wealth of documented evidence that is true and the policy is absolute poison, wrecking our economy, the middle class, our political system and government.
There's good, historically proven reason for Justice Brandeis' dictum that you can have great wealth in the hands of a few or democracy, but not both. It's because too many of those with great wealth use their wealth to corrupt politicians and government for their own selfish ends. It relates to one of my mother's momism's: "Idle hands are the devil's playthings."
Paradoxically, Republicans, in seeking to give the malefactors of great wealth all the freedom, control and advantages they want are the real threat to capitalism.
Neofeudal, plutocratic and fascist systems have a way of becoming intolerable to too many people and thus coming to a bad end, in revolutions and disastrous wars.
"Laissez-faire capitalism, a.k.a. unregulated free markets, is an amoral mechanism and no more suitable for a civilized society than all-out Stalinist Soviet communism."
Agreed. Thank god no Republican would suggest such a thing. Libertarians, on the other hand...
"Capitalism isn't under attack, and Republicans aren't defending it."
Sure it is, by the people speaking for OWS and Democrats who endorse OWS. Republicans are the only ones defending capitalism right now.
"They're doing the bidding of wealthy and powerful funding sources who spend big to keep their Republican agents in government in office and to the greatest extent possible, in power. It's an incestuous relationship among people who intend to get more wealth, power and job security for themsevelves, regardless of what happens to the country or their fellow Americans."
I believe Dave has a word for people like this: corpodems.
For decades we've been reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and reducing those "cumbersome" regulations that were hampering the movers and shakers. The theory was that some of the richest one percent's increased wealth would trickle down onto the rest of us; jillions of new jobs would be created so fast our heads would be spinning. After 31 years we're still waiting...
On the other hand, Republicans are against extending the payroll tax holiday for lowly working stiffs. We already tried this tax holiday for a few months, and since millions of new jobs didn't get created instantly, this payroll tax holiday clearly didn't work.
HR,
I'd love to see what would happen if more Democrats, or even Republicans, sounded like me. Unfortunately very few are allowed by their Big Money masters to do so.
And that aint capitalism, it's corruption.
And it is the corruption of capitalism, not capitalism itself that is "under attack". In fact, the voices of anti-corruption are the only ones literally "under attack". I don't see cops pepper spraying crooked banksters.
It must make Righties feel better to say I am anti-capitalist and hate corporations. I have never said so myself. I believe I have mentioned before that I have a 401K and other investments at stake. So you see, I'm not a communist at all, just a fierce pro-democacy civil libertarian with socialist inclinations.
And corpodems are not quite identical to Republicans, but close.
John
Would HR's choice be a false dichotomy or just a hypothetical choice?
SW,
I'm confused. It seems like HR is agreeing with you, but not me, on the same thing.
Tom,
That makes it pretty clear who the Republicans represent.
Well Dave, you say that capitalism is a failed system, then claim you are not anti-capitalist. You mean you're in favor of a failed system? I guess I stand corrected.
SW says that laissez-faire is a bad idea, and I agree with him. I know he thought he was taking a shot at the right, but Republicans don't want laissez-faire, either.
This kind of discussion is silly anyway. The right says the left is socialist and the left says the right wants no regulation. We both want a free market with some necessary regulation. Our differences are how much "some" is.
But Dave, with comments like yours (highlighted in my first comment) and the OWS movement, it's looking like progressives may not want free markets any more. I hope that's not true.
HR,
Now there you go again.
“you say that capitalism is a failed system”
That’s not what I said. I suppose if I say drunk driving executives should be thrown into jail, you’d accuse me of saying “driving executives should be thrown into jail”. What could be your reason for misrepresenting me like this? If you won’t explain, then we can easily imagine why.
We both want a free market with some necessary regulation.
Now that would depend a lot on some definitions, wouldn’t it? I’ll be so bold as to disagree with you over just one word for now.
We don’t want some necessary regulation. We want all necessary regulation.
S.W.
It is a false dichotomy, as you already know. Both democrats and republicans are capitalist. The question is only one of degrees. Heathen knows this.
John,
Thank you. We appreciate and savor the highlighting of fallacies aroung here. We often fall into that slippery slope.
Heathen Republican wrote: "Republicans don't want laissez-faire, either."
Republicans don't want laissez-faire the same way insurance companies want and end to people having accidents, and for the same reason.
John, Dave, I never claimed Dems and Republicans aren't capitalist and am not guilty of making a false dichotomy.
Republicans seek to get as close to laissez-faire as possible. It's their franchise, their meal ticket and their ideology. Some Dems at times go along with Republicans on this to some extent. As a general proposition, most Dems, most of the time, realize it's bad for 99 percent of us in the short run and 100 percent of us in the long run.
"Republicans seek to get as close to laissez-faire as possible. It's their franchise, their meal ticket and their ideology."
SW, there are plenty of things for us to disagree about. Making sh*t up about Republicans is a waste of all our time.
You're still confusing Republicans with libertarians. Which of the 30,000 new regulations that Bush signed into law were designed to get us closer to laissez-faire?
They do create jobs. Who else would? Government? Government jobs eat tax revenue. We could have full employment through government tomorrow, and nothing to eat. The Soviet Union proved that. So we need to private sector to create jobs, and who does that? People making over 250,000 per year. That's right, rich people.
I mean really, how many pay checks have the dudes living at the homeless shelter signed for you lately?
As for taxes, Democrats want to raise them. I'm wondering how they plan on stopping this problem they seem to be bringing up a lot lately, and in the post, of companies moving to China and their owners moving to tax havens.
I don't know what they're ideas are to reverse this trend exactly because you never really can get them off the subject of how bad those evil rich are. It seems they want to lure industry and jobs back to America with higher taxes and more regulation. I'm sure that will likely not work.
Heathen Republican asked, "Which of the 30,000 new regulations that Bush signed into law were designed to get us closer to laissez-faire?"
Try this on for size.
Bush sneaks through host of laws to undermine Obama
Here's a pertinent portion, and it only covers Bush's final weeks in office:
"By the time he vacates the White House, he (George W. Bush) will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo.
"Dozens of new rules have already been introduced which critics say will diminish worker safety, pollute the environment, promote gun use and curtail abortion rights. Many rules promote the interests of large industries, such as coal mining or energy, which have energetically supported Bush during his two terms as president. More are expected this week.
"America's attention is focused on the fate of the beleaguered car industry, still seeking backing in Washington for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out. But behind the scenes, the 'midnight' rules are being rushed through with little fanfare and minimal media attention. None of them would be likely to appeal to the incoming Obama team.
"The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste."
S.W.,
John, Dave, I never claimed Dems and Republicans aren't capitalist and am not guilty of making a false dichotomy.
No one claimed you were. I simple responded to Dave and addressed the response to you.
This is a quote from Robert Allen Bonelli that should be taken into consideration in this current thread.
"While people demand that their neighbors who may be better off economically should be ordered – by law – to share their success with them, what they are really promoting is the ascendancy of the state over the people. What they are missing is that they are demanding the suppression of liberty for their neighbors, themselves and their own children.
Now what can we, the citizens of a still free society, do to make sure that our children live in the sunshine of liberty rather than bound to the yoke of the state? First thing we need to do is to recognize that we are fighting for our children’s future and put aside any near-term relief government enforced entitlements may bring. Those entitlements paid out today, must be paid for by our children tomorrow! There is no magic here only a zero-sum game. What the government gives you today will be taken from your children tomorrow."
. the Rich are only job creators in the language of the rich.
Then by all means, please show me the owners of that giant, multinational corporation owned by welfare recipients. How many CEOs of the fortune 500 make under 20,000 heck... 50,000 per year?
Yeah, none. So it's safe to say if you get a private sector job, it was given to you by at least a relatively rich guy. Even a successful small businessmen isn't in it so he can make a pitiful salary. He wants to make as much money as he can. Otherwise, he wouldn't be doing it.
Now I'm waiting for someone here to explain to me how raising taxes on these people won't give incentives for these people to ship jobs to China or Mexico and enjoy the friendly tax rates of the Cayman Islands or Lictenstien?
Yeah, it seems Atlas really is shrugging. The most accurate prediction made in that novel by Ayn Rand was the sound of all the whining when the rich stop producing for everyone else.
Free,
Those entitlements paid out today, must be paid for by our children tomorrow!
God, that is terrible! I think you are suggesting that we should make sure we collect enough revenue to pay for entitlements, as we have every other time the budget was balanced. Our debt, of course, is much much larger than any increase in entitlements. Perhaps other things contribute to it, like collecting less revenue.
I tentatively endorse your "Collect More Revenue" plan, Free.
Free,
Yeah, it seems Atlas really is shrugging. The most accurate prediction made in that novel by Ayn Rand was the sound of all the whining when the rich stop producing for everyone else.
I believe everyone else is producing for the rich, not the other way around. It is the wealthy who are raising their incomes by more then 300%, not everyone else.
I guess the American Dream today is NOT to become rich, but to take from the rich.
Interesting change in the AMERICAN DREAM.
"They do create jobs"
and so does government.
"They" meaning the people who actually create jobs, not all the aristocrats, bankers and hedge fund money men, also called "job creators". Which was, of course, my point.
Funny thing. The real job creators created a lot more jobs back when they paid higher taxes. Let's give them more cuts and see if the magic happens then. Yup.
and so does government.
Yes, government jobs. When was the last time you bought milk from the State milk factory or bought a TV made by the federal government? Government produces nothing, and working at the DMV (or the Army for that matter) doesn't and can't grow the economy. We need Soldiers and people to process your driver's license - those are necessary jobs, but necessary evils. You can't sustain an economy on them.
Remember: "If we are all employed by the Army and Fleet, we would have full employment and nothing to eat."
Ever wondered why they had those bread lines in Russia during communism? Government jobs.
The real job creators created a lot more jobs back when they paid higher taxes.
Until they got sick of paying them, moved to the Caymans and outsourced their production facilities to China. They were held hostage by a lack of technology then, so you could fleece them at will. You might have heard we invented the internet and the container ship. These two inventions mean they don't have to live in the U.S. to sell things to it anymore.
I tentatively endorse your "Collect More Revenue" plan, Free
I think John you're getting a comment someone else made confused with one of mine. But I'll bite. Let me tell you how you're NOT going to raise tax revenue. Taxing your tax base away.
Ask Michigan. It had the worlds largest industrial machine, and it decided to beat up on the rich to pay for a lavish welfare state. What happened? The tax base moved to Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia and Texas... and the factories they didn't take with them got moved to China and Mexico. Now you go to the birthplace of the modern middle class (Detroit) and it looks like East Baghdad- with a higher unemployment rate! Not kidding!
65% unemployment rate, and a yearly winner of various crime "capital's of" contests. Murder, rape, car jacking. That's Detroit!
Not to mention, entire Michigan towns are going bankrupt and the state can't close schools fast enough... the whole government is broke with a capital B. Obviously, soaking the rich didn't work out to well for Michigan, or Illinois, or P-A, or a host of others.
That's where the "soak the rich" policy leads- Detroit. I've seen it happen on a smaller scale in Michigan, and I'm bracing to see it happen on a national one, since the liberal policy is the same nationally as it was on a state level in Michigan. It only took 30 years for Detroit to implode, I wonder how long it would take the country on a national level? Lets not find out hmmmmkaaaay.
Free,
It only took 30 years for Detroit to implode, I wonder how long it would take the country on a national level?
I think we are going on about 80 years and now taxing far less than we once did, so we are NOT doing as Michigan did. The nation was thriving until we solved our problems with reduced taxation and complained that we now have no way to pay for our safety net.
Taxation is, and must be, balanced with spending. It does sound like you are suggesting we need regulation to prevent too much outsourcing. I am not sure I agree with that, though. I tend to favor smaller government, myself.
John,
Your side is suggesting we raise taxes. At the current rate, companies and individuals are already jumping ship to live in other countries and outsource industry. Tell me, if you raise the rates on the individuals who didn't leave before what do you think they will do after their tax rates go up?
You can talk about how tax rates were in the 1950s all you want. That was before it was very easy to outsource and move away to a friendly country with a low tax rate. This is 2011, and those options are available for the ever hated "job creator."
As for what to do about it, there is nothing we can do about it. That is unless you want to go to war with China and try to steal "our" jobs back. I'll pass on that option.
American wages are not competitive. Competition with China is going to drive them down significantly - or if Americans try to legislate their wages through government and unions they will loose their jobs outright and have NO paycheck. That is the reality of the situation. Nobody likes that reality, but reality it remains. America needs to take a big pay cut, or we might end up out of business. Just like Detroit did.
//As for taxes, Democrats want to raise them//
A Big Corp Repubs do to pay ANY
http://bdgrdemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/georgia-pacific-a-subsidiary-of-koch-industries-an-early-gift-from-wisconsin-department-of-revenue/
GP is also one of the biggest polluters in the state...they don't practice Corp responsibility for the natural resources they use...yet they use the schools, the roads, the services WE pay for...
"A Big Corp Repubs do to pay ANY"
(Someone has been drinking.)
Free is right about one thing. Things are different now; largely due to corporate leverage in government and policy making.
America needs to take a big pay cut
We all know who he means by "America" in this sense. Those of us who didn't suck up the real redistribution of wealth at a 400% increase over the past decades.
Watch veterans pensions and health benefits get the axe too.
Austerity is for the 99% of us "little people", otherwise the elites will leave the country. Poor wretches. If greed is not the issue, then they must really hate America and Americans if a mere hint of a 1.9% to 3% tax restoration, or a dimes worth of profit difference, entices them to dump our jobs.
The American dream of a viable middle class will be replaced by Chinese peasant wages. Neo-feudalism, here we come.
Okjimm,
And there are the benefits of corporate super personhood. Politicians are in their pockets and they have no accountability, or shared costs of public infrastructure and services. They are better than the rest of us and are happy to flaunt it. We better kiss up to them too, or they will threaten to leave. Poor, poor victimized wretches.
A few years back, I worked a second job at a local pizza parlor to make ends meet. The owner was a very hard working older lady that had turned the business into a thriving and profitable enterprise. Well, there happened to be a homeless guy that would often stand out front in the parking lot with a sign saying, “Will work for food”.
After a few days of him being there, the owner asked the homeless gentleman if he was serious about what he had written on his sign. When the guy asked why, she said she would be willing to give him a job of 40 hours per week and he could take a free pizza with him at the end of his shift each night. The gentleman asked, “How much will you pay me?”, to which the owner responded that she would start him out at minimum wage.
I watched the man become indignant and stated that he “could make more than that by standing in front of her business”. She politely asked him to please leave the premises then and not return.
Yes, the account is anecdotal but the concept I learned from it is true and is symptomatic for many on the left. The gentleman didn’t really want to work, you see. He simply wanted money from the “wealthy” patrons of the pizza parlor. He wanted something for nothing, just like the entitlement mentality of the left that wants the “wealthy patrons” of America to fund their lifestyle while intending to give nothing back in return.
And just like the homeless man that left the parking lot cursing the business owner, the left curses the “job creators” for not being willing to share more of their money via taxes with them. They too want something for nothing and yet ironically have the nerve to call those other people greedy.
Well, there's a trollish accusatory comment that has nothing to do with the original post or thread. Or maybe it does in ways not intended.
I'd bet it's also not true.
Although the parroting of "job creators" is proof of my point, the strong possibility of the falsehood of the tale fits exactly into what I said.
So now that taxes are low for the rich and most corporation pay zero income tax, Mr. Troll can explain how everything is so much better in America. I've certainly seen many, many more "Will work for food" signs since the Bush tax cuts and deregulation of Big Money.
I guess that's something to crow about, eh?
Free,
I want to respond to everyone, but I will have to until later, but I do have one important question:
If it could be definitively shown that raising the top marginal tax rate by 4% would significantly help the American economy, would you then advocate doing it?
Heathen said...
"As of now, Democrats aren't anti-capitalist. OWS and Dave's words make me think that may not always be true."
So, I guess one is either totally and unequivocally pro-capitalism, otherwise one is in danger of being "anti-capitalist"?
And, please tell me, what official words from OWS cause you to believe they're totally anti-capitalist? (I hope it's not the ridiculous link you provided on your blog the other day. I assume that's your attempt at displaying a sense of humor. Once more, I hope.)
Things are different now; largely due to corporate leverage in government and policy making.
The Chinese government maybe...
We all know who he means by "America"
If you want me to be specific that would be people who work in the production sector. Sucks to be them, China, India, and Vietnam are undercutting them. Too bad, so sad. That's life and economics.
Watch veterans pensions and health benefits get the axe too.
Already is. Its going to shrink more too. Tax base is shrinking. I'd like to keep some of that base in the United States, but Democrats seem intent on driving it out.
Austerity is for the 99% of us "little people", otherwise the elites will leave the country. Poor wretches.
Preeeeeeeeecisely. It's an economic reality. No use denying it. Denial isn't a strategy, ask Michigan.
then they must really hate America and Americans
That's your plan? Calling them unpatriotic? That probably won't get them to stay. When our country goes that route you can be satisfied jobless, on a crumbling welfare check. Just look at Michigan. All the automotive companies left, and now you can't fine one major grocery store within the city limits. Not even a dreaded Walmart. Poverty, crime, destitution and urban decay were the result... but no CORPORATIONS. Yay!
for not being willing to share more of their money via taxes with them.
Well, that's what you get for depending on the altruism of others. They aren't interested in paying you. They've been voting with their feet for years now, and they'll leave even faster the more you tax them. This is the consequences of your ideas.
Is that starting to sink in?
Although the parroting of "job creators" is proof of my point
I think it proves my point. You need them more than they need you. The "job creators" are perfectly happy to give those jobs to Chinese people and enjoy their money on the beach in the Caymans or skiing the Alps in Lictenstien while you figure out how to eat. I saw them leave Michigan for Tennessee and Georgia and I'm watching them pack up for sunny Grand Cayman now.
Enjoy the future of Liberalism. It's an abandoned building next to a full homeless shelter... with no money to pay for the shelter. You want to crow about something, try crowing about Detroit. That's what progressivism gave us there.
I've certainly seen many, many more "Will work for food" signs since the Bush tax cuts and deregulation of Big Money.
And you're going to see a lot more if Obama gets his tax increases.
John,
If it could be definitively shown that raising the top marginal tax rate by 4% would significantly help the American economy
You're assuming it would raise revenue. I don't think it would. As I said, just ask Michigan if that works. Progressive Jennifer Grandholm and her taxes along with the UAW finished that state off. Today, Detroit is a waste land.
But yay, no corporations. Everyone is just about economically equal in Detroit. Equally poor. No 1%! Yay. Detroit- Where the wealthiest 1% sell crack!
@Free,
Tell me, if you raise the rates on the individuals who didn't leave before what do you think they will do after their tax rates go up?
Not leave, I reckon. It is there MO, after all.
You can talk about how tax rates were in the 1950s all you want.
Thanks. I also remember when candy was a nickel.
@Anti-Me
A few years back, I worked a second job at a local pizza parlor to make ends meet.
I worked a second job at a parole office logging psychological profiles. Most of the cases were crime offenses (I think all of them were), and many of the perpetrators of these crimes were very intelligent in a twisted sort of way. I swear Free fits the profile. The way he carries himself is a the way most of those folk carried themselves.
Anti-me, your story shows that some homeless people don’t want to work. Since everyone here knows that already, your story was not informative, though it was interesting. We all know that some homeless people want to work and others don’t.
@Dave,
I've certainly seen many, many more "Will work for food" signs since the Bush tax cuts and deregulation of Big Money.
That is because a lot more people want money from the rich, now that the rich have so much extra to give.
@Free,
The "job creators" are perfectly happy to give those jobs to Chinese people and enjoy their money on the beach in the Caymans or skiing the Alps in Lictenstien while you figure out how to eat.
And if we can get rid of those job creators sooner than later, the rest of us can recover. A job creator who is unwilling to contribute is not doing us a huge favor, and by us, I mean you.
Enjoy the future of Liberalism. It's an abandoned building next to a full homeless shelter... with no money to pay for the shelter
Yes, more money in the hands of the wealthy makes us all wealthier, even though that is not happening. The job creators are not creating jobs. They are putting money in their mattresses, even as their incomes reach record highs.
@Free (Repeating the same question),
You're assuming it would raise revenue. I don't think it would. As I said, just ask Michigan if that works. Progressive Jennifer Grandholm and her taxes along with the UAW finished that state off. Today, Detroit is a waste land.
There was no assumption. I said if it could be shown that it would improve our economic situation, would you advocate it. There is no assumption inherent in that question, just as there was no answer contained in your response.
As for your repeated Detroit example, it would be nice if you stop thinking that leaving Detroit is tantamount to leaving the nation. Lots of cities rise and fall to other cities. It seems you think we need more regulations, even at the city level, to prevent this? I don’t know. I just hate the thought of larger government.
if we can get rid of those job creators sooner than later
Yawn. First, you're liberal hippies. You aren't scary- so if that's what you're talking about... good luck. The second you try the "workers of the world unite" play "the rich" will hire guys like me. Good luck libers against guys like me. Nobody is going to go quietly off to your gulag if that's what you had in mind.
Second, do you know how to run a car company, a dairy, anything? Nope. You can't plan it, you can't organize it and you can't run it. Most Americans lack those skills and aren't interested in learning them. Go play your workers of the world unite game- you'll be begging on your knees for those "evil rich and their evil corporations" to come back just like Michiganders are today - and they'll laugh in your face. It'll be hilarious. If you get your way you'll find yourself sitting in an abandoned house with no food with no clue how to feed yourself going "What the fuck happened?"
You know, just like about half of Detroit did.
Yes, more money in the hands of the wealthy makes us all wealthier, even though that is not happening.
Yes, because the wealthy are leaving, and if not physically leaving (though more will do so when taxed higher just like when they left Michigan for the South) sheltering their money away from you. It doesn't trickle down because they're keeping it. They aren't opening new business or expanding old business here - like you said - because they are unfairly taxed. More unfair taxation isn't going to motivate them to pay more taxes - it will provide them the incentive to leave the U.S. altogether and let the ones who can't afford to escape fend for themselves... which they will do a bad job of. Just like Detroiters did.
Asia. That is where the liberal future is, because the people that actually make things and build things in this country would rather do business with those people than the people here. How many jobs have been pushed over seas because it's cheaper? You tell me. We are being left behind and your plan is to beat the few that stayed till they leave. Then we can all live like Detroit. I wonder if they need private security over there where the rich people are moving...
I said if it could be shown that it would improve our economic situation,
And I told you, It Can't. If it could be possible for money to grow on trees then I'd be for that too, but it ain't gonna happen.
it would be nice if you stop thinking that leaving Detroit is tantamount to leaving the nation.
What are you illiterate? What I'm telling you is the mistakes Michigan made can be made on a national level. Einstein famously said repeating the same course of action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Liberals then, must be insane - because their policies bankrupted places like Detroit and turned them into war zones. Places like Detroit, Flint, and Jackson Michigan. Places like Gary Indiana, places like Newark New Jersey. Places like where I grew up, where if you had the means to escape you GOT OUT. Your policy will turn our entire country into one of those places. We can all then live in one big Michigan.
This is what that looks like in Indiana.
Pretty quick Philly will know what it's like to live in a failed state.
I could go on, but I won't link dump. I don't need to. Its obvious. Liberalism killed these places.
@Free,
And I told you, It Can't. If it could be possible for money to grow on trees then I'd be for that too, but it ain't gonna happen.
Is that a “yes?” You seem to be most fearful of that question for reasons I cannot fathom.
What are you illiterate?
I don’t think you know what “illiterate” means. Were I illiterate, I would not have been able to pose the question in writing.
What I'm telling you is the mistakes Michigan made can be made on a national level.
I see, so to paraphrase, you are telling me that you don’t understand the difference between state economics and national economics. I accept that explanation.
Einstein famously said repeating the same course of action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
According to you, liberals have repeated that action for 80 years and with much success. By your own definition not embracing liberal taxation policies is the definition of insanity.
Places like where I grew up, where if you had the means to escape you GOT OUT.
You mean places like China?
Your policy will turn our entire country into one of those places.
My policy has been en force for some time and only was taken out of action in the last few decades, as the economy declined. Your point is well-made.
We can all then live in one big Michigan.
I am a programmer. The states that offer me the best opportunity in my field, which is not the auto-industry, are mostly liberal. CA and NY have tried to recruit me and with very attractive offers. I rejected them, but they did not seem to suffer from outsourcing. I currently live in Dallas, where I believe, based on prior conversations, I earn close to twice what you do, and probably pay substantially more taxes, and willingly. Our office here closed, but I was kept on under a remote contract. I have worked for this company for eight years. The Dallas office did outsource, unlike the MN office. When San Francisco needed more employees, they looked to other states in the Union, not to China. We also have a Missouri subsidiary, which is still open and an FL subsidiary, which closed. All operations there were moved to MN. (We also had a very small VA subsidiary which closed. I know very little about it. Operations were also moved to MN).
Most states have state taxes. TX and FL, two of the states that closed, have republican governors and not state taxes. Our TX and FL offices closed. MN and MO do have state taxes and both offices are still open. VA was a small office and CA is its own thing, but thriving.
MN pays programmers more than any of the other states (other than CA, which is its own thing). FL pays very low. FL operations were moved to MN.
The company I work for is the most successful in the industry. Its client base surpasses all other competitors combined.
We all have anecdotes to make our case, but they do not prove our case. We use them to justify our philosophy, which is why I asked you the question you are too embarrassed to answer. I am still waiting for you to overcome your shyness.
Is that a “yes?” You seem to be most fearful of that question for reasons I cannot fathom.
I don't deal with "what-ifs." This case isn't a what if. It will lead to LOWER revenue. You can't tax people who don't live in your country anymore.
you are telling me that you don’t understand the difference between state economics and national economics.
And what you're telling me is you don't understand cause and effect. And you're supposed to be the philosophy teacher. Go learn about Aristotle and his takes on causality.
liberals have repeated that action for 80 years and with much success
Wrong, you may have noticed there have been some technological advancements the last few years... you're writing this on one of them.
High taxes were bad for he economy back then, they are ruinous now.
Your argument is shallow and false. It basically says "Then good, now bad. Back to good-good. Do what did before." while you ignore all the data points that have changed in the last 50 years and the examples of how ignoring them is foolish (Michigan.)
. I rejected them, but they did not seem to suffer from outsourcing
I wonder what all those programers who worked for GM did when the plants closed. Gee, I hear California and New York both have budget crisis. Good luck.
. I currently live in Dallas,
First you've no idea what I earn. Second it's funny that you live in a State and Town that attracts business and you want to use the policy of Detroit.
Why do you support Obama?
he continues the Bush tax cuts
he is booed (mike test) by the occupy crowd just as they do to republicans
he allows a company to pollute so they can keep doing business
he wants to force Americans to pay premiums to private (abusive and price gouging) health insurance companies
hell he couldn't even close GITMO
Obama is a Republican
"he allows a company to pollute so they can keep doing business
he wants to force Americans to pay premiums to private (abusive and price gouging) health insurance companies"
And you know, with facts, that this is all because of Republicans?
I don't deal with "what-ifs." This case isn't a what if. It will lead to LOWER revenue. You can't tax people who don't live in your country anymore.
The question is very relevant, and I think you know it, or you would not be afraid to answer it.
And what you're telling me is you don't understand cause and effect. And you're supposed to be the philosophy teacher. Go learn about Aristotle and his takes on causality.
I am not a philosophy teacher. Logic and critical thinking is a soft science.
Wrong, you may have noticed there have been some technological advancements the last few years... you're writing this on one of them.
High taxes were bad for he economy back then, they are ruinous now.
You forgot to say “In Jesus’ name.”
Your argument is shallow and false. It basically says "Then good, now bad. Back to good-good. Do what did before." while you ignore all the data points that have changed in the last 50 years and the examples of how ignoring them is foolish (Michigan.)
Michigan is not a microcosm for America. It is a state. I don’t make cars.
I wonder what all those programers who worked for GM did when the plants closed. Gee, I hear California and New York both have budget crisis. Good luck.
Most states have a budget crisis. You should research the reality, not the Perry tales, of TX state economy.
First you've no idea what I earn.
You are probably right, but you did carefully go over your earnings at Major Conflict, I believe. I made the mistake of believing you, I suppose.
Second it's funny that you live in a State and Town that attracts business and you want to use the policy of Detroit.
Yes, I do live in the most liberal town in Texas. No question about that.
HR
//(Someone has been drinking.) //
Someone has a defective 'n' key...
..but then you always seem to jump to the conclusion that suits you best. The K ey is somewhat fuced up, too.
I am not a philosophy teacher
Clearly...
You forgot to say “In Jesus’ name.”
Being that I'm an atheist this would be out of character for me.
Some of the more interesting things the Bible tells us is a bush spoke, water comes out of rocks and Jesus magically made fish appear in a barrel. You'll just have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of ol' Jesus.
Michigan is not a microcosm for America.
You may have noticed more than the auto industry is moving to China - or in your particular field India.
And the problem is hardly localized to Michigan - just ask the residents of Allentown Pennsylvania (steel), or Wichita, Kansas (Aviation.)
Or Florida, or Las Vegas. I mean really, I could go on all day. Tax base is leaving guy. Everyone seems to know this but you. Have you not heard the term "outsourcing?"
Most states have a budget crisis.
Yes, you are right. This should be an indication I'm correct - not the opposite.
not the Perry tales, of TX state economy.
I know some people in Michigan who would love to trade economies with you right now.
Yes, I do live in the most liberal town in Texas. No question about that.
And per usual the liberals are trying to drag a perfectly good economy right into the toilet. Detroit did it to Michigan - good thin Austin is so small. Been there, the music sucked.
As for my income, I'll just tell you. My before tax income last year for my family was 76,000 dollars - and my wife only worked half of last year. In addition to Soldiering, I find time to rent property.
Free,
OK, I don’t have time for this. You are playing a far more strategic game than you have in prior encounters with me. You are unwilling to answer the fundamental question I asked earlier and instead choose to focus on tangents to the question, though the question is very relevant, which I would have shown if you had not been ashamed to answer it.
The economy started declining under Bush, a conservative, and with historically low tax rates.
Outsourcing is a problem, nothing more. No matter how low we make our tax rates there will always be 12 year old children in foreign lands who will do the “same job” cheaper, and you can pay someone in India 100.00 a month for the “same job” in America. Lower our tax rates to zero will do nothing to solve this problem. This problem cannot be handled with tax cuts for rich people. I am quite certain you realize this.
Therefore, I asked myself, “what is Free’s real motivation for making this argument?”
I decided that you were not arguing what you believe for the reason you believe it. I tried to steer you in that direction with my question that frightened you so much. I think the problem is that I got you with that question already at Saving Common Sense and again at Major Conflict and you have not healed from those encounters, thus your fear.
There are two questions: 1. What is the most fair taxation policy? 2. What is the most sensible taxation policy form a business perspective. I believe that your faith in your answer to question one causes you to make arguments for question 2. I had intended to force separation, and force you to address each question separately and proudly defend your faith. However, you refused to separate the questions and you refused to answer question one, I believe, because you have flashbacks of the horror of the last two times you tried to defend your faith in this matter.
In short, for a third time, I tried to trick you into arguing what you believe and for the reason you believe it. It worked the last two times, but not this one. If I wish to have discussions with you, I must come up with a new game. You are onto this one.
P.S. The subsidiaries at my company that outsourced were the one that were hurting financially, and they also failed. The ones that did not outsource thrived beyond their wildest expectations. That could be a coincidence, or it could be something else. By pure ironic coincidence, also, the ones that failed were in Republican state income tax-free states. The ones that succeeded were in states where cost of living is high, where programmers make more money and where they pay more in taxes. I agree with you that manual labor in America is partially becoming a victim of the global economy. This has nothing to do with taxation. It has everything to do with the fact that if my company wanted to, they could fire me and with the same money they were paying me, hire 20 programmers from India to do the “same job.” Stopping collecting federal revenue will not solve this problem and the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the auto industry in Michigan.
Kudos to you, sir. This is the first encounter with me you have won. You did not win on the merits of your arguments, as I have shown, but you did win because you are still standing and you completely avoided my attack with strategic evasion and avoiding bringing your own philosophy into the discussion.
It doesn't trickle down because they're keeping it.
Thanks Free, for confirming the classic Republican lie. We can show you lots more
At the current rate, companies and individuals are already jumping ship to live in other countries and outsource industry.
This is because of corporate written trade agreements. Not taxes, and not China’s influence on our government. Sheesh.
American wages are not competitive. Competition with China is going to drive them down significantly
Also because of corporate written trade agreements. You and Atlas want our people to live like Chinese so the elites can have even more wealth and power? Yes, I’d say that is very unpatriotic. Please leave.
They aren't opening new business or expanding old business here - like you said - because they are unfairly taxed. they'll leave even faster the more you tax them.
This is a favorite GOP talking point. No evidence required to support lies.
...mistakes Michigan made can be made on a national level. Liberalism killed these places.
You mean the liberalism of Republican John Engler’s three terms throughout the ‘90s?
Progressive Jennifer Grandholm and her taxes along with the UAW finished that state off.
Michigan's voters are directly involved in tax-raising laws passed in the state because of the Headlee Amendment, which states that taxes on Michigan citizens cannot be raised without a popular vote
Six of her eight years were with a Republican-dominated Legislature. So much for her “progressive” rampage destroying the state.
Granholm resolved over $14 billion in budget deficits inherited from three term Republican governor Engler. Now THAT fits the national pattern.
You may know something about the streets you grew up on, but obviously you know little about the rest of the state. Please, your Michigan lecture is boring and riddled with error.
Yes we are familiar with your bigotry and hatred for “hippies”. You seem to know as much about hippies as you do about Michigan. Where I come from we call people like you trolls. Even before the internet. Figure that one out.
Successful job creators like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Ben and Jerry, and even college dropouts like Paul Allen and Bill Gates all have those hippie beliefs. As I’ve noted Gates agrees taxes on the rich should be higher, and yes that includes inheritance taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkF0RjtgMqY
I agree. Let the greedheads get the hell out of our country, if they have no respect or love for the land that gave them the opportunity to be successful in the first place. Tell Atlas to take his rapture inclined dupes with him. We’d like a free and sane country.
As Elizabeth Warren said, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own”.
I believe, because you have flashbacks of the horror of the last two times you tried to defend your faith in this matter.
You want to know what my ideas are for tax policy? Sure. 9%, flat. I liked that one.
As for your question, I can't answer it. I don't think higher tax rates will raise revenues. I don't think that will happen. I think the opposite will happen - because people won't pay those taxes, they already don't like paying the taxes they pay now. They're leaving over current rates so obviously if you increase those rates those people will leave. It's a really simple concept. I think a flat tax between 9% or even 15% is fair. That gives the Federal Government a number to budget within. That's how much money I think they should have- no borrowing. Live within that tax income. Set priorities within a funding structure instead of setting priorities and then trying to figure out how to fund them ass-backwards.
And I agree, I did win. All I did, was show you what a State that follows the policy you advocate looks like. Michigan. Defending Michigan my friend, is a looser every time. So anyone reading this can make a choice. Lets look at states that govern with my policy. Tennessee, Wyoming, Texas - growing. States that use your policy. New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania - dying.
Which choice given the two systems, do you think people are going to make?
oops, should read
I think the opposite will happen - because people won't pay those taxes, they already don't like paying the taxes they pay now. They're leaving over current rates so obviously if you increase those rates [more] people will leave.
As for what to do about outsourcing, I think I made it clear. We can't do anything about it - but certainly driving out "job creators" with higher taxes won't improve the situation.
I mean really, if they're leaving over "historically low rates" what do you think "historically high rates" will do?
Lets pretend you're a doctor and I'm a doctor. Our patient has cancer. I advise the patient to quit smoking, eat right, get some exercise and take their medication and it might slow the spread or even cause remission. Your advice seems to be increasing the smoking- chewing while you're at it, drinking heavily and eating fast food because - hey - you already got cancer right?
Dave,
Let me ask you something. Why should they stay? To pay taxes that don't benefit them?
You mean the liberalism of Republican John Engler’s three terms throughout the ‘90s?
Which were significantly better than Jennifer Grandholms 2 terms through the 00s.
which states that taxes on Michigan citizens cannot be raised without a popular vote
That is partially true, and the voters voted to sack the rich. It worked out horrifically. Great job Union Democrats of Michigan! Now those same voters can't move out of state fast enough to escape the mess they made.
Six of her eight years were with a Republican-dominated Legislature
Which raised taxes to balance their bloated budget... for example the small business tax.
Granholm resolved over $14 billion in budget deficits inherited from three term Republican governor Engler.
By making major, major cuts. Why? No tax revenue. Why, because the car companies left. Why? Taxes and union thuggery. You see, when you raise taxes you end up having to make major cuts because you loose revenue. This is like, only the crux of my whole argument here you're basically admitting. Look at the Socialist Party of Greece, who is making massive austerity cuts because they've got no choice.
All the people with money to tax went bye-bye.
Where I come from we call people like you trolls. Even before the internet. Figure that one out.
Well we called people like you suckers but what they hey, who am I to label. See, I grew up with the people on the East Side who are ripping the middle class off and laughing at them behind their back.
As for rich people who want their taxes raised - they can donate to the IRS at any time. Meanwhile, a new factory opens in China about every 13 seconds. No factories are opening in Detroit.
Tell Atlas to take his rapture inclined dupes with him. We’d like a free and sane country.
A free and sane country, just like Detroit.
Taxes and union thuggery
Yeah, Rush.
Engler handed out tax cuts by the bucketful to the rich and corporates.
The rich are doing fine, as usual, to the detriment of the majority.
Republicanism is killing the US, not liberalism. Too bad you cannot see the rest of us are getting the shaft while your revered elites are in fact, doing better than ever.
There's the bottom line.
See what I mean.
Engler handed out tax cuts by the bucketful to the rich and corporates.
And when Grandholm got elected they left, or went under. Now you can't even call Detroit the Motor City anymore. That title belongs to factories spread through out the American South... places those darn "job creators" left for - right to work states with lower taxes. Now those Southerners are enjoying those jobs and the pay checks they bring and the former shop rats back in Michigan who couldn't escape are on food stamps. Think that can't happen on a national level? Think again. Actually when it comes to you Dave... I think you want it to happen.
the rest of us are getting the shaft while your revered elites are in fact, doing better than ever.
Yes they are, and they'll keep doing better. In places like China. Meanwhile, you'll be cursing them while swiping your food stamp card because that job "those wealthy elites" gave you moved it to China.
But hey, at least then there won't be any corporations though right... I wonder if that will make you feel better when you have to give your kids IOUs on Christmas.
Free0352, you replied to Dave with a link ("See what I mean."), implying this was proof that the reason people are leaving the United States and relocating is due to what they view as excessively high taxes. Yet the article you provided indicated one was "in search of work, a better economy and a more fulfilling lifestyle" and the other reasons were "unemployment" and "recession".
Possibly I missed it, but nobody listed "high taxes".
Please explain.
"the rest of us are getting the shaft while your revered elites are in fact, doing better than ever."
Yes they are, and they'll keep doing better.
Thank you again. This is due to corporate personhood, money as free speech, and the bought and paid for public policies that are stripping American jobs, benefits, and public services. Your kleptocracy is doing a heck of a job. Like I have been saying, these people really don't give a damn about America. Your kind of folks, apparently.
You think I want this to happen? All because I want the Bush/Obama tax cuts, corporate super-personhood and money as free speech revoked? There's a kind of sickness in thinking anti-corruption and pro-democracy sentiments are the same as wanting economic decline, while at the same time you want Americans to have a Chinese standard of living to support the astronomical re-distribution of wealth to the rich and powerful.
It seems more like you are the one wanting America to fail.
Meanwhile some of those laid off auto workers are getting jobs back.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/25/gm-adding-2-500-jobs-at-detroit-hamtramck-plant-for-malibu-and-i/
Imagine that.
Oh, and I was not labeling you as a troll. I was making a Michigan reference that I thought you'd miss. You did.
And it's Granholm, not Grandholm.
JG,
It's the same old song and dance. They also complain regulations are driving corporations out of the country and costing jobs.
Not so true.
Regulations, like taxes, don't actually kill jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mslo.t02.htm
This, as well as most reality, will not affect the cultish dogma of the Right. The lowest taxes in decades have failed us in every way as a society. Yet they still blame liberals for those failures. We are the Jews of the new American Reich. (See "union thugs") We are, and will be, blamed for everything. The rich and powerful will have their cult's true believers do the dirty work for them when the time comes for their final solution.
What will Free's ilk do when the Fourth Reich's new rules of engagement allow them to shoot and incarcerate unarmed liberals?
"I vas chust folloving orders".
Please explain.
The economy sucks so people leave. The economy sucks because taxes are too high, and paid by a disproportionate sector of the economy. So, it's math.
Economy - capital = sucky economy = people leaving of all income levels for better opportunity elsewhere, equals less tax revenue = fewer social services. Be those services ligit or not.
Any questions?
Thank you again. This is due to corporate personhood, money as free speech, and the bought and paid for public policies that are stripping American jobs, benefits, and public services.
This is due to reality, which exists outside the liberal noise bubble. This can't be hard to figure out. You proletariat hike up the taxes. Capital leaves. You loose your jobs. You go on food stamps. There is no tax base to fund the food stamps. You starve. The end.
these people really don't give a damn about America
Yes, they care about themselves more than they do you. Pointing this out will not help the situation and beating your angry little fists on the ground will not resolve the issue of Capital Flight to foreign locals.
You see, when your strategy is to tax the rich, and the rich leave... now the middle class is rich relative to everyone else. Guess who pays then? Then they leave. Now what's left? The poor, with nothing to tax who are too broke to leave. They turn on each other. Now you're living in Detroit.
All because I want the Bush/Obama tax cuts, corporate super-personhood and money as free speech revoked?
Yes.
while at the same time you want Americans to have a Chinese standard of living
You're not getting it. This is not optional. This is not a choice we get to make. It's simple supply and demand. Americans will take a pay cut or they will get nothing. That's the way it is. Wishing it weren't so or pretending it isn't so is stupid and blind and willfully ignorant. I don't know about you, but I want to make a million dollars. But I won't do that working a normal job. My prediction is wages are going to go lower, and lower, and lower as Chinese wages go higher very slowly - and at some point the two will meet into one very lame standard. That sucks for a working guy like me - but wishing it weren't so won't change reality. I want America to have every advantage during this decline - and the biggest advantage America has is Capital. You seem to want to drive it out. That's crazy. In case you haven't noticed, but we're in a trade war with China. You'd think you would want our heaviest hitters... but you seem intent on beating the shit out of them in the name of punishing a relative few Crony Capitalists.
Meanwhile some of those laid off auto workers are getting jobs back.
That's funny, I'm from Hamtramck. Thats the town I'm from. You know what the unemployment rate is back home. 1 in 4 is out of a job, and the ones working work for ManPower temp service for 8 bucks an hour. That's what capital flight does to your town. You're crowing about 2500 little jobs? How many people got new jobs in China today? Take a wild guess.
As for Michigan, I left that shit hole when I was 17, I had to move to Lansing for a few years and then Ann Arbor but now I'm out and I'm never going back. Fuck that shit hole. I don't miss it. I'm a very proud resident of the State of Tennessee now.
As for Jenny's spelling of her last name- I'd spell it F-A-I-L but you spell it how you want to.
I remember her acceptance speech. She said we'd all be "blown away."
heh... we sure were blown away alright. Like she put a shotgun to our heads.
taxes are too high You mean only for the rich. You want the poor and middle class to pay an additional sales tax in your 999 nonsense. Only the rich would pay less.
Face it. You want the rich to have more and the rest of us to have less.
In fact your entire ideology is simple. "Let the rich have their way with everything." Plutocracy loves it that way. Yeah, that'll fix things.
"Little jobs"? No those are good jobs. Little Mcjobs are the "texas miracle", our future of a minimum pay society. Just what the greedy rich want, minus the minimum wage part.
Neo-feudalism, here we come. Greed first, country second...or third....or last.
Since leaving Michigan was so good for you, I bet leaving the country will be even better.
Maybe "Atlasland" would be your perfect place. And the Left are accused of being the "Utopians"...
Free0352, you replied with...
"The economy sucks so people leave. The economy sucks because taxes are too high..."
The highest marginal tax rates are the lowest in almost twenty years, and have been since 2003, so certainly that can't be the reason. When did this exodus, due to burdensome taxes, begin?
"Economy - capital = sucky economy = people leaving of all income levels for better opportunity elsewhere."
But your wonderful equation could also apply to capital flight seeking low wages and no regulations, couldn't it? It wouldn't necessarily have to be due to excessively high taxes, would it?
"Regulations, like taxes, don't actually kill jobs."
I can't believe I'm going to try to be the voice of moderation, but so much of this arguing is unncessary and maturbatory. Free says taxes and regulation kill jobs. Everyone who isn't Free says taxes don't kill jobs and regulation don't kill jobs.
I don't think Free has suggested zero taxes. Pretty sure Free hasn't suggested zero regulation. Everyone who isn't Free, can you agree that there is a point where taxes could become so excessive that they DO hurt economic activity and, perhaps, even kill jobs? Can you agree that regulations could become some numerous and cumbersome that they would kill jobs and hurt business growth?
The debate between left and right isn't an up or down vote on taxes and regulation. The debate is HOW MUCH regulation and HOW MUCH taxes. On the right, we think that lower taxes are better, but almost no one argues for zero taxes. On the right, we think many regulations are necessary and good, but that regulation has gotten out of hand so that even people like the founder of Home Depot claim he couldn't start his business in today's world.
On the left, you argue that businesses are out of control and are not paying their fair share. You argue that the wealthy are not paying their fair share and can afford to pay more. But, conveniently, you never mention a point where taxes get too high or regulation becomes too burdensome. I assume there is a point where even you have a stopping point, but you never come out and say it.
Back to your statement, Dave: "Regulations, like taxes, don't actually kill jobs."
Surely you'll admit there is a point where regulations and taxes CAN kill jobs, right?
The debate is HOW MUCH regulation and HOW MUCH taxes.
I completely agree with this, of course. I think most of us here would like to return taxation levels to where they were when we were not so far in debt.
Also, I currently pay a much higher tax rate than mulch-millionaires pay. I think that is unjust.
Also, I think not all of us have embraced the false notion that excessive taxation is making us uncompetitive in the global market.
Free believes that if we would only give more tax cuts to the rich, then off-shoring production would not be attractive. He has yet to explain why he thinks paying someone from India an hourly rate that is about 1/20th of my hourly rate would cease to be attractive if only we stopped taxing the rich at an effective rate of 17-19%.
Everyone is arguing that what makes business sense lines up perfectly with their philosophy of fairness. Few people are even admitting why they think what they think.
HR,
Hypothetically speaking, yes.
Practically speaking, low taxes and de-regulation of banks have proven to be disastrous.
Those tax cuts and wars have dumped three trillion onto our debt. Cheney said Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Nobody got mad about that debt until Obama took office. Now he's the bad guy.
I'm all for reviewing regulations that don't serve the public interest. Glass/Steagal and other banking regulations did so, and we are suffering the consequences of their repeal.
We all know your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. I submit the right to pollute ends at my nose, or in my water and food, as well. If the public interest is not a consideration, then repeal the regulations.
Taxes are the price we pay for civil society. Some of us want a more civil society than others.
taxes are too high You mean only for the rich.
They certainly think so.
Face it. You want the rich to have more and the rest of us to have less.
This is where you and I have a fundamental disconnect in thinking. You think the economy is some pie, with a limited number of slices that government needs to divy up fairly between citizens. I don't agree with that, unless you think that pie is infinite. Therefore, I could care less how much money anyone has. If you want more money, go make more money. It's not impossible to do. Even in these bad times there are new millionaires every day. It doesn't sound like you see it that way. You seem to believe "the rich" are gobbling up some limited amount of money. That's not possible - we don't have a gold standard in the United States. The amount of potential value is unlimited. So I focus more on how I can make money, not on how much money someone else already made. The only money anyone has that pisses me off is that redistributed by the force of government... be that a ghetto welfare queen in Detroit or a white collar welfare queen on Wall Street.
"Let the rich have their way with everything."
Not exactly but even that seems preferable to "Lets stave to death." Doesn't matter who you are, nearly everyone up to Bill Gates or Barak Obama has to work for somebody. That's just the way it is.
No those are good jobs.
Are they? I bet they are ManPower jobs which are worse than McJobs. But even then... after the losses Detroit and Michigan in general... towns like Flint and Jackson and Yipsi have taken... it's a joke to call that progress.
Greed first
That my friend, is the universal human condition. Most of all you and your progressive pals. I'm talking about people who want to keep more of what they've earned. You're talking about taking it away for yourself having never worked for it at all. Whose more greedy in that picture? I see those pesky job creators as running away from greed. Progressive greed. Call me crazy, but I think if you've earned it you're entitled to it. And anything over 15% is too much to ask of anyone.
Maybe "Atlasland" would be your perfect place.
Sure beats progressive land... you know... Detroit. Its a wonderland of 1$ houses, and carjacking. Some days you can look out across the abandoned and burned out houses and see the prosperity... oh wait it's just misery as far as the eye can see. But at least you get to see the wild life that have reclaimed whole neighborhoods. And best of all, no corporations! You can enjoy the third world ambiance on your long drive to the nearest department store in Bloomfield Hills.
Dave, you expressed perfectly...
"We all know your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. I submit the right to pollute ends at my nose, or in my water and food, as well. If the public interest is not a consideration, then repeal the regulations."
and...
"Taxes are the price we pay for civil society. Some of us want a more civil society than others."
I think this explains, succinctly and concisely, the overriding differences between how the Left and Right view the world. Why we "think what we think" (paraphrasing John Myste's remark), is anybody's guess, but we certainly view the world differently.
"I completely agree with this, of course. I think most of us here would like to return taxation levels to where they were when we were not so far in debt."
I agree John, and further I'd like to return to the spending levels we had when we were not so much in debt. I'd also like you to explain to me, cause your dammed good at explaining things, if extending unemployment insurance will help lower the jobless rate, as contented by Senator Steny Hoyer?
Free believes that if we would only give more tax cuts to the rich, then off-shoring production would not be attractive.
More like less attractive.
He has yet to explain why he thinks paying someone from India an hourly rate that is about 1/20th of my hourly rate would cease to be attractive
In a word - quality. Also for manufacturing putting your goods on a ship and paying gas to send it half way around the world isn't cheap. Perhaps if capital had some incentive to stay the would. I see no such incentive in your plans. Only punishment. The vast majority of "job creators" never got a bail out. Most own businesses with 100 employees or less. You're talking people with 200,000 to a few million in net worth. These aren't bad or dishonest people, and yet your side insists on treating them like Bernie fucking Madoff. No wonder so many are leaving. Why on Earth would they want to put up with your crap?
Cheney said Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Nobody got mad about that debt until Obama took office. Now he's the bad guy.
He was wrong. And as I recall Bush's popularity was like... record LOW when he left. Probably had something to do with an unpopular war and giving 700 billion dollars to billionaires. It was around this time I up and quit the Republican Party... and I was in Iraq at the time... but I do recall my fellow Republicans being quite enraged over TARP... and Medicare Part D, and NCLB... to name a few.
We can talk about regulation all day. I've got the 100% most effective regulation for banks you can imagine. It's called letting them fucking fail. Nothing scares the shit out of rich people like seeing their pals suffer a Chapter 11 liquidation. If you want regulations on what the SEC and the FED will insure... then I'm all for it... sign me up for very, very strict regulations. But if they want to gamble beyond those... fine. Just don't come looking to us Taxpayers for a freak'n bail out when they loose see? These crony capitalists at Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman... they've gotten bail outs for years. How many now? They've come to expect it, and so they gamble with other people's money. That's stupid as hell. That's privatizing success and socializing failure. That's a loosing policy. So I say let them play... but when a few of those rich people become poor people you'll see those companies police themselves far better than the most diligent agent ever could. Playing the mixed, middle of the road on regulation game clearly, clearly is horrible. Its handing Wall Street a blank check with your name on it and saying "Go nuts." It's like giving teenagers booze and car keys. And Washington? They can't regulate themselves, let alone a huge sector of the economy like finance. Nah, just let em' fail. Nothing like a little healthy fear to keep them honest.
I submit the right to pollute ends at my nose, or in my water and food, as well.
I agree 100%.
Free,
Therefore, I could care less how much money anyone has. If you want more money, go make more money. It's not impossible to do. Even in these bad times there are new millionaires every day.
So, you can become a millionaire, right? Anyone who wants to, can, right? The only reason most people don’t is become most people don’t want to, right?
I'm talking about people who want to keep more of what they've earned. You're talking about taking it away for yourself having never worked for it at all. Whose more greedy in that picture?
You made that up, Free. Dave is not talking about taking entitlements and neither am I. I pay far more taxes than you do, far more, and I am not talking about collecting any of your tax dollars. My overall taxes probably total close to your gross income. I am talking about living in a civilized society that is not largely made up of despair. As a tax payer, my desire to have the government provide certain things is just as valuable as your desire to have the government provide a nation that defends your property and your ability to make more money. I don’t deny your needs. I think they should be upheld, but so should everyone else’s.
By your logic, since I fund more of the government than you do, shouldn’t my voice be stronger? More of the tax dollars you are trying to allocate are mine than are yours.
Call me crazy, but I think if you've earned it you're entitled to it.
So, zero taxation, right? If I earned it, I am entitled to it, 100%. That is the rule, right?
Sure beats progressive land... you know... Detroit.
You claim to have left Detroit when the auto industry was strong there. Why did you leave?
Its a wonderland of 1$ houses, and carjacking.
Sounds like South Dallas. (and the dollar sign goes before the number, not after).
oh wait it's just misery as far as the eye can see.
Too bad I don’t see the same thing in progressive Minneapolis and many many parts of San Francisco. All I see there is progressive wealth, huge staggering amounts.
You claimed to grow up in squalor and yet claim that the squalor was created by progressives after you grew up and left. You should argue what you believe for the reason you believe it, and none of this has anything to do with Michigan. If the state of Michigan did not exist and never had, your opinion would be exactly as it is now (assuming you existed, of course).
@Just,
I agree John, and further I'd like to return to the spending levels we had when we were not so much in debt.
Oh, you want our debt to income ratio to be what it was. I agree with that. Statistically debt to income ratio is awful when Republicans are in control (see zfacts. They have beautiful charts under their ridicule of supply side economics section). It sounds like you agree.
I'd also like you to explain to me, cause your dammed good at explaining things, if extending unemployment insurance will help lower the jobless rate, as contented by Senator Steny Hoyer?
I am not going to even consider the subject change. If you wish to either create a post about the topic or have someone else do it, I may become interested. Currently, I am interested in the topic at hand, and not the red herrings that Free keeps bringing up, and now you, but the actual reasons conservatives believe what they believe.
Free has demonstrated that he does not want to discuss this by trying to convince me that he thinks taxation is why outsourcing and offshoring are profitable and make it difficult for Americans to compete, and all while he denies that you can hire 20 people with the funds that it would have taken to hire one, taxation notwithstanding, is the cause. He refuses to address this, which is OK. When Dallas started outsourcing, they listed the cost of labor as the reason, not taxation, which never came up.
I only brought this devastating fact up to try to get Free to discuss what why he really feels the way he does, which has nothing to do with pragmatism, taxation, outsourcing and offshoring. My philosophy on the matter also has nothing to do with these. However, the things he invents to support his arguments are at odds with certain facts. To get around this, he simply does not acknowledge the rebuttal, and instead repeats the red herring that was just soundly refuted.
So far I have not succeeded in moving the conversation to the actual underlying faith that gives him (and you) your opinions. Allowing you to change the subject and try to get me to analyze and defend statements made by someone else is definitely not the way to get us there.
@Free,
In a word - quality. Also for manufacturing putting your goods on a ship and paying gas to send it half way around the world isn't cheap. Perhaps if capital had some incentive to stay the would. I see no such incentive in your plans.
So, you just explained why business people will still do business in America even if they get taxed as they used to be. The money they would save in taxes by offshoring or outsources is a pittance compared to the money they would already save in labor. That small difference is not going to make the majority of sensible businessmen change their mind when they already could have received a 2000 percent rate of return making the move now. 2000% or 2010% is no real-world difference.
You're talking people with 200,000 to a few million in net worth.
Actually, I am in favor primarily raising top marginal rates. Other increased would be negligible. 200,000.00 is really not that much money.
No wonder so many are leaving. Why on Earth would they want to put up with your crap?
According to you, to produce quality products. Who am I to argue?
By the way, this whole crushing rebuttal to your argument is utter rhetoric. I really consider the question we are addressing, the pragmatism of a tax increase, to be irrelevant, as it is not the current determining factor of whether we do raise taxes. Philosophy is. Concepts of fairness are. Since we refuse to discuss our real reasons for what we thing, I have to crush the bogus ones you present.
The only reason most people don’t is become most people don’t want to, right?
Everyone has the potential. Weather they do it or not is up to them. I'd like to make a million bucks... at least. If I fail, I won't blame anyone but myself. I certainly won't blame "THE 1% ™"
I am not talking about collecting any of your tax dollars
Lies. But never-the-less. More than 15% is too much to ask of anyone. If you earn it, you are entitled to it do with as you see fit... be it me or Bill Gates. I'm not greedy, I don't want to take from those people. I want to earn my own. I could care less how much money they have. And if you're so rich John, why don't you donate your money to the IRS instead of supporting the use of force through government to make other people do what you wont?
That's a coward way out guy.
I'll tell you strait, when I make that million I'm not sharing any of it - because it will be mine. I'll pay employees what we agreed to, and I'll pay my investors but beyond that it's mine. I'll take every tax break I can get and if I have to offshore it I'll do that, I don't give a fuck. No one else is entitled to it but me and my kid, when I'm dead. That's it.
I am entitled to it, 100%. That is the rule, right?
In a perfect world sure. Zero taxes? That would be nice. I don't think it would work though, so I'll stick with anything over 15% is too much to ask.
You claim to have left Detroit when the auto industry was strong there. Why did you leave?
It was declined the first time in the late 70s and again during the 90s. I worked in a shop, I was young and not very educated but I saw the writing on the wall. Once they signed NAFTA I knew we were screwed. I planned on getting out any way I could, and my vehicle for that was the Marine Corps. I was lucky, most of my friends didn't qualify for any branch of service because of their criminal records. They're still stuck there for all I know. Most of them by the time I was in my mid 20s were dead, drug addicts or in prison. I knew the days of graduating from high school and scoring a job at Ford or GM that actually paid were dead. I acted accordingly.
Sounds like South Dallas
A quick Google search tells me the unemployment rate in Dallas is 8.1%. Another quick search revealed THIS. Want to talk about crime? Flint is a suburb of Detroit and is NUMBER 1 while Detroit is actually only the second most dangerous city in the country next to it's smaller neighbor.
Yeah, care to trade? I bet there are some people in Michigan who wouldn't mind 50% less unemployment, less crime, and much warmer weather.
Too bad I don’t see the same thing in progressive Minneapolis and many many parts of San Francisco.
Just wait. It can happen to you - it happened to us. Once Detroit was the wealthiest city in the world. It was a great place to live. Now look at it. The entire country hasn't gone the way of Detroit yet. Keep raising those taxes, keep bailing out those banks, keep propping up those loosers and one day you'll look around and you'll think you're in Somalia.
You claimed to grow up in squalor and yet claim that the squalor was created by progressives after you grew up and left.
I wouldn't call it squalor, I'd call it surrounded by squalor. My mom provided for us because she wasn't a piece of shit crack head like most of the mother's my friends had. But it was getting worse and after I left. Detroit never recovered from the recessions of the 70s or the 2000 recession. Once the collapse in 08 hit it... it just fell apart. Total chaos. There are parts of the city where if you call the cops or the fire department - they won't come. There are parts of the city with no street lights, no paved roads anymore. I'm glad I had the foresight to get out when I had the chance and I'm sad to see history repeat its self on a national level. I've been on this road before. It's a very depressing one. You look around the Midwest in places like Gary IN, or Detroit or Chicago and you see these grand old homes... they must have at one time been beautiful - the Detroit Train Station, all the old hotels... and today you see the ruins of what once was. It must be what people thought when they looked at the Roman ruins during the Dark Ages.
So, you just explained why business people will still do business in America even if they get taxed as they used to be.
No, no, no. IF they are taxed less. LESS. And that's a big "if." Keep the current rates or god forbid raise them. Well... sorry. More jump ship every day now. We already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world - and a heft income tax rate assuming no deductions for the top tier. Factor in the Capital Gains, all the state taxes... man it'll be over. People are going to just bounce out for greener pastures.
According to you, to produce quality products. Who am I to argue?
But at some point, it isn't worth it anymore. At some point, quantity has a quality all it's own. Like the quantity of dollars in your bank account - and the tax free house in the Caymans. And the fact is, the quality of Asian goods goes up every day, bit-by-bit.
Since we refuse to discuss our real reasons for what we thing,
I'll assume you mean "think."
The reason I think what I think is a combination of common sense plus knowledge of economics. And the numbers are on my side. Unemployment in this country is stagnant, none of the "job creators" is investing - jobs are being outsourced at a geometric rate, government takes in less money every year, government debt to GDP is out of control. Why? Capital isn't playing ball anymore. Companies aren't hiring new workers, they're laying them off. Companies aren't building new factories much anymore - they're shipping them over seas. Have you ever stopped to ask why Capital is doing that? They'll be more than happy to tell you. Every one of them will say Over Regulation and Taxes. Bottom line, they can make more money that way- and you're policy would give them every incentive to do just that. And you can't stop them.
Here's another example of what I'm talking about.
You can call this guy an isolated incident, but the only thing unique about him is he put it on sign. Companies if they can are sitting on a lot of cash - thats public knowledge. But they can hit back too. I mean, did you really just think you could take their money? Was that it? Did you think you could just vote your way to riches? It's doomed to failure. Its failing miserably, hell... it has failed.
Free,
Thanks again. You validate my point with, Unemployment in this country is stagnant, none of the "job creators" is investing
...but soon stray.
Companies aren't hiring new workers, they're laying them off. Companies aren't building new factories much anymore - they're shipping them over seas. Have you ever stopped to ask why Capital is doing that? They'll be more than happy to tell you. Every one of them will say Over Regulation and Taxes.
This has been disproven by the Bureau of Labor Statistics page I linked. You cannot be rational saying “everyone of them”.
One a more agreeable note... It’s good to see a little light amid the pure BS you toss, like “You're talking about taking it away for yourself having never worked for it at all,” and false belief in infinite wealth. That would mean everyone can be wealthy.
First.
Here’s the deal. I’m not taking anything away from anybody. I worked for what I have. I’m a happier person now than when I had more income. I have more time to do as I choose, when I can do with less. Your value system that can only be measured in numbers may not comprehend that.
Sorry, taxes are constitutional, and our general welfare is the purpose of government. You just don’t want what the majority of Americans want. This is why the Right is opposed to democracy in all forms.
And your pontification of the universal human condition, through the distorted lens of the virtue of selfishness, ignores the universal human conditions alien to you. Greed is the more destructive force of the human condition. It demands power. It seizes power. Greed is no more universal to the human condition than is compassion at the opposite end of the scale. Another beneficial and non-destructive universal human condition is socialization, with the understanding that cooperation with others is not only in the best interest of the individual, but of the community.
I share your outrage and I condemn the greed of a “ghetto welfare queen” in Detroit or a white collar welfare queen on Wall Street, although I don’t know of any ghetto welfare queen in particular. I bet you do. I condemn the system that perpetuates both.
That's privatizing success and socializing failure.
Word.
I agree that able people should work. I also know even government work is better than no work. We have lots to rebuild in America. Let’s do it. If private interests refuse to do what is necessary, that leaves only government to do it. If the rich loved America half as much as they love money, they could pitch in and help make a real difference.
I know some good people in Detroit. Fortunately not everyone needed to run away from their home, as you did, to seek glory and riches. Some remained to actually strengthen their community.
Those darn human conditions. They can lead us to our own hells and suffering, or to our havens of civilization.
JG,
We are different tribes. There are measurable differences in the brain activity between us. Something to do with agitations in the reptilian centers, I believe
You cannot be rational saying “everyone of them”.
So they are moving business to China because they don't feel over taxed and over regulated. Yeah, I'm sure that's it...
That would mean everyone can be wealthy.
Wealth is always going to be relative. In the country club of Billionaires the Millionaire is the shmuck... That's why we have Americans who live better than 95% of the world population crying because they are "poor." Because compared to the other Americans, they are... but in reality what they are experiencing isn't poverty. Even the poorest kid I ever met in Detroit had access to clean water every day, which is more than most humans can say. Be that as it may - if you have something of value: A skill, a product - someone if it is truly valuable is going to pay for it. Take me for example - I like to think I'm pretty gifted in the areas of violence and mayhem, so you tax payers gave me a 30k bonus to enlist to fight for you. I didn't donate to you my skills, you paid above the going rate for them. 30k is hardly rich money - even when adding in my salary. However, it was a fair rate for my skills value. After all, I'm not putting my ass on the line for free.
I’m not taking anything away from anybody.
All taxation is confiscation. So yes, yes you are. I'm the one this time saying "Not in my name." Sounds to me like you're saying "Yes, yes in my name. Take it. With a gun if you have to."
Sorry, taxes are constitutional, and our general welfare is the purpose of government
Yes they are but that doesn't make it right. That power is being abused. As for the General Welfare, our Constitution say's "promote the general welfare" not "provide it."
You just don’t want what the majority of Americans want.
You sure about that?
This is why the Right is opposed to democracy in all forms
You're the one demanding someone else's money at the point of a legislative gun. If government were so great for people, you'd think they'd be lining up to participate in it and give it money to improve their lives. Much the opposite is the case.
Greed is the more destructive force of the human condition. It demands power. It seizes power.
Like when it uses the power of the state to take from the productive for the benefit of the greedy non-productive? I agree, that is destructive. If you think it's so, why advocate such brute and savage behavior?
Another beneficial and non-destructive universal human condition is socialization
Socialization is the triumph of the tribe over the individual. It is the continuation of primitive tribalism and is a destructive force antithetical to human rights. Any where you find "socialist" governments you find poverty and oppression.
with the understanding that cooperation
Cooperation can only exist when the cooperation in question is voluntary. You are not advocating cooperation, your are advocating coercion and extortion. These two things are presumably bad, and calling yourself the government doesn't change the immorality of using the State as your hired thug to do the taking.
but of the community.
The "community" as you define it is a vestige of tribalism and the howling primitavism of the left. Community suggests voluntary cooperation - yet you propose to use the force of state to enforce you will on others. That is not freedom. Voting to use totalitarian force may be a democratic version of totalitarianism, but that doesn't make that kind of democracy ethical or moral. The Constitution does not protect the rights of communities but limits their rights in favor of the rights of the individual. That's the country I want to live in, not one that puts the whole before the rights of the one. Individual rights trump collective will every time both in law and in ethics.
I agree that able people should work.
Just that you are entitled to more than 15 cents out of every dollar earned by that working man. I think you are entitled to no more.
If the rich loved America half as much as they love money, they could pitch in and help make a real difference.
Clearly they are on strike. They value their individual rights more than your collective demands. As Tyler Durden said - sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken and sticking votes up yours does not make you right. Just because a mob is behind your cause doesn't make it moral and slapping the label "democracy" on that mob does not make it ethical. Individual rights are ethical, not mob rule.
Some remained to actually strengthen their community.
Clearly they failed. And deserved to. Sinking your hopes into a collective will always ends up in failure. I trust myself - I seldom let myself down. I escaped the trap of drugs and crime my friends growing up found. I win, they loose. It isn't a zero sum game, we could have both won... but clearly a lifetime in prison is a loosing hand. I credit my escape due to my value of myself. They did not value themselves, and they were right not to. Most of them as people held no value, either to themselves or others.
Excuse me, I liked the wrong poll.
The one I had in mind can be found here.
While I'm at it, here is another.
These assholes aren't "job creators" at all. They're just "profit takers", plain and simple. And they're pulling that profit out of those who work for them and have had their wages frozen for the past 30 years!
This is NOT an ECONOMIC democracy!
@Free,
Yeah, care to trade? I bet there are some people in Michigan who wouldn't mind 50% less unemployment, less crime, and much warmer weather.
South Dallas, Free. Not all of Dallas. Much of Dallas is very nice. The nicer parts are very diverse. Many homosexuals and people of all races and great deal of wealth and liberalism. South Dallas happens to not be thus.
Keep raising those taxes, keep bailing out those banks, keep propping up those loosers and one day you'll look around and you'll think you're in Somalia.
Taxes has little to do with our economic situation. The only way they relate much at all is that our debt has ballooned by failing to collect enough revenue, your faith to the contrary notwithstanding.
Detroit never recovered from the recessions of the 70s or the 2000 recession.
You are mistaken. You are covering republican-controlled periods also. The problem with Detroit was that the Bush tax cuts did not go far enough and that there was just too much liberalism.
Once the collapse in 08 hit it... it just fell apart.
Wrong again. Liberalism, not the crash of ‘08, was the cause of Detroit’s woes.
There are parts of the city where if you call the cops or the fire department - they won't come.
Funny, I was house-sitting for a home on the border of South Dallas. I went to the home and the alarm was going off. I called the cops. They arrived several hours later. They informed me that a house break in is a low priory event.
There are parts of the city with no street lights, no paved roads anymore.
So, use horses.
No, no, no. IF they are taxed less. LESS. And that's a big "if."
You absolutely refuse to explain why a small tax increase is more important to businessmen then the boost they will get by simply moving operations where labor is 20 times cheaper (which is what you seem to think business will all do if they are not taxed per GOP desires).
Keep the current rates or god forbid raise them. Well... sorry. More jump ship every day now.
I know rich people will threaten to jump ship if you tax them very much. They do this because the GOP encourages them to. However, it does not make good business sense for that reason.
The largest cost to most companies is labor, by far. It is not taxation. It is labor. Reducing labor costs is the single biggest benefit most companies can have. I think assuming that any business that moves operations or out-sources does so because of a few percent in taxation, is a post hoc fallacy that matches your ideology, but not necessarily executives’ motivations.
We already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world
Often 0%, never the top marginal rates. What rates are you talking about? The paper rates that aren’t collected? Is that fictitious number what is bothering businessmen?
and a heft income tax rate assuming no deductions for the top tier.
So, the fictitious rate is what you are concerned about.
Factor in the Capital Gains, all the state taxes... man it'll be over.
Capital Gains reduces the effective tax rate of the top margin. It does not increase it.
But at some point, it isn't worth it anymore.
Slippery slope fallacy. We are nowhere near that point. We are further from that point than we have been in almost a century (with one small blip). I am talking about where we are, not where we would be if we were in some distant place.
And the fact is, the quality of Asian goods goes up every day, bit-by-bit.
Bought a Toyota lately?
[Continued ...]
Unemployment in this country is stagnant, none of the "job creators" is investing
Well, perhaps the reason “they is” not wanting to invest is that they still have room in their mattresses for the proceeds for unprecedented historical earnings.
jobs are being outsourced at a geometric rate
And since you don’t like taxation, you attribute this to over taxation at a time when taxation is historically low and at a time where much of the outsourcing can reduce the main cost of doing business, labor, by 2000 percent. You, however, understand economics so well, that you think the 3% tax increase some democrat proposes is the sole driving factor and the 2000 percent labor reduction has nothing to do with anything. It is called GOP economics 101.
government takes in less money every year, government debt to GDP is out of control.
Perhaps if the government takes in less money by design, this will solve the problem of the government taking in less money per necessity. Perhaps if the government does not collect enough revenue to pay its debts, the debt to GDP ratio will improve. I do believe that is the truths bestowed upon us by GOP Economics 101.
Why? Capital isn't playing ball anymore.
Tell the rich to stop stuffing capital in their mattresses. They have record earnings. Tell them to use it.
Companies aren't hiring new workers, they're laying them off. Companies aren't building new factories much anymore - they're shipping them over seas. Have you ever stopped to ask why Capital is doing that?
Yes. It turns out that it is 3% taxation or something to that effect. None of the other factors in the global economy matter.
Every one of them will say Over Regulation and Taxes.
You have not spoken to every one of them. You always tell me how you have complete experience in all areas under discussion. Your life is not that large. You have spoken to very few of them, and like you, those few will say whatever FOX teaches them to say. However, they will not allow FOX to run their businesses for them.
Bottom line, they can make more money that way- and you're policy would give them every incentive to do just that. And you can't stop them.
Neither can you and if you tax them at zero percent, that will not stop them either. Some of them are already paying that tax rate and still offshoring (see GE for more details).
I mean, did you really just think you could take their money? Was that it? Did you think you could just vote your way to riches?
Please stop being insincere. Any tax policy I would support would have either zero effect on me personally or would tax me higher. I would not get any of the rich man’s booty. You know that, but you like to cast reality as if I am personally trying to acquire wealth through taxation. NONE of the social programs or safety net for which I so strongly advocate gives me one penny. I think you know this.
All taxation is confiscation. So yes, yes you are [taking the poor rich man’s money from him].
No it is not. It is rent the government needs to keep the apartment running.
Community suggests voluntary cooperation - yet you propose to use the force of state to enforce you will on others.
No one is forced to live in America. Therefore, by your own definition, we are talking about community.
[Continued...]
The Constitution does not protect the rights of communities but limits their rights in favor of the rights of the individual. That's the country I want to live in, not one that puts the whole before the rights of the one. Individual rights trump collective will every time both in law and in ethics.
This is the crux of the biscuit. This is the country you WANT to live in. You WANT. You are an individual. Other individuals want to live in a country that has a basic higher standard. By the way, in law, the rights of the individual only trump the rights of the collective in some cases, as I know you know already. We can draft an individual, basically send him to his death, to support the collective, when needed. The Supreme Court has repeated sided against your legal theory, but then they don’t know you, or they would probably change their minds. Taxation for entitlements supports individuals, just not the ones you want supported. SSA definitely supports individuals, but it makes sure the collective has a safety net. Once we have Universal Healthcare, it will be the same kind of thing.
Just that you are entitled to more than 15 cents out of every dollar earned by that working man. From whose ass did you pull this 15% number? How did you determine that 15% is humankind’s God-given right?
Jack,
You're right. Since when have hedge fund managers, Wall Street bankers, or pampered, trust fund, aristocratic bluebloods created sustainable jobs?
Free,
You are wrong... again. You'd better read the Constitution more closely. "Provide" is indeed there.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
You can disagree on what “provide” means, but you cannot disagree on it being there. Well, the delusional radical Right mentality that sees death panels and a government takeover of health care, or coddled aristocrats and crooked banksters as “job creators”, can disagree with anything, real or imagined, I suppose.
Clearly they failed. And deserved to. Sinking your hopes into a collective will always ends up in failure.
Oh really? Just like you're an "expert" on the Constitution, you're the expert on every Detroit neighborhood now as well? Yup.
The democratic process under Constitutional protections for minority and individual rights is not mob rule. Minority rule by the economic elite is the road to totalitarianism and economic decline for the majority. Always has been.
Clearly they don't give a crap about America.
Your defense of individual rights rings hollow when you whine that a three percent tax restoration on the wealthy is "oppression" while corporate super-personhood and corporate money crush our individual rights to the democratic process. While the radical rightists of the Republican Party are actively disenfranchising individuals’ right to vote, you see “tyranny” in Reagan era tax rates. Yup.
You're extreme and narrow ideology is blind to the basic fact that civilization and prosperity cannot exist without socialization, cooperation, and yes, that dirty word of the radical Right, compromise.
Even the military cannot function without cooperation, compromise and communication. And you know that.
Socialization, cooperation and community have been essential in order for us to survive and thrive as a species.
You cringe at the very words society and community, don't you? All you can see is socialism and communism.
Yes, community has its roots in tribalism. Your "every man for himself" ideology is rooted in the lower animal base instincts where the life-nurturing human characteristics of love and compassion are absent.
Your sociopathic inclinations are showing again, old buddy.
@Dave,
And your pontification of the universal human condition, through the distorted lens of the virtue of selfishness, ignores the universal human conditions alien to you.
You are venturing into the philosophical motivations for how Free thinks, which are the sincere ones he has. Thus far, he has focused only on red herrings to justify his beliefs and reduce dissonance. There are real reasons he thinks as he does and they are philosophical, not pragmatic.
"Provide" is indeed there.
For some reason that cracked me up.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ---> promote <---- the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
What you are making Dave, is an appeal to a mob - which you call community or by another definition society. We should be forced to sacrifice you tell us, because society says so. This is not a reason. It is an appeal to the masses. Matters of truth and morality are not determined by what society or a group of people say. American society used to say that slavery should be legal; some societies still do. That did not, and does not, make it so. Further, your argument is an appeal to authority. The threat of force (through legislation and law) is not a reason; it is the opposite of a reason. If the force-wielders could offer a reason for why you should sacrifice, then they wouldn't have to use force; they could use persuasion instead of coercion. You make no appeal as to why it is in the best interest of some to pay more taxes - you simply demand it and call those who do not share your vision of false and forced altruism evil. That is an argument from intimidation, the attempt to substitute psychological pressure for rational argument. Like the personal attack, it is an attempt to avoid having to present a rational case for a position for which no rational case can be made.
In fact you have attempted no rational case because you have none. Instead you support mob rule, intimidation and coercion and call it "cooperation."
How authoritarian of you.
The Constitution is not a document that grants rights to citizens, it is a document specifically designed to limit the power of Government and ensure the rights of the individual. This is because Democracy is not tantamount to freedom. A mob can oppress just as quickly as a dictator. When the right citizens have to property is not respected and government decides how much money or profit legally obtained is too much - you have a vacuum of freedom. Creating such a vacuum democratically is not justified and a violation of individual rights. Applying laws selectively such as rates of taxation is a form of discrimination the same as application of laws based on race is discrimination - and both are equally destructive and far more sociopathic than respecting the rights of someone who has earned to keep the majority of what they have earned. You talk about greed, but what of envy? Envy is coveting something not earned - and slapping the titles "democracy," "cooperation," and "collective" do not change envy into anything other than greed for rewards undeserved or earned.
We can talk about philosophy all day long and those ideas exist in a vacuum. But policy, that has consequences. Detroit, Gary, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Newark and many others are examples of an envious, mob ruled, corrupt and failed progressive policy. They are data points, numbers, mathematical proof of the failure of blind collectivism and redistribution by government. But because your policy is based on faith and not mathematics and data - there of course can be no convincing any of the hard left. But perhaps someone whose mind is not so tethered to a devotion to the collective distopia whose mind isn't made up can read this and see the holes I've punched here in the progressive ideal. After all, choosing between Detroit and Houston? That's not a terribly difficult decision for anyone to make.
Even the military cannot function without cooperation, compromise and communication. And you know that.
The military is a totalitarian dictatorship. If we refuse orders we are court martialed,
thrown into prison, fined, and carry a felony record for life. We even loose the right to vote. Heck back when I was a private if you disrespected a Sergeant you could expect quite a beating. That has changed at least.
The only reason it works is because we volunteered for it and it was our choice. Back when men were forced to do it, NCOs often had to beat Soldiers to get them to comply. Think "Full Metal Jacket."
During the 1970s there was wide spread indicipline, drug use, and race riots within the military. Only when choice was introduced through an all volunteer military were the problems solved. Be that as it may, once the choice is made - it is made and as a Soldier you follow orders... or else.
If thats the "cooperation" you want to force on the American people... well... how authoritarian of you.
John,
I see you've abandoned even the pretense of argument. Since the most you ever has is a pretense of argument - this is amusing. You should stick to programing those computers - I fear critical thinking may give you a head ache.
No one is forced to live in America.
Very true John, and because people won't be forced Capital is leaving. I think that's been the crux of my argument so far. The "job creators" don't want to be a part of a socialist community. What happens when they leave? Detroit happens.
Thanks for admitting I'm right.
I know of cases where small business did not make new jobs. Big business got rid of jobs by out sourcing them. Small business were formed to do the same jobs cheaper, by not having unions or benefits. It was the same old jobs, maybe done by more part timers. The new small business I knew about was owned by the wives of the top people at the big business. With Ronnie, nobody counted if it was part time work or not. A job was a job. d4d
I see you've abandoned even the pretense of argument. Since the most you ever has is a pretense of argument - this is amusing. You should stick to programing those computers - I fear critical thinking may give you a head ache.
This "rebuttal" is the epitome of abandoning pretense of an argument. It is a pointless ad hominem statement making no arguement whatsoever. I would not have pointed it out but for the fact that you were engaging in the exact activity you denounced, and you do so inside your denunciation. The irony is amusing.
Obviously, there is nothing to rebut, as you made no argument.
Back from vacation. Apologies for filtering the comments.
John,
Splendid.
Anon(d4d),
My taxes have gone up to pay for the tax cuts for businesses. There’s a real example of Republican redistribution from my pocket to the wealthy. Free should like that.
Free,
What you are making Dave, is an appeal to a mob
What, “mob” again?
If the force-wielders could offer a reason for why you should sacrifice, then they wouldn't have to use force; they could use persuasion instead of coercion.
Right. They forced me to pay for your happy little war, after their lies failed to persuade me to agree to it.
You make no appeal as to why it is in the best interest of some to pay more taxes
Yes I have. Our country was better off with more progressive taxation and regulation. Look around at what has happened since the Right seized our government. We should name collapsing bridges after Republicans and libertarians.
Matters of truth and morality are not determined by what society or a group of people say... call those who do not share your vision of false and forced altruism evil.
Society has laws against unprovoked violence. We have a few laws left against theft and fraud. Yes it is evil of those who commit these acts.
In fact you have attempted no rational case because you have none. Instead you support mob rule, intimidation and coercion and call it "cooperation." How authoritarian of you.
There you go again, equating Constitutional democracy with mob rule. I might have to start counting your repetitions of that Big Lie.
Democracy is not tantamount to freedom. A mob can oppress just as quickly as a dictator.
Freedom cannot exist without democracy. I’m counting your mob references now. Hitler loved calling democracy-defending Americans mobsters too. Interesting...
You talk about greed, but what of envy?
Since you ask, envy is the weaker cousin of greed. Greed rules.
I’ll admit your tangential rant on my true statement, “Even the military cannot function without cooperation, compromise and communication. And you know that”, was entertaining. However I am correct that those factors are all present in any major operation requiring the services of diverse branches of the military.
But policy, that has consequences. Detroit, Gary, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Newark and many others are examples of an envious, mob ruled, corrupt and failed progressive policy.
(Ding, ding, ding! You win the Rush Limbaugh Oxycontin-coated cigar for pushing his “mob rule” absurdity.)
Speaking of failed policy... Yes the “data points, numbers, mathematical proof” of the failure of ‘trickle down” economics, tax cuts for the rich, and zero taxes for corporations, and de-regulation of Big Money have left us a quite a picture of the kind of “prosperity” the Right wants. They are doing splendidly. They are exponentially better off now than ever, yet they continue to bitch like spoiled brats, while they are killing democracy. The vast majority of us are losing. We are losing freedom, democracy and the middle class. You just don’t want to admit this truth.
Free,
As I understand things, the arguments I made were "splendid."
In fact, I do believe that I have been congratulated, usually publicly, and sometimes by conservatives as well, on my performance in all of our long encounters.
Debating you, definitely makes me look good.
Sorry for the arrogance, but you kind of brought it up with your last comment.
Post a Comment