8,753,935: Workers on Disability

[piwolf]

Blame whoever you please, we went though a major economic recession/ depression/ crash similar to 1929 and its just not going to be easy to get out of it.
Seems to me Republicans would like to cut social programs ( aid to the needy) and cut tax's ( mostly on the rich the so called job creators) also to cut Government spending but probably not on projects they like.
The Dems see a need for Stimulus spending and help to the needy, raising revenue by raising tax's on those who can best afford to pay them.
I think they have a much sounder plan

When social programs (and I'm including Medicare and Social Security here), consume greater than 65% of your budget.... hmmm, sounds like a good place to cut to me.

When better than 50% of the populace pays no tax at all... we surely shouldn't ask them to support more of the burden, considering the majority of them are consuming the social services the most. (Denote dripping sarcasm).

Stimulus spending (and the most boneheaded move of bailing out the "too big to fail" entities) provided no measurable benefit, and has blown the debt way out of proportion.

Raising taxes and people who make more than $250k a year sounds very progressive, and if it was just some guy making that salary from some megacorporation, it is. The problem is that most "people" that make that amount are small businesses. They file their business taxes under their own name. Poor ole Joe Schmoe's bait and tackle emporium of Western Podunck Alabama makes a lot of money at his fishing hole, but what he actually "Clears" at the end of the year, is enough to slap a new coat of paint on his house (which, admittedly most of us can't afford these days). You raise Joe Schmoe's taxes.... and Joe can't hire that cute bikini girl to stand out at the end of the road to wave new customers in to grow his business.

Sorry.... It sounds pretty and all that, but "more of the same" stimulus, and higher taxes for the "supposedly rich", will put you further down this same road, with no end in sight.

They say the Repubs steered us into a ditch. I say, Dems did fix that... they decided it was so fun that they went completely for off roading... "Oh look! A Cliff! Lets make sure everyone is in their car seats, strapped securely, with pacifiers in their mouths while we explore flight"

[Starkravinloon]

The reason Madicare and Social Security is at 65%, is because the government thinks everyone qualifies,and that's not true...

[Bubba74]

So it's all our Presidents falt? Our do nothing bill blocking Republican controlled congress has nothing to do with it.. Yea Ok just keep dreaming..

Where is the leadership, after all he is president.
Last meeting of the Jobs Council was in January (7 months ago)
He has implimented none of the recommendations of his Economic Task Force
He has submitted budgets that were unanimously rejected by his own party
He has wasted billions propping up "green"energy companies
His radical agenda is causing the price of energy to go up- gas is once again double since he took office
He has injected uncertainty into the markets with inaction on new taxes and regulations
His EPA is bringing forth new regulations which are happering business
He has created a level of poverty not seen in this nation in over 50 years
He has created the largest dependency class this nation has ever seen

But hey, your right, none of this is his fault.

Blame whoever you please, we went though a major economic recession/ depression/ crash similar to 1929 and its just not going to be easy to get out of it.

Funny, Barry knew this going in. It was in many of his campaign speeches "worst economy since the great depression." His solution was the same big govt crap that dragged the great depression out for over a decade. Not so smart from someone that is supposed to be so smart. Ever here of the depression of 1920? Probably not, instead of doing what the govt is doing now and in 1929, they did the opposite and guess what over in a year and left with the roaring 20's. I guess it becomes hard to function when ideology takes over in place of reality.

The Forgotten Depression of 1920 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily

The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery — at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920–1921, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

[1tt1]

So it's all our Presidents falt? Our do nothing bill blocking Republican controlled congress has nothing to do with it.. Yea Ok just keep dreaming..

Isn't it convenient how the libs forget Obama was elected with a dem house and senate and what did they do with their first 2 years...

[Bubba74]

Isn't it convenient how the libs forget Obama was elected with a dem house and senate and what did they do with their first 2 years...

Barry Care
2700 pages that no one read
That was forced down the throats of the American people by hook and by crook.
With shady backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. Promising to not allow abortion via EO.

So basically, when Barry and the left had all the power to work on the economy, they ignored it and went for the big liberal wet dream of controlling healthcare. They fiddled and Rome burnt

[Magoo]

When social programs (and I'm including Medicare and Social Security here), consume greater than 65% of your budget.... hmmm, sounds like a good place to cut to me.

When better than 50% of the populace pays no tax at all... we surely shouldn't ask them to support more of the burden, considering the majority of them are consuming the social services the most. (Denote dripping sarcasm).

Stimulus spending (and the most boneheaded move of bailing out the "too big to fail" entities) provided no measurable benefit, and has blown the debt way out of proportion.

Raising taxes and people who make more than $250k a year sounds very progressive, and if it was just some guy making that salary from some megacorporation, it is. The problem is that most "people" that make that amount are small businesses. They file their business taxes under their own name. Poor ole Joe Schmoe's bait and tackle emporium of Western Podunck Alabama makes a lot of money at his fishing hole, but what he actually "Clears" at the end of the year, is enough to slap a new coat of paint on his house (which, admittedly most of us can't afford these days). You raise Joe Schmoe's taxes.... and Joe can't hire that cute bikini girl to stand out at the end of the road to wave new customers in to grow his business.

Sorry.... It sounds pretty and all that, but "more of the same" stimulus, and higher taxes for the "supposedly rich", will put you further down this same road, with no end in sight.

They say the Repubs steered us into a ditch. I say, Dems did fix that... they decided it was so fun that they went completely for off roading... "Oh look! A Cliff! Lets make sure everyone is in their car seats, strapped securely, with pacifiers in their mouths while we explore flight"

You mistaken in so many areas where do I start
"When social programs (and I'm including Medicare and Social Security here), consume greater than 65% of your budget.... hmmm, sounds like a good place to cut to me."
Its a hard concept to understand but those expendatures come out of funds collected for those purposes, not out of the general Federal tax's where over 50% of that go to pay for wars and military expenses. They bunch in the FICA money coming into the Treasury to make it look like we have a greater revenue. I know I don't do a good job of explaining, don't take my word for it dig deeper for yourself.

When better than 50% of the populace pays no tax at all... we surely shouldn't ask them to support more of the burden, considering the majority of them are consuming the social services the most

You should ask yourself how much could you demand poor people cough up?
The bigger question is WHY are there so many people who work for low wages?
And why does the United States have more people in Prisons then any other country on earth? Something screwy there I think.

Stimulus spending (and the most boneheaded move of bailing out the "too big to fail" entities) provided no measurable benefit, and has blown the debt way out of proportion
Oh yes it did help ask economists that know they will tell you it did and how.( don't ask Oreilly or Beck they aren't economist)
When Obama took office 700,000 people a month were losing their jobs.

Raising taxes and people who make more than $250k a year sounds very progressive, and if it was just some guy making that salary from some megacorporation, it is. The problem is that most "people" that make that amount are small businesses. They file their business taxes under their own name. Poor ole Joe Schmoe's bait and tackle emporium of Western Podunck Alabama makes a lot of money at his fishing hole, but what he actually "Clears" at the end of the year, is enough to slap a new coat of paint on his house (which, admittedly most of us can't afford these days). You raise Joe Schmoe's taxes.... and Joe can't hire that cute bikini girl to stand out at the end of the road to wave new customers in to grow his business.



Finally we get to your last point, it does not sound like you have ever been in your own business so let me tell you about tax's

You say the poor small business owner only making $250000 will suffer so.
In business you minus all ALL let me repeat ALL of your expenses when you do your company TAX. Thats real estate costs local tax's employee costs cost of goods on & on.
When you get all of that done you wind up with profit, which you can leave in the company or usually you pay yourself a decent salary.
If your making over $250000 a year in salary your no poor boy pay your friiggen tax's
I get tired of hearing about the poor rich guys having to pay tax's
Heres the big secret you don't get because they didn't tell you. You must figure out for yourself. If the rich don't pay more then you will no if's, and's or but's.
If you don't believe that look around you license plates sales tax's hunting fishing license its all went up those are Tax's.

[piwolf]

Always a pleasure to debate with you Mr. Magoo....

I am considering the overall complete spending picture when I mention that 65% of the budget is devoted to social programs. I include everything... the total thing. The military budgets rough in at about 35% of all federal spending. I called it "budget" but it's really a matter of spend that I was getting to. I'm not opposed to trimming the military too... it's just that social programs spending has increased so much under Obama - and we are so far in debt - there are no places not to look... and the biggest part of the pie is the place to look first, not to be ignored.

I wouldn't ask the destitute to pay, and I wouldn't ask those that don't make a living wage to pay... but in a world where cellphones, ipods, flat screen TVs and cable internet are owned by people on welfare - asking them to pay a few dollars isn't all that much to ask. Sure, someone living under a bridge, in a halfway house, flat on their back in a hospital bed with mounting medical bills shouldn't be asked to pay... but someone making 50,000 a year can sure cough up a bit.

The bigger question you mention isn't really a part of this argument - and I suspect that both of us would have fairly opposite views on the subject. I would say that Obama's method over the past three years has not significantly increased job creation.

The US has more people in prisons primarily due to drug offenses (as I've read... can't source the exact article at this time), and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Regarding "Too big to fail"... meh, that's a matter of opinion... Would that we let those megabanks fail (that is the whole idea behind capitalism), I believe that we would have dove quicker, and recovered faster. Yes, there would have been a depression. But the flight of banking money overseas was the greatest chunk of that bailout. Had we left those financial institutions to fail - the remnants would have been picked up by stronger, and more savvy companies. (Just like GM required a bailout, and FORD did not).

Those "too big to fail" institutions are left to make their mistakes again - No Dodd-Frank legislation is preventing it. The losses recently at Merril Lynch attest to that.

Yes, you are correct about the calculation for a small business owner. But every penny in taxes that you pay is money that you don't plow into your business. Someone with a $250,000 take home pays 27% taxes on that already. Just how much is their fair share? 50%? 75%? You add Local and state taxes (heaven forbid you live in New York City), and you could be paying humongous amounts.

I'm no where near that salary range - in fact have lost 35% of my takehome since being laid off at Yellow just to stay employed elsewhere in the computer field. The middle-rich guys (that I'll lump the 250k-1M range), really drive the economy. They will raise prices in the face of more taxation, and/or they will not hire someone new.

Reagan made this work during his tenure. Clinton did it in a way as well. Not raising taxes on the rich, but cutting their loopholes, and reasons for them to park money overseas, is the way to go... not just taxing them (and ultimately us) into oblivion.

Of course, if we cut spending, and raise taxes moderately, we find a solution that really will serve everyone better.

[Bubba74]

Of course, if we cut spending, and raise taxes moderately, we find a solution that really will serve everyone better.

notice how spending cuts are not even in the lexicon?

[Magoo]

notice how spending cuts are not even in the lexicon?

Oh they are but I say instead of cutting monies spent on the needy do it somewhere else.
And if one of you vote to raise a tax by once cent Grover Norquist will be on you

[dcmilkwagon]

Oh they are but I say instead of cutting monies spent on the needy do it somewhere else.
And if one of you vote to raise a tax by once cent Grover Norquist will be on you

See, that's one of the problems, don't cut my money, take it from somebody else......