Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Agreed, raise the debt ceiling or the problems we are discussing won't matter.
I agree,job numbers won't come down until consumer demand increases . It's going to be difficult to achieve as long as consumers still have high consumer debt and low wages.
reeder,it was you that posted "It's rather appalling to see the business ignorance displayed in this forum and in the news.".......Using my words in reverse does not increase your case for originality. You fired the first shot across the bow and went on to post your ideas as a proof positive solution ,without any data to support your claim.
I try to increase my knowledge of a difficult subject everyday;right now I am reading "Come back America" by former U.S. Comptroller General,David Walker....I did not endorse a democratic plan;I like a plan Nancy Pelosi and Jim DeMint hate,and Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn endorse. That's the president's Commission on reducing the deficit.
I don't think you speak for "WE" but it is obvious you think that I don't don't know anything about business or investment principals....I think I can live with that.
Enjoy your Sunday and keep commenting
I'm grateful for the "business" expertise and find it a refreshing change from the no argument name calling so commonly encountered.
If YOU had 10 million dollars, would you invest in a business right now and hire people with the uncertainty of the economy and the potential government financial collapse from not raising the debt ceiling?
GOP pandering to the Tea Party crowd seems to have made the Wall Street set anxious (to the point that word was sent they were just kidding).
This comment was removed by the user.
Well, MikeI never claimed to be unique. We all know you're the ONLY one with original ideas. You've expressed them SO many times. Too bad they come right out of the Democrats talking points. Get real, Buddy. Unique you aren't either. You obviously know NOTHING about business or investment principles.
More like people won't invest their money in a business because they know the customer base is dwindling, and quickly.
There are small businesses started every day;Catapillar is breaking ground and some supporting companies will follow....These start-up have business plan,they know taxes are lower than they have been since Truman.
Tax lobbyist have fed that line about passing tax back to consumers for years but they never lower their prices when they get tax incentives. Nobody buys that line anymore because a business has to make adjustments for vendor price increases,fuel prices,and other expenses.....That is just a scare tactic that has run its course. With all the loop holes,many top multinational corporation don't pay any tax...that trickle down theory hasn't work for 30 Yeats.
We have a $14 trillion economy,so it not as simple to just call for a consumer or flat tax because you have to come up with a rate.Last I heard it would have to about 31% and we would still have to pay a state sales tax....Your ideas are not unique;it's been discussed and rejected,many ,many times.....We do need tax reform lowering the corporate but getting rid of the tax loopholes.
Republicans never want to discuss income inequality due to stagnant wages,the decline of pensions and more benefits being passed to employees....Check out the the rate of CEO pay to employee for the last 30 years.
Knowing republican talking points does not make you an economic genius;just makes you a supporter of trickle down economics.In one post you want to give corporations MORE tax incentives to keep or bring jobs to America....Sure back up all the corporations trucks to the treasury ,get all they need and maybe they trickle some down to the rest of us.
It's rather appalling to see the business ignorance displayed in this forum and in the news. It's really rather simple. If YOU had 10 million dollars, would you invest in a business right now and hire people with the uncertainty of the economy and the tax structure being proposed? If you say yes, you know a less about business than you think. Why gamble your money when the return on your investment is so low you could buy low-interest T-bills and make just as much with lower risk?
Besides that, corporate taxes are taxes on the consumer. Businesses just past them on to the consumer in the form of higher prices which would further depress the economy. We should eliminate corporate taxes all together.
Again, my solution for the tax problem is to eliminate all corporate and personal income taxes. Instead, I propose a consumption tax (just like sales tax) on all items except food, housing, utilities, & medicines. As I've said previously, all people need to feel the bite of the tax man. No one should be exempt because that causes a privileged class which will ALWAYS be in favor of tax increases (it doesn't cause them any pain and gives them more benefits).
We were told you have to keep the tax breaks for the wealthy intact so they will create new jobs. Tax breaks are for the high income set are intact and unemployment stays high.
It's like more of the same doesn't work very well. Those that do well continue to do well and the rest of the country is still in the ditch.
Hard to defend tax breaks to millionairs and John Q Citizen is eating cat food to pay his taxes. There is a problem with this "fair and balanced" tax system. The "trickle down" theory is not working for most folks.
enjoy your weekend. stay cool in this heat wave and we will chat again later. To each his own opinion! By the way I loved your past posts on the barber shop and the 5 days of picking cotton. check out my post on the cotton one I think you will relate to some of it. Have a great day!!!!
I don't intend to engage in the same ol' left and right wing food fights. I know all the talking points and the sound bites of both political parties. That's not what this blog is about. You are going to leave with what you believe is right I've already stated my views both in the blog and and in the comment. section... As always, minds won't be changed, so I'm going make better use of my Saturday afternoon.
You can believe that Fannie and Freddie,poor people, and big government caused financial crisis but I know better..I read and I will never be convinced with hypotheticals, personal observations that are not backed up with actual data, and ideological talking points.....saying " you favor big government and I favor small government" is just a convenient sound bite to elevate your argument since you don't have any data to back up your point.... That small government rhetoric has been out for years without much impact. No one wants a bloated government with a lot of bureaucracy but smaller government is never defined; except with another talking point like " free market, letting the people keep more of their money and other nonsense." I've always said that everyone wants to feed at the government trough but some don't admit it.....Think about it.
Before I leave,do you know how many pages were in the Social Security or Medicare bill? If you don't know, why is that relevant?It's on the gov website and I have an app on my iPad that gives me up-to-date info if I need . So far, my doctor has kept me abreast and so has Medicare and Aetna....See what I mean about useless talking points? Have a great weekend
mike The biggest problem I have with the healthcare law is all the non healthcare stuff in the 2000 plus pages of the bill. There are vast amounts of money earmarked for non healthcare issues. No govt bill needs to be 2000 pages long.
Defense spending and entitlements need to be on the chopping block as well. I think I said that every aspect of the budget needs to be looked at and costs cut as much as possible where ever possible.
I know that we are on very different sides of the isle on the way to do this. You favor big govt calling the shots and I prefer the smallest govt possible to handle the job effectively. I do not trust the govt to handle healthcare due to it's prior track record controlling any program it has put into place. It's projected costs to savings ratio has never ever been close to the real cost with no savings that past programs projected even just 10 years down the road. What makes you think they will get it right this time.
Mike the federal govt played a big part in the housing crash by requiring lenders to put people into houses that they could not afford with the fair housing act. In fact I think the govt played a big role in causing the housing crash. Fannie and freddie are perhaps the worst thing ever invented by govt in an attempt to put all americans into a home that wanted one. Since when should the govt be in the home lending sector with fed backed mortgages. By removing the risk from the banks they started the whole ball rolling.
The govt by not enforcing the laws and regulations on the books at the time also allowed greed to work it's way into the markets to minipulate them into a means of huge profit taking and over extending the ability of the banks to handle the resulting mess.
Just another example of why there needs to be smaller govt instead of bigger govt.
We already went through that exercise; most of America now believe that cutting discretionary spending is just peanuts. You can cut discretionary spending(non defense spending) down to zero and it won't make a dent.... It's a small percentage of GDP....We know that entitlements and defense spending are the big ticket items that we need to tackle. Most economists believe that Social Security can be made solvent with means testing, raising the retirement age, and possibly raising the caps. If you been keeping up with the congressional votes; you might have noticed that a withdrawal from Afghanistan is not that many votes away. A withdrawal from Iraq is in the works. Secretary of defense Robert Gates has already taking serious steps in reducing pentagon waste.
The Heath Care law will reduce the costs of Medicare but both parties must be at the table for that to happen....78% of Americans do not want Medicare touched and anther 50% plus do not want the Health care law repealed...So there you have it ;as Bill Clinton said "mend it ;don't end it."
mike,I am not trying to demonize anyone. I agree that there is waste and mismangement in every part of the budget, to many loopholes in the tax laws that should be closed. In fact the whole tax system needs to be updated and reformed into a realistic method of collecting revenue. With a simple flat tax or a national sales tax or other fair tax system applied equally to everyone not just the top 2% or those who make more than 250,000 a year but to all. Without a doubt our medical system needs re-working into something affordable to all not just the rich or those getting it for free. I don't think "Obamacare" is the answer either as it will be another mishandled govt program full of waste, fraud and higher taxes. Bigger govt is not the answer to our problem, it is the problem. Sure wall street needs reform as well. mortgages need to be changed to where banks no longer figure interest rates as done now but be required to apply about 50% of a house payment to the principle instead of the current method of almost 100% in interest and a token amount put on the principle in the beginning and 100% to principle at the end of the note. We also need to return to realistic housing prices and down to earth wages to make our goods more marketable overseas.
Education needs to be more affordable to all and so does health care. I tend to harp on those that freeload more than other areas because we as a nation have become lazy, obese and expecting the govt to take care of everything and everyone instead of doing these things for ourselves. No one is entitled to a life long free ride.
It wasn't generations on public assistance who went hat in hand begging for a $700 bailout,so it's important to keep everything in perspective. The 45 million that are now on public assistance didn't cause this financial crisis and the funds provided to them i.e. $1.34 for every $1 will come back to the Federal treasury..... We can't continue this forever and no one is advocating a welfare state but we must keep the safety net in place because it's the moral thing to do. Like anything else, people will abuse it, but we have to take it on a case by case basis and not just paint it with a broad brush to turn people's attention away from the real problems.
We will never pay off the national debt but we can take steps to put a serious dent in it. All we need is a plan that can be periodically changed to meet the circumstances. For instance if we don't cut spending; we can trigger tax increases as a way to in balance our budget. We will always have unexpected expenditures such as wars, tornadoes, epidemics, hurricanes, floods, here and abroad. Why abroad? The earthquake in Japan is hurting our economy.
We'll mustn't turn our back on investments in infrastructure, education and energy policies that will come back to bite us in the future. Europe, China India and Brazil are not going to take a timeout while we get our fiscal house in order.
I think both parties need to adopt Bowles-Simpson because it has bipartisan support for a shared sacrifice...Just adopting a plan will regenerate the markets here and abroad,stimulate consumer confidence and it won't start taking place until next year,after the election, and when the economy should be improving.
Mike I agree it has to be a give and take from both parties. With more giving up spending than taking more in taxes.
Every aspect of the budget needs to be looked at with a microscope and no program should be exempt from the axe to reduce waste, duplication of work, and the reduction of the size of the federal government in general. There are many areas of every day life which the federal govt needs to be removed from, for example, education which could be managed locally better than though federal mandates that are unfunded. Granted there needs to be federal standards in education but not the massive control it has now. The post office could be and should be done away with as it is no longer needed to fill that service it could be done in the private sector just as well if not better. Or at least reduce the number of days that mail is delivered. As technology advances paper letters are becoming a thing of the past and package delivery is largely done by private companies now already. I think it fair to say we could downsize the federal govt by at least a third with out undue hardship to our way of life.
Return that power back to the most effective level of state and local government for each program and or transition these programs into the private sector where possible. By doing this it would create more tax paying entities, businesses and non-governmental jobs which would reduce the cost to the tax payer.
The federal government has proved over and over that it can not run any program with out vast amounts of wasteful spending and mismanagement.
Mike I think you would find that about 1/3rd of every dollar is spent with no benefit at all to anyone except to feed the monster govt has become. In a 3-4 trillion dollar budget this amounts to about 1 trillion in wasted money. If we could save that money it would take about 15 years to pay off the debt freeing up another 800 billion we now spend on interest payments alone. That money then could be returned to the taxpayers to spend on healthcare, retirement, new cars, education or on a million other things that would stimulate the job market. It could also be used to help fund the entitlement programs without the need to raise taxes at all.
I agree with you about generations on public assistance, but there are 6 people out of jobs for every job available. You can't fight numbers like that and you cannot find jobs for all of those people. You have to get the jobs back first and worry about what to do with those people second.Without that money in circulation, more companies would be shutting down, adding to the problem ten-fold.Didn't Clinton put a time frame on collecting Federal aid? Whatever happened to that?
holly1Entitlements are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because the United States will pay those bills and the recipients are entitled... You can't change the definition to suit your " class warfare" rhetoric.... It's common knowledge that the older recipients of entitlements did not pay in as much as they are receiving today. I can do the math of of only paying 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% (4.2% this year) for Social Security in payroll deductions.
It's despicable to blame our problems on the unemployed,poor,elderly and handicapped while ignoring the Wall Street fat cats, and multinational corporations that will ship jobs overseas; rather than take steps to try and keep those jobs here.
I can hear the dog whistle.
You have said in the past that we need to take a pay cut to about $6 hour; evidently you don't know that it takes about $8.25 and hour to make it, but it suits the message you are trying to spread.....Guess what, the republicans and democrats will not talk about reducing welfare in the budget negotiations; for obvious reasons that you will never understand. I would be willing to bet that you have no idea of how much is budgeted for welfare as opposed to military equipment we don't need, tax loops for multinational corporations, and tax cuts for the top 2%..... It doesn't matter to you because you will spew the same rhetoric over and over again; hoping someone will agree.
Bottom line, you can't prove how many people are unworthy but that doesn't really matter because you just want to demonize the less fortunate in order to deflect blame...Typical "trickle down " ideology .
born2bme:by entitlements I was refering to welfare, foodstamps, medicaid, public housing and the endless list of hand outs to those not willing to better themselves.
I was not refering to soc.sec or medicare which was paid into by most of those who collect it, or the people who because of health or other legitimate reason who get help until they are able to go back to work as a few people do. These people use the system the way it was intended to work.
I was refering to the 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families/people who think they deserve to get paid to sit home and watch TV all day. Welfare has become a way of life for some instead of a helping hand until they can finish school/job training or recover from an illness or injury. Today there are those who have known no other way of life than going to the mail box each month to collect their monthly bribe to vote for democrats who promise them more money for nothing. Some of these people are the 3rd generation of families who have made welfare a way of life and never intend to get jobs. If you do the math most of those on welfare make more than those on social security and payed into the system their entire lifes. Add up the monthly checks, foodstamps, medicaid benefits, public housing assistance and some even get their utility bills payed as well and you come up with a figure of between 20-30,000 per year when most on soc sec get about 10-12000 a year or less after working all their lives.
So go ahead and tell me how this is right or fair to those of us who have to work for a living while others sit back and complain how rough they have it. IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR THIS BULLCRAP TO END!!!!
Welfare should never have become more profitable than working. At least require drug testing to those who get these checks. Most everyone who works has to pass a drug test to get hired and then random testing as part of their jobs. So why not test those on welfare??? And require some form of work program/community service hours to get that help. Nothing should be free or unearned. At least those of us working would not feel so screwed when we pay our taxes every pay check.
A budget negotiation is just that; you can't come to the table and say " we aren't going to do that." Republicans will have to agree to tax revenues and democrats will have to agree to Medicare reform. Medicare needs some structural repair not benefit cuts. Medicare needs to be able to negotiate with the pharmaceuticals, instead of paying doctors for services; we need to pay them for success etc.
Budget negotiations are like a great big spreadsheet with corresponding numbers. It is my belief that you cannot sacrifice education, energy policies, and infrastructure; even in a recession. For instance repeal a tax loophole, and use that money to support more Pell grants,etc.
We already have the lowest tax rates since the Truman administration; this administration has enacted 16 tax cuts yet unemployment is still high because companies are doing more with less people using technology and overtime. No one can explain how you can slash spending and create jobs. The numbers have changed ; when it used to take two employees to sell 10 widgets,today it only take one , but if you get orders for 50 widgets; companies are forced to hire. Companies will start hiring when inventories are depleted and new purchase orders exceed the the amount the current employees can process...You won't have an increase in purchase orders if unemployment remains at 9.1%.
The Bush administration(2000-2008) passed two tax cuts, yet when they left office , we were losing 700,000-850,000 jobs a month....You can't have it both ways; a few months ago, when unemployment went down,John Boehner said it was because of the Bush tax cuts that was signed in the previous month. Things don't work that fast and using that logic, why did the unemployment rate go back up?
We have to deal with the basic facts put aside ideology.
I don't know why the president won't adopt the bipartisan proposal proposal that was submitted by the deficit reduction committee. It had $1.00 of tax revenues for every spending cut.
You can't argue with trickle down ideologues..... The Fortune 500 companies have about $2 trillion dollars in reserves, throwing more money at them will not solve anything. The top three oil companies reported record breaking $25 billion in profits... Do they really need taxpayer money as incentives to make more profit?
The republicans and Grover Norquist have defined raising taxes eliminating previous taxes incentives(even if no longer feasible), eliminating tax loopholes, and of course implementing a higher tax on the top 2%.... I already know all the talking points.
You can't talk about deficit cutting if you're giving a tax cut to the top 2%, spending $2 billion for Afghanistan, and don't want to eliminate tax loopholes. i.e.
1. Republicans are against eliminating the tax incentives for corn ethanol; even though it was a total failure.2. Republicans are against repealing the tax cut for the top 2% (saving $1 trillion over 10 years)3. Republicans are against repealing the oil company tax incentives.4. Republicans are for lowering the corporate tax rate but unwilling to eliminate the loopholes.
I believe China has a 25% tariff,India has a 40% tariff but ours is about 2% because we want cheap goods.
holly1 and reeder,
Take your household for instance. You work at a job that just isn't covering your expenses. You need X amount of dollars to pay for the basics. You've cut as much as you can, but you are still coming up short. What do YOU do? Stay on the same job, accept fewer hours, or a cut in pay, and hope things turn around, while you start using your plastic to cover expenses.My guess is that you would start looking for another job, or ways to bring in more money. In other words, increase revenue??
This Country takes a lot to keep it running. It takes a lot to keep it the Country we all know and love. You start cutting taxes too much and something gets neglected. You can only cut so much before you start taking money away from things that need to be. We are at that point now. You take money away from those who spend it here in America and it effects every business in this country, in a negative way, AND it effects income tax revenues...again.Certain entitlements are not entitlements since people have paid into it all their lives with a guarantee that they would get it when they retired. I can see cutting some people off because they did not pay into it and they are abusing it. Those are the people that you cut, NOT THE SENIORS.Tell me again how businesses need lower taxes? I think what they need is more paying customers and you won't get that if you keep strangling from the bottom, up.And another thing you are forgetting, this Country uses excess SS and Medicare revenue to pay for other needed things, so the upper class can enjoy those tax breaks. So basically, that money will have to come from somehwere too. Where is it going to come from if Medicare turns into a voucher system, or do we still have to keep paying in the same amount anyway?
hi mike it's amazing how you always say increasing taxes is the answer. Would it not be in our best interest to reduce spending money we don't have instead of spending like a drunken sailor and raising taxes. Most educated people know that spending more money than you make is not going to get you ahead but put you deeper in the hole. To get out of that hole you need to stop living beyond your means and start paying off your debt. You can only get out of the hole by filling it back in a shovel at a time. That is unless you are a democrat, then to get out of that hole you spend more money on feel good things and tax the working class into poverty to support the masses of freeloaders sponging off the system. Why is it that democrats only know how to spend money? Can they not see how destructive that is to the economy. As painful as it might be they need to take a realistic look at the way they have spent our country in to massive debt with their never ending entitlements and excessive handouts to the "never work a day in their life" poor people. The way out of this mess is to lower taxes on business who bring jobs back to this country instead of driving more away with higher taxes. The federal govt needs to quit thinking they must solve every little problem for the people of this country. When you micro-manage things to the extent that the federal govt has all you get is a one size fits all solution to a 50 state problem that does little to solve anything while spending billions for little or no real benifit to anyone. Let the states handle these things in a manner that best fills their needs instead of the washington knows best approach we now have.
Texas knows whats best for texas and maine knows whats best for maine. get back to a level of govt intended by the founding fathers instead of an all powerful federal govt telling everyone whats best. Thats how to solve our problems, not more govt but less govt. Thats what we need today.
And what is going to get companies back to manufacturing over here if you don't give them some economic incentives to do so?
There isn't anyway around increasing revenue right now and you cannot put it on the backs of those who do not have it and are just making enough to survive, and we cannot put it on the backs of those who are too old to help themselves at this point in their lives. We only have a spending problem because of the jobs going overseas. People wouldn't need all of the help they need if the jobs were here. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS wouldn't be in trouble if we could get the jobs back. No amount of tax breaks are going to fix that because that did not help when Bush did it. NAFTA , and other trade agreements, were a huge mistake. Figure out how to get the manufacturing jobs back in America and problem solved, all the way around.What the world is figuring out now is that they need the American consumer. Can't have healthy American buying power with all of the jobs overseas. American companies overseas are going to figure that out too late, then they will be crying to the govermnent to bail them out after they gave us the shaft for years.
Mike,If you were a business owner, would you hire anyone now with the democrats yelling for tax increases for anyone (including small businesses) making more than $250,000 a year? Let me answer the question for the businesses, NO NO NO.
If you really want to increase jobs, you have to come up with a plan to help businesses make more money. Standing around yelling tax increases won't cut it. How about a special deduction for hiring and KEEPING new employees for at least 2 years?
Not perfect, but obliging your request all the same.
As a pundit said this morning, we no longer have to use the grandchildren as a talking point because we're going to feel the effects of inaction before they do.... We need to rearrange our priorities, educate the American voter, and trade ideology for a shared sacrifice.
We probably will never pay off the national debt but that doesn't mean we can't come up with a plan to gradually reduce it. The most important agenda is jobs, followed by jobs, and ending with jobs. The working person pays taxes, consumes, and gives the country consumer confidence.
Right now the political parties have to come to the table without throwing down the gauntlet. Taxes, entitlement reform, and defense spending should all be on the table.
That will cost you in the future? And how does running up a National Debt that my great-grandchildren will be responsible for paying not cost us in the future?