# Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

*President Obama has offered a debt plan that relies on both spending cuts and tax increases back to the Clinton-era levels:*_

"'I will not support any plan that puts all the  burden of closing our deficit on ordinary Americans', Obama said. 'We  are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.'"_

Republicans oppose the suggestion by claiming that it hurts economic growth and is merely a populist campaign issue of class warfare:_ "'Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom  savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic  or job growth', said Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell."_ They also say that even if it is accepted by the 'super committee' of six Democrats and six Republicans the plan has no chance to pass the House of Representatives of which Republicans control the majority (242-192) opposed to the Senate (47-53).

*So what might the list include?*


Tax rates increases for those whose income exceeds 1 $ million, and raise them even more for 'super-rich' of 10 $ million income tier (revenue of 480 $ billion (/milliard) over the next 10 years).
Closing the 15% capital gains rate loophole of hedge fund managers, raising their income rate to 35%.
Elimination of the deferral on overseas corporate profits.
Ending tax subsidied supporting oil & gas industry and companies with private jets.
Lowering mortgage interest deduction and denying it for second mortgages.
Savings of 248 $ billion (/milliard) from Medicare drawn from overpayments to health care providers.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2011)

Now watch as none of that is passed, and a few of them probably, the opposite will be enforced - Go go party of no!


----------



## Aetius (Sep 19, 2011)

Just make massive cuts to the wars going on and the closure of unessential foreign bases.

Hundreds of Billions saved.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

This should have been the first bill he ever tried to pass through Congress, back in 2009.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Now watch as none of that is passed, and a few of them probably, the opposite will be enforced - Go go party of no!


Vote, vote, election, baby
Shake it, move that ticket, crazy


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Vote, vote, election, baby
> Shake it, move that ticket, crazy


 
And especially get involved in the primaries and push to replace incumbent Dems with more progressive ones.  Massachusetts people, get involved _right now_ and back Elizabeth Warren.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 19, 2011)

I doubt it will ever pass as is, but it is an important election move. The majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy (certainly those above $1 million), whereas Republican officials generally support the opposite. That disconnect is a golden opportunity to dampen support for Republican campaigns.


----------



## Deo (Sep 19, 2011)

I really really really hope this passes. I for one do not vehemently oppose raising taxes, and it is something I feel NEEDS to be done, and swiftly.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2011)

One can hope that it will come to pass, but dem rich folks love their money too much...soo..


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> And especially get involved in the primaries and push to replace incumbent Dems with more progressive ones.  Massachusetts people, get involved _right now_ and back Elizabeth Warren.


I recently made a little contribution for EMILY's List. :smile:


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Obama for 2012!
Seriously I already knew I was going to vote for him next year, but if he actually tries this... well shit I don't know a word for wanting to vote for someone even more.
Alright lemme think about this for a second.....
I know, I was already going to vote for him, but now I'm actually excited to vote for him instead.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 19, 2011)

The president will receive a gutted bill from congress that cuts Social Security benefits and medicare instead and the Pres will sign it and say "WE DONE GOOD." And then we will enter a second recession.

Thank goodness for U.S. Congress Inc. and our Tea Party LLP run house.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Obama for 2012!
> Seriously I already knew I was going to vote for him next year, but if  he actually tries this... well shit I don't know a word for wanting to  vote for someone even more.
> Alright lemme think about this for a second.....
> I know, I was already going to vote for him, but now I'm actually excited to vote for him instead.


I guess it took time for him to comprehend that you cannot always compromise, _especially_ in a two-party system.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I guess it took time for him to comprehend that you cannot always compromise, _especially_ in a two-party system.



Not against a unified minority party always afraid of losing in a primary. Democrats could have passed anything they really wanted to in 2009 but members in our Senate decided they were going to try to vote the minority position in order to keep from looking like a "liberal". Then those Senators lost their elections.



Lobar said:


> And especially get involved in the primaries and push to replace incumbent Dems with more progressive ones.  Massachusetts people, get involved _right now_ and back Elizabeth Warren.



She'd make such a good Senator.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Sep 19, 2011)

Can giffords get into office, that woman survived a head shot I want her.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Can giffords get into office, that woman survived a head shot I want her.


 I think anybody would want her in office, I mean seriously how many people do you know that have been shot in the head and survived?


Lizzie said:


> I guess it took time for him to comprehend that you cannot always compromise, _especially_ in a two-party system.


I think his approval rating is probably going to go up if he actually tries this.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 19, 2011)

Obama: "There! We finally made a bill that could appeal to both sides, and why not just raise taxes on those that exceed 10 million in income so that the average American wont suffer?"

Final Vote: 240 nay, 194 yay


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 19, 2011)

I won't be voting for him.

I'm not forgetting the massive failures in the illusions of future promise.

I wonder how people who hope to be wealthy in the future feel about this.

This looks a lot like Bush's FINISH THE WAR campaign move.

But with that I'm dropping this, these threads always turn out terrible since this forum has every political alignment imaginable.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Obama: "There! We finally made a bill that could appeal to both sides, and why not just raise taxes on those that exceed 10 million in income so that they average American wont suffer?"
> 
> Final Vote: 240 nay, 194 yay


I know it's not going to pass, but it'll reduce what little chance the republicans had of winning the 2012 election even more so.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I recently made a little contribution for EMILY's List. :smile:


 
If this site pushed for economic liberalism instead of just pro-choice women it would be perfect.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Can giffords get into office, that woman survived a head shot I want her.


No, I want Hillary in 2016! She's the most travelled Secretary of State! >:C

I know she said she's not interested serving a second term as a Secretary of State (if Obama is re-elected) or running for a future president... but you never know. It would be splendid even if I do not agree with some of her positions such as staunch pro-Israel stance, voting for Iraq war, supporting death penalty and calling an ambiguous "swift revenge against terrorist attacks".

But I tell you she's a_ *closet ultraliberal!*_ 



Lobar said:


> If this site pushed for economic liberalism instead of just pro-choice women it would be perfect.


What most likely comes with pro-choice women?



Rilvor said:


> I won't be voting for him.


Good luck with Bachmann.



> But with that I'm dropping this, these threads always turn out terrible  since this forum has every political alignment imaginable.


Yo, don't insult my thread! >:V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> I wonder how people who hope to be wealthy in the future feel about this.


 
Irrelevant, they are delusional if they think there are any people who will be wealthy in the future without being born into it if things do not change.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> What most likely comes with pro-choice women?


 
The correlation over here isn't as strong as it needs to be for that to be a solid strategy.

e: shit, I double posted, sorry.  I thought the thread was moving fast enough.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> No, I want Hillary in 2016! She's the most travelled Secretary of State! >:C
> 
> I know she said she's not interested serving a second term as a Secretary of State (if Obama is re-elected) or running for a future president... but you never know. It would be splendid even if I do not agree with some of her positions such as staunch pro-Israel stance, voting for Iraq war, supporting death penalty and calling an ambiguous "swift revenge against terrorist attacks".
> 
> But I tell you she's a_ *closet ultraliberal!*_


If the republicans get their asses kicked hard enough in 2012 that may open the way for her to become president in 2016.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

I agree with some parts of the plan, but I also agree with the GOP that by placing the emphasis on tax hikes that Obama knows has no chance of passing either branch of Congress, it's just an election-year ploy to make the Republicans look like the party that's standing in the way of deficit reduction.  If this was his first year in office, it would work.  But the public's wary of political games like this coming out of the White House.  His "Stimulus II" jobs bill is gaining no traction in the polls or in Congress, and I don't think this will go anywhere, either.

Yes, I agree with eliminating tax loopholes for oil companies and capital gains, but hiking the income tax doesn't soak the rich as much as it soaks people trying to become rich.  If someone's sitting on top if $100mil in investments, the amount they pull out each year to pay for their estate isn't in the tens of millions, but the hundreds of thousands.  Hiking the income rate of people earning $1mil or more won't affect the truly rich very much, if at all.  If you want to tax the truly rich, you would need a federal estate tax, something neither party will ever endorse (mainly because the party leaders on both sides are in the super-rich category, so they're happy with preventing people becoming rich so long as it doesn't cut into their bottom line.)

The #1 way to reduce the deficit in the long run is to increase the eligibility age of Social Security.  Obama won't do it, and Congressional Republicans are afraid to touch it, but it needs to be done.  Social Security was set to 65 back when the average life span in the USA was 65.  The reason that Social Security is going bankrupt is that there's a glut of 65+ retirees and not enough workers to pay for them all.  If we gradually raise the eligibility age Social Security to 75 over 30 years, phasing it in so that no current retirees lose benefits, Soc Security would be solvent for the next 50+ years with no other modifications.  If the average life span rises to 85 over the next 50 years, then gradually raise the eligibility age again.  Keep it close to the average life span and the program will be solvent forever.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Irrelevant, they are delusional if they think there are any people who will be wealthy in the future without being born into it if things do not change.


Hmm... MoveOn.org is the only other I can think of right now.

Not that it's without controversy.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 19, 2011)

Seems like a good idea, but we all know it's not going to pass. Rich people are jerks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Seems like a good idea, but we all know it's not going to pass. Rich people are jerks.


And they have political leverage, all they have to do is take some of what they call pocket change and fling it.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The #1 way to reduce the deficit in the long run is to increase the eligibility age of Social Security.



Life expectancy is not uniform across different demographics; for an African American male it is only around 70 years. In addition, different careers have different requirements in terms of physical health. Just because a lawyer can work into their 70s does not mean a construction worker can do the same. Since all Americans pay into Social Security, all Americans should have a reasonable expectation of receiving benefits in a timely manner.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know it's not going to pass, but it'll reduce what little chance the republicans had of winning the 2012 election even more so.


If this was his first year in office, I'd agree with you.  But the voter pool has grown skeptical of everything coming out of the White House these days.  People want to see proposals that can pass, not proposals that fling mud at the Republicans.  All Obama's doing is stirring up anti-incumbent sentiment, which would have worked... except that anti-Incumbent feelings from the voters tend to punish the party of the dude in the White House.  If this was late 2009 and the Republicans controlled Congress, this would work like a charm.  But it isn't.  It's late 2011 and the name at the top of the ballot is what always draws the ire of unhappy voters. Right now, that name is Barack Obama.

He needs to show the people how he can work with Congress, not play partisan games and point fingers of blame.  During election years, that almost always backfires.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Life expectancy is not uniform across different demographics; for an African American male it is only around 70 years. In addition, different careers have different requirements in terms of physical health. Just because a lawyer can work into their 70s does not mean a construction worker can do the same. Since all Americans pay into Social Security, all Americans should have a reasonable expectation of receiving benefits in a timely manner.


Unfortunately, true.  But that was also true in the 1930s when the system was created.  I'm mainly pointing out that assumptions made when the system was created have changed.  If the system doesn't change in response to that fact, then the system is doomed.

I'm totally open to allowing earlier retirement for certain criteria (health issues, for instance) that affect one's longevity.  I'm open to making allowances for race too (since African Americans life on average much shorter lives than white ppl) but I'm sure that would open a shit-storm of controversy.  What I vehemently oppose is doing nothing, or taxing working Americans more to keep the retirement age at 65.  Most 65 year-olds today are healthy and productive and will remain healthy and productive for upwards of 10 more years.  Why should I pay so they can sit on their butt?  When I'm 65, if I'm still healthy enough to work, I certainly don't expect anyone to pay for me to do nothing.


----------



## Blutide (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> *President Obama has offered a debt plan that relies on both spending cuts and tax increases back to the Clinton-era levels:*_
> 
> "'I will not support any plan that puts all the  burden of closing our deficit on ordinary Americans', Obama said. 'We  are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.'"_
> 
> ...



Did you see the bill about not taxing Corp. America? From 35% to 0%?

Yeah I already made plans to move out of this shit pit. I lived in Canada for 6 years, I can go back where.....at least...I get the best maple syrup.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Most 65 year-olds today are healthy and productive and will remain healthy and productive for upwards of 10 more years.


Why so optimistic? :V



Blutide said:


> Yeah I already made plans to move out of this shit pit. I lived in Canada for 6 years, I can go back where.....at least...I get the best maple syrup.


You can come here, stay in my house and eat all lutefisk you like. Great success!


----------



## Onnes (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Unfortunately, true.  But that was also true in the 1930s when the system was created.  I'm mainly pointing out that assumptions made when the system was created have changed.  If the system doesn't change in response to that fact, then the system is doomed.



If you look at the actual Social Security projections, you'll find that the situation is in fact quite manageable. For one thing, Social Security has been running at a surplus for so many years that it will take until 2040 or so for it to conceivably go negative. Even beyond that point, it's only estimated to consume around 6% of GDP, a 1.2% increase from present levels--quite reasonable given our aging demographics. To compare, this is similar to rise in defense spending since 2001. In no way is Social Security spending running away or otherwise threatening to take over the budget--that would be Medicare, and it's budgetary problems come from the overall stupidly overpriced healthcare system we enjoy.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I agree with some parts of the plan, but I also agree with the GOP that by placing the emphasis on tax hikes that Obama knows has no chance of passing either branch of Congress, it's just an election-year ploy to make the Republicans look like the party that's standing in the way of deficit reduction.  If this was his first year in office, it would work.  But the public's wary of political games like this coming out of the White House.  His "Stimulus II" jobs bill is gaining no traction in the polls or in Congress, and I don't think this will go anywhere, either.


 
"Look"?  This is a _demonstration_ that Republicans are the party that's standing in the way of deficit reduction.  Regardless of any political motivation that might exist, this is a good bill, and it won't pass because of Republicans, ergo they _are_ standing in the way of progress and not merely appearing so.

An estate tax isn't a bad idea and Onnes already hit the nail on the head re: Social Security.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

GOP Rep: More Taxes Would Kill My $600K a Year


----------



## Tycho (Sep 19, 2011)

someone just fucking kill McConnell, the fact that he breathes the same air as I do is an insult to me, the planet earth and any other decent human being also breathing said air

hit him with a truck, give him rabies, IDGAF how


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Tycho said:


> someone just fucking kill McConnell, the fact that he breathes the same air as I do is an insult to me, the planet earth and any other decent human being also breathing said air
> 
> hit him with a truck, give him rabies, IDGAF how


Well, aren't you a feisty one tonight!


----------



## Tycho (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Well, aren't you a feisty one tonight!



I hate his disgusting smug beady-eyed saggy-necked face and have hated it for as long as I have known of the man

I hate him nearly as much as I hate John Baneful- I mean BOEHNER when he starts his crying shit, fuck I wish Captain Falcon would punch his bitch ass whenever Boehner starts up the water works


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If you look at the actual Social Security projections, you'll find that the situation is in fact quite manageable. For one thing, Social Security has been running at a surplus for so many years that it will take until 2040 or so for it to conceivably go negative. Even beyond that point, it's only estimated to consume around 6% of GDP, a 1.2% increase from present levels--quite reasonable given our aging demographics. To compare, this is similar to rise in defense spending since 2001. In no way is Social Security spending running away or otherwise threatening to take over the budget--that would be Medicare, and it's budgetary problems come from the overall stupidly overpriced healthcare system we enjoy.


 
That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that Congress has been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund for decades.  That money may be there on paper, but it isn't there in fact.  Congress has been, in effect, writing IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund and now that it's come time to pay that money back, the money isn't there.  That's why we need a solution to make Social Security solvent based on what it's taking in today, not what it should have been taking in 30 years ago.



Lobar said:


> "Look"?  This is a _demonstration_ that Republicans are the party that's standing in the way of deficit reduction.  Regardless of any political motivation that might exist, this is a good bill, and it won't pass because of Republicans, ergo they _are_ standing in the way of progress and not merely appearing so.
> 
> An estate tax isn't a bad idea and Onnes already hit the nail on the head re: Social Security.


What makes this a bad bill is that it taxes the people who provide jobs in this country.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, which means if Joan's Cafe in Somewhereville, TN takes in $1.5mil in gross earnings, Joan gets taxed for $1.5 mil and then she pays her staff.  Joan isn't rich in fact; she's running a business because she would like to become rich someday, but she's "rich" in the eyes of this bill.  If we raise her marginal tax rates, she can't expand her business.  She can't hire more workers.  She may even have to lay workers off.

If Joan's assets are worth $100mil and she gets $1.5mil in investment income, then heck yeah, raise the tax rates on that!  That's why I support eliminating the capital gains tax loophole.  But raising the marginal rates for people whose gross income exceeds $1mil/yr disproportionately affects small business owners, and small businesses remain the main source of job creation in this country.

So long as this remains the keystone of Obama's deficit reduction plan, Republicans should oppose this, because it would kill jobs.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that Congress has been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund for decades.  That money may be there on paper, but it isn't there in fact.  Congress has been, in effect, writing IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund and now that it's come time to pay that money back, the money isn't there.  That's why we need a solution to make Social Security solvent based on what it's taking in today, not what it should have been taking in 30 years ago.
> 
> What makes this a bad bill is that it taxes the people who provide jobs in this country.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, which means if Joan's Cafe in Somewhereville, TN takes in $1.5mil in gross earnings, Joan gets taxed for $1.5 mil and then she pays her staff.  Joan isn't rich in fact; she's running a business because she would like to become rich someday, but she's "rich" in the eyes of this bill.  If we raise her marginal tax rates, she can't expand her business.  She can't hire more workers.  She may even have to lay workers off.
> 
> ...



So basically

the rich-as-fuck republican-voting businessmen are using small business owners as financial human shields against tax hikes

"TAX ME AND THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER GETS IT"
yes I am being obtuse and silly just run with it


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

Tycho said:


> So basically
> 
> the rich-as-fuck republican-voting businessmen are using small business owners as financial human shields against tax hikes
> 
> ...


Call it that if you like, but that's the reality of the situation.  If you want to fleece the rich-as-fuck businessmen, you should add a surtax on bonuses & stock options exceeding a certain amount.  Many CEOs get a salary of $250k/yr or thereabouts but they rake in _millions_ in bonuses and stock options.  Small business owners don't have that sweet deal going on, so tax that if you want to soak the rich but not rape small businesses in the process.

If Obama proposed that instead raising the marginal tax rates, I would support this plan 100%.



Tycho said:


> yes I am being obtuse and silly just run with it


Hey!  Missed that when I posted!  :V


----------



## Onnes (Sep 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> That would be true...



You've completely ignored the fact that Social Security does not face any sort of long term problem. You would deny retirement to millions just to save an incredibly small amount and only in the short term.



> What makes this a bad bill is that it taxes the people who provide jobs in this country.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, which means if Joan's Cafe in Somewhereville, TN takes in $1.5mil in gross earnings, Joan gets taxed for $1.5 mil and then she pays her staff.  Joan isn't rich in fact; she's running a business because she would like to become rich someday, but she's "rich" in the eyes of this bill.  If we raise her marginal tax rates, she can't expand her business.  She can't hire more workers.  She may even have to lay workers off.



By your argument, taxes should be set at a level of Îµ% where Îµ represents the smallest nonzero magnitude that may be represented in the tax code. Taxes need to be paid in order for the government to function. Any sane argument would place the highest effective tax rates on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, for they are the most able to actually pay those rates while remaining solvent. Saying that taxes for the wealthiest clients should always be lower is the kind of thinking that has lead to US being unable to provide the same government services expected of other first-world countries.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> By your argument, taxes should be set at a level of Îµ% where Îµ represents the smallest nonzero magnitude that may be represented in the tax code. Taxes need to be paid in order for the government to function. Any sane argument would place the highest effective tax rates on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, for they are the most able to actually pay those rates while remaining solvent. Saying that taxes for the wealthiest clients should always be lower is the kind of thinking that has lead to US being unable to provide the same government services expected of other first-world countries.


Regardless if it uses a funny letter... you heard the doctor! >:3c


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 19, 2011)

Don't mind me, I'm just posting to say that I support this bill, hate republicans, and want to follow this thread further and this post is to remind me to do that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Don't mind me, I'm just posting to say that I support this bill, hate republicans, and want to follow this thread further and this post is to remind me to do that.


We have alot in common Jashwa.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm just going to leave this here.

It's not like the proposal is "Someone loses out on tax raise, but everyone's fine with program cuts". It's more like "You can either slow down the rate of someone becoming rich, in a nation wherein one of the leading beliefs on cause of poverty is 'didn't work hard enough', or you can cut funding to things like FDA and College Grants".

One of the reasons I dislike the hypocrisy displayed. "People are poor because they didn't want to be rich hard enough!" "Here, we'll put some taxes on the Rich and ease off on th-" "How will Susie get rich then?!" In other words, "They're lazy fucks when poorer than me, when on my income level they're working as hard as can be."


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2011)

I like this idea but I'm pretty sure Warren Buffett had thought of it first and urged Obama to go through with it. Even though I want this to pass, I doubt I'd vote for Obama because of it. Mainly because I doubt it'd pass regardless.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I like this idea but I'm pretty sure Warren Buffett had thought of it first and urged Obama to go through with it. Even though I want this to pass, I doubt I'd vote for Obama because of it. Mainly because I doubt it'd pass regardless.


On the plus side if the seat gains the republicans had in 2010 were undone in 2012 then stuff like this will pass easily.  I know this is just a political stunt, but it will only further fuck up the republicans' chances of winning.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Life expectancy is not uniform across different demographics; for an African American male it is only around 70 years. In addition, different careers have different requirements in terms of physical health. Just because a lawyer can work into their 70s does not mean a construction worker can do the same. *Since all Americans pay into Social Security, all Americans should have a reasonable expectation of receiving benefits in a timely manner.*



I agree... I paid into the "system" with a promise that this same "system" would pay me back once I reached a certain age.  But, as you've noted, different jobs require different ages of retirement, due to the physical stress (and its effects on health) each job entails.  But we also run into the problem of what to do about people who "burn out" early, before "retirement age"... or, like my grandmother when my grandfather died, her unable to work, yet unable to receive any "payback" till she reached 55, and even then, because of that "early retirment", she only ended up with a portion of what she would have received, had she been able to survive ten more years without aid.

Suffice it to say, this is not an easy thing to fix.  Though what Telnac suggests does sound resonable, on the surface.  And may be the only way to make it work, as things presently stand.




Telnac said:


> Unfortunately, true.  But that was also true in the 1930s when the system was created.  I'm mainly pointing out that assumptions made when the system was created have changed.  If the system doesn't change in response to that fact, then the system is doomed.
> 
> I'm totally open to allowing earlier retirement for certain criteria (health issues, for instance) that affect one's longevity.  I'm open to making allowances for race too (since African Americans life on average much shorter lives than white ppl) *but I'm sure that would open a shit-storm of controversy*.  What I vehemently oppose is doing nothing, or taxing working Americans more to keep the retirement age at 65.  Most 65 year-olds today are healthy and productive and will remain healthy and productive for upwards of 10 more years.  Why should I pay so they can sit on their butt?  When I'm 65, if I'm still healthy enough to work, I certainly don't expect anyone to pay for me to do nothing.



Yes, simply raising the age of retirement is the least controversial action, more likely to pass muster.  Like I said, it may be the only way it can be changed.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm perfectly fine with raising taxes especially on people who wouldn't be affected by them. Even upper-middle class six-figure incomes are affected by higher taxes.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay these kinds of taxes (though I obviously wouldn't be eligible for the >$1 million cutoff) only if the government doesn't use it on something stupid.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I'm perfectly fine with raising taxes especially on people who wouldn't be affected by them. Even upper-middle class six-figure incomes are affected by higher taxes.
> 
> I'd be perfectly happy to pay these kinds of taxes (though I obviously wouldn't be eligible for the >$1 million cutoff) only if the government doesn't use it on something stupid.


I wish the $1,000,000 or more a year bracket paid the highest percentage towards taxes.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 20, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I'm perfectly fine with raising taxes especially on people who wouldn't be affected by them.* Even upper-middle class six-figure incomes *are affected by higher taxes*.*


EVEN? *EVEN!? *

Oh, right... Aren't you the one who made a rant how 'Obama's tax hike' hurts your father's dental clinic and puts your upper middle-class family into bankruptcy?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> What makes this a bad bill is that it taxes the people who provide jobs in this country.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, which means if Joan's Cafe in Somewhereville, TN takes in $1.5mil in gross earnings, Joan gets taxed for $1.5 mil and then she pays her staff.  Joan isn't rich in fact; she's running a business because she would like to become rich someday, but she's "rich" in the eyes of this bill.  *If we raise her marginal tax rates, she can't expand her business.  She can't hire more workers.  She may even have to lay workers off.*



This isn't actually correct - you're conflating a _business_ income ("Joan's Cafe") with _personal_ income (for the owner "Joan"). In your example, it's the _business_ of "Joan's Cafe" that's taking $1.5m in turnover - but in reality Joan is paying herself an income from the business.  _Employees are paid from the "Joan's Cafe" business_ - NOT from Joan's pocket. 

If "Joan's Cafe" is taking $1.5m in turnover, _there's no way in hell that Joan herself would be making $1.5m in personal salary / wages_. Therefore, she wouldn't be considered for the "rich tax".


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 20, 2011)

Gotta agree with a lot of what's being said, especially the "business income vs. personal income" distinction that, like many purposefully obtuse and incorrect conflations, is just more bullshit with an almost human-shield like use of smaller business entities and people with less wealth.  "Oh, we're the same!  Look, we're both businesses and oh man if you try anything with me what you'll really hurt is THEM!"  Bogus.

Also for Tycho, the easiest way is to just flip McConnell over on his shell so he can't flip himself back over. Or take away his cupcakes.  fuck you mitch mcconnell


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You've completely ignored the fact that Social  Security does not face any sort of long term problem. You would deny  retirement to millions just to save an incredibly small amount and only  in the short term.


No, I'm not forgetting what you call a fact.  The true fact is that Congress (both when it was under Republican and Democrat control) has long ago raided the Social Security Trust Fund and replaced hard cash with meaningless IOUs.  As a result, Social Security faces a very serious problem because of that, both in the short term *and* the long term!  If the money they raided really existed in a bank somewhere, you'd be right.  Social Security would be secure until well into the 2030.  But the money isn't there.  A bunch of worthless IOUs are there instead.  If Congress can't generate the funds to cover the IOUs (and it can't), then Social Security is screwed *today*, not to mention 20 years from now!

So yes, I would happily and unapologetically delay retirement for millions... including myself.  Don't forget, I'm almost 40 and retirement isn't all that far off for me.  But I'd much rather delay my retirement 10 years and still have a retirement than to hope it will be there when I'm 65 and be faced with a bankrupt program that can't pay for any of my expenses.



Mayfurr said:


> This isn't actually correct - you're conflating a _business_ income ("Joan's Cafe") with _personal_ income (for the owner "Joan"). In your example, it's the _business_ of "Joan's Cafe" that's taking $1.5m in turnover - but in reality Joan is paying herself an income from the business.  _Employees are paid from the "Joan's Cafe" business_ - NOT from Joan's pocket.
> 
> If "Joan's Cafe" is taking $1.5m in turnover, _there's no way in hell that Joan herself would be making $1.5m in personal salary / wages_. Therefore, she wouldn't be considered for the "rich tax".


Uh, that's exactly how sole proprietorships work.  A vast majority of small businesses in the USA are sole proprietorships.  So yes, Joan's Cafe's gross income_ *is*_ taxed the same as personal income, and she then pays her employees out of what she keeps.  It's no different than if I earned $100,000 at ACME manufacturing and paid my housekeeper $25k to keep my house clean.  I get taxed on the money I make and my housekeeper gets taxed on the money they make. A sole proprietorship is not different, so a 10% hike in Joan's taxes is 10% less money she can pay to expand her business or to retain the employees she already has.

For large companies, the corporation has an income tax rate (typically about 35%), which is something that Obama's proposal actually cuts!  But while large businesses may be the names that everyone's heard of, they aren't the companies that employ most Americans.  Small businesses employ far more Americans than large companies do.  To hurt small business is to hurt the American economy.  The amount that Obama's tax changes would help large businesses doesn't offset that.  Quite the contrary, they just let those large businesses pay their executives even larger bonuses, while the employees see little (if any) benefit.

There's a huge difference in how $1.5 million is made and spent in a sole proprietorship small business and how an executive in a large company earns that same $1.5 mil.  Joan busts her ass to gross $1.5 mil in gross income, which she has to share with her employees, but the fat cat executive "Mick" at ACME Corp earns $250,000 in salary but makes $1.25 mil in bonuses and stock options... which he has to share with no one.  Taxing them both equally as if they're the hated "rich" is grossly unfair and may result in Joan cutting employees, when Mick just has to hold off on buying his brand new Lexus for a year.  The former results in lost jobs and ultimately a hit on the local economy.  The latter results in little loss at all, except perhaps at the Lexus dealership.

That's why class warfare is so dangerous.  I don't think you'll get anyone (not even me) disagreeing with taxes that force Mick to pay more for government goods & services.  But Joan's business is the very heart of the American economy.  Anything that hurts her business ultimately hurts all Americans.  I'm hardly a conservative firebrand, but I simply can't support that.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 20, 2011)

how the republican base thinks: everyone is born equally so poor people can become rich without our help


----------



## Attaman (Sep 20, 2011)

But... if she doesn't become Rich, doesn't that mean she wasn't working hard enough?  I mean, I've heard it said repeatably (not by you, mind) that the only thing holding people back from success is how much energy they're willing to put into their work. If she can't turn a profit with her business, is she simply not working hard enough?

Also, the problem's being fed by not raising the taxes. Look at the social programs on the cutting block (and trust me, there's a ton there to see). By cutting them, people are going to be discouraged from spending. Guess what people who are discouraged from spending don't do? Put down $1.5mil / year in a cafe. 

Furthermore, consider that if you're a "successful" business owner, and you can't make any profit after taxes (even with the raise), you might want to re-evaluate "successful". From the story you're portraying, she's using the business plan of "death of a thousand cuts", or in this case "profit from a thousand sales". She doesn't sell at a high-enough mark-up to get noticeable profit, after the raise in taxes. 

As for 35%... Telnac, no. They do not. Google had a 2.4% effective tax rate. GM effective tax rate, 9.4%. Many corporations, or upper income-bracket people, do not pay anywhere near the same as what's "officially" put down. Obama's plan is to raise the _effective_ tax rate, by closing loopholes and - as suggested by people like Warren Buffet - to stop "coddling" the rich.

I'm somewhat alarmed that you consider raising taxes on the upper income brackets and businesses "tax warfare" that's biased against the lower classes. It reminds me of the comment I saw on another forum wherein a user argued - earnestly believing such - that raising taxes on the rich was part of the ebil agenda to oppress the masses, go against the agenda and lower rich taxes while raising those on the poor!

Lastly, consider that - at the time being - US taxes are at about their lowest point in a long, _long_ time. If you will, don't consider it a 'raise' in taxes, but more 'no longer reduced amount', as that's more accurate (and also points out why the Taxed Enough Already party is completely bogus, since it's basically the same as being the 'Wet Enough Already' party whilst living in the Sahara).


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

Attaman said:


> But... if she doesn't become Rich, doesn't that mean she wasn't working hard enough?  I mean, I've heard it said repeatably (not by you, mind) that the only thing holding people back from success is how much energy they're willing to put into their work. If she can't turn a profit with her business, is she simply not working hard enough?
> 
> Also, the problem's being fed by not raising the taxes. Look at the social programs on the cutting block (and trust me, there's a ton there to see). By cutting them, people are going to be discouraged from spending. Guess what people who are discouraged from spending don't do? Put down $1.5mil / year in a cafe.
> 
> ...


You guys seem to think I'm against taxing the rich, or that I'm against raising taxes at all.  I'm not! 

 As I said before, I have no problem closing needless tax loopholes to  raise the effective tax rate on large corporations that don't need low  taxes.   I think Google and other highly profitable large corporations can afford paying higher taxes.  I agree in principle with Warren Buffet that he shouldn't be paying lower taxes than his secretary.

But raising the marginal tax rates on individuals earning more than $1mil a year is a poor way to accomplish that goal!  That's like using a flame thrower as a fly swatter.  Yeah, you'll kill the fly but you'll burn your house down too.  No, I don't think Obama's proposal is some sort of evil left-wing agenda.  I just think it's extremely short-sighted.

The fact remains that raising the marginal tax rates *will* hurt small business and that *will* hurt the overall job market.  As for my definition of "successful", a successful small business owner is one who turns a profit year after year.  That doesn't make them rich, just profitable. Most small businesses don't turn much of a profit.  New taxes that eat into that profit will force them to do things such as laying off workers to remain profitable.

 If the idea is to saddle the rich with these new taxes, there are much smarter ways of doing that.  New taxes should be levied on things like bonuses and stock options over a certain amount, or we need a federal estate tax.  Only the truly rich earn large bonuses in excess of $100k per year.  Only the truly rich reap huge rewards from stock options.  Only the truly rich have estates that are worth over $10 million dollars.  If you truly support taxing the rich, tax that stuff, and leave small businesses alone!

Passing Obama's plan will kill jobs in this country, which will only make our present situation worse.

On a side note, I never said that working harder is the way to achieve success, so don't ask me to defend that point of view.  The person who said the only thing holding someone back from success is  how much energy they're willing to put into their work is full of shit.  True, no small business can succeed without hard work, but no small business can succeed without a good business plan too.  Working smarter >>> working harder.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> So yes, I would happily and unapologetically delay retirement for millions... including myself.  Don't forget, I'm almost 40 and retirement isn't all that far off for me.  But I'd much rather delay my retirement 10 years and still have a retirement than to hope it will be there when I'm 65 and be faced with a bankrupt program that can't pay for any of my expenses.



Let's be clear what the Social Security trust fund is. Funds are invested in US securities--the only way for those funds to be unavailable is if the US government defaults. In the long run, Social Security will only see costs rise by approximately 1.2% of GDP according to the budget outlook; this increase can be reasonably funded with minor tax changes. There is absolutely no reason to gut the program just to satisfy some perverted need for austerity and hardship.

Also, since you keep implying that taxes should never be raised on individuals as it will hurt imaginary small businesses, what is an appropriate level of taxation? Keep in mind, your sole proprietorship would already be paying roughly the same rates as the middle class if their income didn't come from capital gains.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Hey!  Missed that when I posted!  :V



lol.

I know it's hyperbole but not by much


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Let's be clear what the Social Security trust fund is. Funds are invested in US securities--the only way for those funds to be unavailable is if the US government defaults. In the long run, Social Security will only see costs rise by approximately 1.2% of GDP according to the budget outlook; this increase can be reasonably funded with minor tax changes. There is absolutely no reason to gut the program just to satisfy some perverted need for austerity and hardship.


According to the US National Debt Clock as of this post, every man, woman and child owes $47,219.  That's our share of the national debt.  I don't know about you, but it sounds to me like we're already damned close to a default.

The changes I proposed for Social Security wouldn't "gut" the program, and they would be eased in gradually so that no one who's currently retired would have any benefits taken away.  It would simply bring it back in line with the assumptions that were made when the program was created: that people should be reasonably be expected to work until they can afford to retire on their own or until their health & age make it too difficult to hold down a job.  At the time of the creation of Social Security, that age was set to 65 because that was the average life span.  Today, most 65 year-olds are far healthier than they were in the 1930s and can therefore be reasonably expected to hold down a job.  If they aren't healthy, I already suggested an exception be made for poor health.  I think that's much more fair than to expect taxpayers to foot the bill so that a healthy 65 year old can retire when they could easily work another 10 years.

As for medicare and the cost of medical coverage, I agree that it's out of control.  Patent reform is sorely needed.  There's no reason why a new drug can't have a generic version of it on the market in 10 years... except that current patent law allows pharmaceutical companies to patent a new drug for 20 years, no questions asked.  What's worse, at the end of the 20 years they can be granted a 20 year extension on the patent, which is usually granted!  That's why Grandpa's heart meds cost $20 a pill.  I think the federal prescription drug part of Medicare was a great idea... but it needed to be coupled with patent reform if we could ever hope to restrain the rising costs of prescription drugs.

...and don't even get me started on what malpractice lawsuits have done to the cost of medical care!



Onnes said:


> Also, since you keep implying that taxes should never be raised on individuals as it will hurt imaginary small businesses, what is an appropriate level of taxation? Keep in mind, your sole proprietorship would already be paying roughly the same rates as the middle class if their income didn't come from capital gains.


Yes, small business are already paying roughly the same rates as the middle class.  That's why I want their tax rates left alone!  As for changes I would make to help close the deficit: bring back the 35% tax rate of capital gains (something Obama's proposed and I agree with) but also add a progressive surtax on bonuses and stock options sales.  The first $10,000/yr worth of each wouldn't receive any additional tax, between $10,000 and $100,000/yr would get a modest surtax, between $100,000 and $1mil would be taxed pretty decently and anything beyond $1mil would be taxed heavily.  That way, hard-working employees who get a well-deserved bonus won't get cheated out of it but fat cat executives will have to foot the bill with money they don't really need.

I'd also impose a federal tax on all estates worth $5-10mil or more.  That way, a 100 acre family farm (worth about $500k-3mil, depending on where it is) won't be affected but the super-rich who just sit on a pile of investments will be.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The changes I proposed for Social Security wouldn't "gut" the program, and they would be eased in gradually so that no one who's currently retired would have any benefits taken away.



Social Security does not face any out-of-control budget problems. An increase of 1.2% of GDP over the next 30 years is perfectly consistent with aging demographics and also easily budgeted through a small increase in payroll taxes. You might notice I keep repeating this, because it needs to be said: SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NO BUDGET PROBLEMS. Therefore there is no need to reduce the coverage of such an effective program. You seem to have some axe to grind with the program itself given the way you single it out as a deficit reduction target.

 Also, where the heck are all these 65 year-olds going to work? Even under the current system, full employment is basically a forgotten memory; we want older Americans to retire so younger Americans have a snowball's chance in hell of landing a job.



> Yes, small business are already paying roughly the same rates as the middle class.  That's why I want their tax rates left alone!



So if the small business is already paying middle-class rates, how will Obama's plan raise their taxes? Perhaps you are referring to some aspect of repealing the Bush tax cuts, despite their incredible effectiveness at breaking the US budget.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Okay Telnac, not to be rude, I tried being nice and seeing your reason but do you know the first thing about how social security functions?  Or did you just suffer a seizure and began flailing about on the keyboard and pressed post anyways?  Social security is probably one of if not the most efficient government funded program.  However I do agree with trying to get patent reform, cause for example the medication for treating HIV is still under patent protection and when it eventually expires then the cost will go down drastically cause other companies will be able to make medication similar.
Sorry medical companies, I know you can get alot of money off of stuff like that, but if millions of people die cause they can't afford your prices tough shit.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Also, where the heck are all these 65 year-olds going to work? Even under the current system, full employment is basically a forgotten memory; we want older Americans to retire so younger Americans have a snowball's chance in hell of landing a job.



THIS.

Fuck's sake, younger Americans catch such shit about being jobless shiftless wastes of space when the fact is THERE ARE NO JOBS FOR THEM TO GO TO.  What are they supposed to do, below minimum-wage manual labor off the books in the fucking hot sun for disreputable "contractors"? Try and out-Mexican the Mexicans? Fucking hell.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> THIS.
> 
> Fuck's sake, younger Americans catch such shit about being jobless shiftless wastes of space when the fact is THERE ARE NO JOBS FOR THEM TO GO TO.  What are they supposed to do, below minimum-wage manual labor off the books in the fucking hot sun for disreputable "contractors"? Try and out-Mexican the Mexicans? Fucking hell.


^This, during the summer my mom kept complaining about me not finding a job and said if I was truly desperate I would work in the sugarcane fields.  They didn't hire me because I wasn't a illegal citizen and couldn't get away with paying me $2 a hour legally.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

OK, now I see your objection to my Social Security changes: you don't want old folks in the job market.  That makes sense in the current era of high unemployment, but it doesn't make sense to me from the standpoint of long-term fiscal policy.  The current era of high unemployment will not last forever.  No, it wont drop to 5% or below for any significant length of time either, but historically unemployment ranged between 6 & 7% for most of the 20th century and it's reasonable to assume that once the economy stabilizes it will return there again.  Furthermore, most 65 year olds who will retiring over the next 30 years have college educations and upwards of 40 years of industry experience.  They aren't competing for your jobs.  What's more, with them being productive rather than just living off of the system, the output from their labor will boost the national GDP... which in turn means more jobs for everyone!

No, I'm not proposing we just raise the retirement age to 75 and dump millions of old folks into the job market today.  What I'm proposing is to gradually ease in an increased retirement age that's more in line with human life expectancy and the longer time people can be productive.  Maybe Social Security can be made solvent with tax increases, but there's no reason to increase taxes when you can simply put healthy and productive people to work.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> OK, now I see your objection to my Social Security changes: you don't want old folks in the job market.  That makes sense in the current era of high unemployment, but it doesn't make sense to me from the standpoint of long-term fiscal policy.  The current era of high unemployment will not last forever.  No, it wont drop to 5% or below for any significant length of time either, but historically unemployment ranged between 6 & 7% for most of the 20th century and it's reasonable to assume that once the economy stabilizes it will return there again.  Furthermore, most 65 year olds who will retiring over the next 30 years have college educations and upwards of 40 years of industry experience.  They aren't competing for your jobs.  What's more, with them being productive rather than just living off of the system, the output from their labor will boost the national GDP... which in turn means more jobs for everyone!
> 
> No, I'm not proposing we just raise the retirement age to 75 and dump millions of old folks into the job market today.  What I'm proposing is to gradually ease in an increased retirement age that's more in line with human life expectancy and the longer time people can be productive.  Maybe Social Security can be made solvent with tax increases, but there's no reason to increase taxes when you can simply put healthy and productive people to work.


...Okay explain this one to me, why would it not increase the number of competitors in the work force?  I mean think about it for a second if you are applying to a open position at a company who do you think they are going to hire someone fresh out of college or someone that has 30+years of experience?


----------



## Onnes (Sep 20, 2011)

You are proposing the increase the fraction of the population looking for employment, without also providing additional jobs. This can only increase unemployment. In fact, the US defines its full employment goal as 4% unemployment, a goal which has never even been reached since it was set. There's really never been a time since World War 2 where one might encounter a true surplus of jobs. Heck, real median wages have actually fallen over the past decade, implying a fundamental oversupply of workers across the entire economy.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ...Okay explain this one to me, why would it not increase the number of competitors in the work force?  I mean think about it for a second if you are applying to a open position at a company who do you think they are going to hire someone fresh out of college or someone that has 30+years of experience?


Because the labor force isn't a zero sum game.  The number of jobs available is a function of the nation's GDP.  The nation's GDP is a function of the total productivity of the US Labor force.  More highly skilled workers boost our nation's GDP, which in turn boosts the total number of available jobs.  When you take those highly skilled workers out of the equation, they go from being a net asset to a net liability and a drag on the overall system.  

The current Social Security system is a "use it or lose it" proposition.  Nominal retirement age is 65, but you're allowed to hold off retirement until you're 67 and still receive full benefits.  But if you choose not to retire until you're 70, you lose the 3 years of Social Security benefits if the income from your job exceeds the income you'd get from Social Security.  (Actually, it's not quite 1 to 1 but the formula they use heavily encourages you to stop working.)  So we're not talking about unemployed old people here (for the most part.)  We're talking about highly skilled employees who would either be managers or who would be passing their knowledge and experience on to younger workers entering the job site.



Onnes said:


> You are proposing the increase the fraction of the population looking for employment, without also providing additional jobs. This can only increase unemployment. In fact, the US defines its full employment goal as 4% unemployment, a goal which has never even been reached since it was set. There's really never been a time since World War 2 where one might encounter a true surplus of jobs. Heck, real median wages have actually fallen over the past decade, implying a fundamental oversupply of workers across the entire economy.


The reason we're facing an oversupply of workers is that unskilled labor is being shipped overseas and/or is being done by undocumented workers.  College graduates, especially those in technical fields, still have pretty good job prospects even in this economy, but our manufacturing base has all but collapsed.  3 decades of spineless Presidents from both parties have said that cheap foreign goods are good for the US economy, all the while more and more manufacturing jobs are going to China and the unskilled labor force here has become unemployable.  Attempts to curb illegal immigration are met with charges of racism.

A better solution to handle illegal immigration is to open the gates for LEGAL immigration by lowering the barriers and unreasonable requirements against it, and stepping up enforcement against those who employ workers under the table.  Get those workers into the tax base, enforce minimum wage laws and the net result will benefit not only the nation as a whole buy the previously undocumented workers, too.  Our current policy of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is only making the labor situation worse.

As for China, India and other such nations, I don't want to go into tariff wars, since they only made things worse in the early 1930s.  But any trading partner with the USA needs to have reasonable trading policies that allow our goods to be imported into their countries if we're importing their goods.  If they won't lower the barriers to imported US goods, then we need to have a president with the balls to tell them that we won't import their goods.


Anyway guys, it's been an enjoyable debate but I need to go do other things.  I may post again tonight if I find the time.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> America failing? BLAME FOREIGNERS.


 
It's so wierd how some americans can be supposedly so vehemently pro-capitalism, yet the second someone manages to out-compete them on price it's so unfair... Why do you hate the free market?

That said, part of the problem is a simple mismatch between employers and employees. Over 3 million unfilled jobs in america, and that number's only getting higher. Why aren't they filled? Either the job isn't good enough for americans looking for work, or it's paying too much and the potential employee pool isn't educated enough to be qualified. Bootstraps, people! :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's so wierd how some americans can be supposedly so vehemently pro-capitalism, yet the second someone manages to out-compete them on price it's so unfair... Why do you hate the free market?
> 
> That said, part of the problem is a simple mismatch between employers and employees. *Over 3 million unfilled jobs in america, and that number's only getting higher.* Why aren't they filled? Either the job isn't good enough for americans looking for work, or it's paying too much and the potential employee pool isn't educated enough to be qualified. Bootstraps, people! :V



Do you have any verifiable confirmation of this?  And also for the underlined?


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's so wierd how some americans can be supposedly so vehemently pro-capitalism, yet the second someone manages to out-compete them on price it's so unfair... Why do you hate the free market?


I hope you're being sarcastic & not actually trying to launch a strawman attack!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I hope you're being sarcastic & not actually trying to launch a strawman attack!


 
Sorry, forgot my :V's. Have a few extras to tide you over. :V :V :V

I was being fairly sarcastic, But only to an extent. I approve of legal immigration being easier, but at the same time if America can't keep up with the low costs cheap overseas labor, they'll have to make some hard choices between which ideology they want to serve more- "Free Market Capitalism" or going against the free market to encourage people to "Buy American Goods", making the global economy suffer from the loss to their job market as a result, or some combination in between. 

Or just biting the bullet and accepting the unemployment rate/lower standard of living, but that's fairly unacceptable.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's so wierd how some americans can be supposedly so vehemently pro-capitalism, yet the second someone manages to out-compete them on price it's so unfair... Why do you hate the free market?


Yeah cause, China and Mexico and many other countries are all playing fair in the free market... 

Lets see, fix the unfair trade practices, and maybe we could get somewhere. 



Mojotech said:


> That said, part of the problem is a simple mismatch between employers and employees. Over 3 million unfilled jobs in america, and that number's only getting higher. Why aren't they filled? Either the job isn't good enough for americans looking for work, or it's paying too much and the potential employee pool isn't educated enough to be qualified. Bootstraps, people! :V



Yeah, no. Let me use an example from my area. For every one mechanic position opening, there are 90 mechanics looking for work. There isn't an abundance of Jobs here. 
Plus, many of the jobs out there, are temp work jobs. Not full time long term employment.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Sorry, forgot my :V's. Have a few extras to tide you over. :V :V :V
> 
> I was being fairly sarcastic, But only to an extent. I approve of legal immigration being easier, but at the same time if America can't keep up with the low costs cheap overseas labor, they'll have to make some hard choices between which ideology they want to serve more- "Free Market Capitalism" or going against the free market to encourage people to "Buy American Goods", making the global economy suffer from the loss to their job market as a result, or some combination in between.
> 
> Or just biting the bullet and accepting the unemployment rate/lower standard of living, but that's fairly unacceptable.


Alas, that is true.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Alas, that is true.


 
As any economist can tell you, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no fighting the invisible hand- Jobs brought back to here will have to be pulled from foreign economies (simply shifting our economic problems to there), and as long as some other market can offer the same process for cheaper, many companies will take the lower prices over buying local, as can clearly be seen from US companies doing just that.


Also please leave, Rukh. We're trying to have a serious (if somewhat sarcastic) conversation here.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, no. Let me use an example from my area. For every one mechanic position opening, there are 90 mechanics looking for work. There isn't an abundance of Jobs here.
> *Plus, many of the jobs out there, are temp work jobs. Not full time long term employment.*



Yep, that's been my experience.  A job here, a job there... much easier for an employer to just hire temps when they need the extra help, then let them go when they're no longer needed.




Mojotech said:


> We're trying to have a serious (if somewhat sarcastic) conversation here.



Then respond to my last post, Mojo.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> As any economist can tell you, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no fighting the invisible hand- Jobs brought back to here will have to be pulled from foreign economies (simply shifting our economic problems to there), and as long as some other market can offer the same process for cheaper, many companies will take the lower prices over buying local, as can clearly be seen from US companies doing just that.


Well, right now India and China are both roaring even as the rest of the world pulls back.  I don't think it's unreasonable to demand fair trade practices from them.  It's certainly better than arbitrarily throwing up a 200% tariff on all goods from Asia.  Such protectionist measures would only make a bad situation worse.

I don't have much of a problem with us competing against cheap labor, so long as our goods can be sold over there.  As happened with Japan and Korea, Chinese and Korean workers will begin to demand better pay and working conditions.  Over time, their cheap labor force won't be so cheap any more.  If our goods are available, those workers may decide to exercise their new-found economic freedom & buy American goods.  I can see that happening in India, where their system of government at least allows it (even if it's causing some culture shock over there.)  China... it's hard to predict what will happen there.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Well, right now India and China are both roaring even as the rest of the world pulls back.  I don't think it's unreasonable to demand fair trade practices from them.  It's certainly better than arbitrarily throwing up a 200% tariff on all goods from Asia.  Such protectionist measures would only make a bad situation worse.
> 
> I don't have much of a problem with us competing against cheap labor, so long as our goods can be sold over there.  As happened with Japan and Korea, Chinese and Korean workers will begin to demand better pay and working conditions.  Over time, their cheap labor force won't be so cheap any more.  If our goods are available, those workers may decide to exercise their new-found economic freedom & buy American goods.  I can see that happening in India, where their system of government at least allows it (even if it's causing some culture shock over there.)  *China... it's hard to predict what will happen there.*



I believe China is very protective... export all their crap, import nothing.  You know, "Made In China", just like "Made In America".


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Well, right now India and China are both roaring even as the rest of the world pulls back.  I don't think it's unreasonable to demand fair trade practices from them.  It's certainly better than arbitrarily throwing up a 200% tariff on all goods from Asia.  Such protectionist measures would only make a bad situation worse.
> 
> I don't have much of a problem with us competing against cheap labor, so long as our goods can be sold over there.  As happened with Japan and Korea, Chinese and Korean workers will begin to demand better pay and working conditions.  Over time, their cheap labor force won't be so cheap any more.  If our goods are available, those workers may decide to exercise their new-found economic freedom & buy American goods.  I can see that happening in India, where their system of government at least allows it (even if it's causing some culture shock over there.)  China... it's hard to predict what will happen there.


 
Well, first you have to define what "fair trade" means since it can mean many things. Is it fair to ask the chinese economy to give up their price advantage? Or ask that they pay a "reasonable" amount for their goods and services and materials when american companies are struggling to manage the same? The american market shouldn't be coddled at the expense of the global market, but I can't really expect foreign nations to act better than american ones. Either way, Tariffs don't really solve anything in the long run nor can I fault China and India for their growth given they're going from basically third to first world countries.

Fair enough, those things will most likely happen in due time as developing countries finish, well, developing, but also the cheap manual labor/sweatshop stage is one america went through itself (with things like the phossy jaw girls and all that) and will last until either they unionize, enter an industrial age, or the companies haggling them down to such prices and conditions (which are generally superior to life in the street, but not by much) stop putting profits before people. Two of these things are more likely to happen than the other, of course. :V

However this is all indicative of an underlying problem which is as the level of technology increases worldwide, processes get more efficient and jobs disappear simply because it takes less work to support more people than the previous year. Sure there's a ceiling to it, but creating (worthwhile) jobs out of thin air is exceedingly difficult in such conditions.


----------



## Lomberdia (Sep 21, 2011)

People are gonna start going to other countries to get a job. Seen an ad for it a few weeks ago, forgot where though (it was a position in China I think for some factory work, wish I remembered where I've seen the ad).


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah cause, China and Mexico and many other countries are all playing fair in the free market...
> 
> Lets see, fix the unfair trade practices, and maybe we could get somewhere.



Like agricultural subsidies for American (and European) farmers that protect them from being out-competed by efficient farmers elsewhere in the world? 
Anywhere between $20 and $180 billion for the US depending upon how you count it...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Uh, that's exactly how sole proprietorships work.  A vast majority of small businesses in the USA are sole proprietorships.  So yes, Joan's Cafe's gross income_ *is*_ taxed the same as personal income, and she then pays her employees out of what she keeps.  It's no different than if I earned $100,000 at ACME manufacturing and paid my housekeeper $25k to keep my house clean.  I get taxed on the money I make and my housekeeper gets taxed on the money they make. A sole proprietorship is not different, so a 10% hike in Joan's taxes is 10% less money she can pay to expand her business or to retain the employees she already has.



I would however question as to how often the combination of "sole proprietorship" and "US$1.5 million annual turnover" actually occurs in practice - given that in your example Joan "_is financially and legally responsible for all debts and legal actions against the business"_ and that the sole proprietor model is "_a good business organization for an individual starting a business *that will remain small*_" (Source). 

Now unless the value of the US dollar has suddenly dropped to the level of the Philippine peso, a US$1.5 million annual turnover isn't exactly _small_ - so Joan should either be firing her accountant / business adviser and getting her business structured as a limited liability company (or similar), or she's so stupid and lacking in business sense she _deserves_ to get stung.



Telnac said:


> That's why class warfare is so dangerous.



I agree - unfortunately when you have people representing the massively rich (I'm not lumping you in with them, BTW) proclaiming that the only way to fix the economy is by massive cuts affecting the poor and vulnerable while simultaneously shielding the massively rich from paying even a single cent more in tax, I would consider that class warfare: from the rich onto the poor. In other words, "_They only call it class warfare when the poor fight back._"


----------



## Telnac (Sep 21, 2011)

Lomberdia said:


> People are gonna start going to other countries to get a job. Seen an ad for it a few weeks ago, forgot where though (it was a position in China I think for some factory work, wish I remembered where I've seen the ad).


Actually, that's happening more than most people think.  I was recently laid off from my technical job, and easily 1/2 of the job prospects I got were outside of the USA.  If I didn't have a son living in San Diego, I probably would have taken one of them!



Mayfurr said:


> Like agricultural subsidies for American (and European) farmers that protect them from being out-competed by efficient farmers elsewhere in the world?
> Anywhere between $20 and $180 billion for the US depending upon how you count it...


Yeah, I'm not fond of that.  US farmers can compete well enough without such subsidies.  We should have done away with them 20 years ago.



Mayfurr said:


> I would however question as to how often the combination of "sole proprietorship" and "US$1.5 million annual turnover" actually occurs in practice - given that in your example Joan "_is financially and legally responsible for all debts and legal actions against the business"_ and that the sole proprietor model is "_a good business organization for an individual starting a business *that will remain small*_" (Source).
> 
> Now unless the value of the US dollar has suddenly dropped to the level of the Philippine peso, a US$1.5 million annual turnover isn't exactly _small_ - so Joan should either be firing her accountant / business adviser and getting her business structured as a limited liability company (or similar), or she's so stupid and lacking in business sense she _deserves_ to get stung.


If only one person remains the owner and there's only one source of income, there is little value in going from a sole proprietorship into something like an LLC or a true corporation.  In the grand scheme of things, $1.5 mil/yr is still pretty small.  Joan's cafe couldn't support more than 15 employees at that rate, which is about right for a decent sized cafe.  If Joan wanted to open a second cafe in Fictionalville, then it would be in her best interest to go from a sole proprietorship into a corporation.  That way, if the second cafe ends up being a bad investment, she can close it & write off the loss without risking the operational funds of her primary cafe.

I'm actually in the process of starting a business with 6 other co-owners and we're going with an LLC.  There are few tax benefits, but the fact that the liability is spread across all the owners, and it's limited to what we've contractually obligated ourselves to as a business is a big plus.  If the company flies, we each have an equal stake and therefore share in the risk.  If it collapses, we only risk losing our initial investment plus whatever contracts we're still obligated to honor.  (I.e. if we rent office space for 3 years... we're still on the hook!)  The tax situation is still fairly simple, but the company is still taxed in a very similar way as an individual is.  We don't get the tax rate of a true corporation.  (I wish!)

There are other advantages & disadvantages I won't go into here.  But the biggest advantage of a sole proprietorship is its simplicity.  You don't need to know much about running a business to run a sole proprietorship.  So long as you legally pay your employees and correctly handle their withholdings, you should be in the clear.  I think that's the biggest reason why most small businesses in the USA are sole proprietorships than anything else.  One doesn't need a college degree to run a cafe if the business side of things remain simple.



Mayfurr said:


> I agree - unfortunately when you have people  representing the massively rich (I'm not lumping you in with them, BTW)  proclaiming that the only way to fix the economy is by massive cuts  affecting the poor and vulnerable while simultaneously shielding the  massively rich from paying even a single cent more in tax, I would  consider that class warfare: from the rich onto the poor. In other words, "_They only call it class warfare when the poor fight back._"


Thanks for not lumping me in with ppl who think that way.  I agree in principle that we should tax those who can best afford it.  I just don't think increasing the marginal tax rate is the best way of doing that.  In fact, because it does soak small businesses so much, it may actually be the worst way of doing that.  Better to tax capital gains, large bonuses & stock options instead.  We still get the tax revenue so the poor don't get screwed out of social services, but small business owners aren't crucified alongside fat cat investment executives.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Like agricultural subsidies for American (and European) farmers that protect them from being out-competed by efficient farmers elsewhere in the world?


B-b-but my extended family needs those greenies! D:>

Basically there are three reasons why that's done: to keep the countryside populated, to sustain self-sufficiency and to keep the price of food lower.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Basically there are three reasons why that's done: to keep the countryside populated



In other words, subsidising _country lifestyles_ at taxpayer expense - at over â‚¬49.8 billion a year 

Besides, it's the big farms rather than the small family farms that benefit, as they're able to suck up greater subsidies.



Lizzie said:


> to sustain self-sufficiency



I don't know about Finland, but places like the UK passed the point of being self-sufficient in food supply over a century ago... else U-boats during WW2 wouldn't have brought the UK to the brink of starvation. That horse has well and truly bolted.



Lizzie said:


> and to keep the price of food lower.



_Really?_ Then how is it that when I was in the UK I saw Irish and New Zealand butter at the _same price_ - despite the fact that:

* the farmers making Irish butter were subsidised by the EU, and they only had to ship it across the Irish Sea, while
* the farmers making New Zealand butter not only _don't_ get _any_ government subsidies, they have to ship their product across from the other side of the globe AND pay tariffs on their product entering the EU.

Not to mention the infamous "butter mountains" and "milk lakes" caused by the European Union purchasing millions of tonnes of surplus farm output every year at the stated guaranteed market price...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 21, 2011)

I still want out of this country... Economic stability wouldn't be an issue if we didn't invest too much in several wars & billions of dollars in development packages to third-world countries, and if we didn't invest billions in social services being provided by inept persons. I don't want politicians or other people to be doing that with my money. Fuck that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Thanks for not lumping me in with ppl who think that way.  I agree in principle that we should tax those who can best afford it.  I just don't think increasing the marginal tax rate is the best way of doing that.  In fact, because it does soak small businesses so much, it may actually be the worst way of doing that.  Better to tax capital gains, large bonuses & stock options instead.  We still get the tax revenue so the poor don't get screwed out of social services, but small business owners aren't crucified alongside fat cat investment executives.


 
Note: We can raise the marginal tax brackets for single segments of the population alone without raising them for the others. This is the entire point of tax brackets. The cafe owner paying herself and her 14 other employees 100k each (minus expenses of course) isn't exactly going to be hit on something that hits only income after the first 100,000 dollars annually, for example, since it's calculated per person and not as a whole. "It'll hurt small business" is just a talking point in most cases.



Lizzie said:


> B-b-but my extended family needs those greenies! D:>
> 
> Basically there are three reasons why that's done: to keep the countryside populated, to sustain self-sufficiency and to keep the price of food lower.


 
The first two aren't particularly valid, since there's no real reason to keep given unwanted areas populated except for historic/tourism reasons, and farmers aren't really self-sufficient anyway since they're already dependent on society anyway (Just giving someone enough money through subsidies to be self sufficient is not them being self sufficient anyway), and I was under the impression the government had other practices in place to keep corn and other crop prices from becoming too low, thus preventing it from driving single family farms out of business.


----------



## Rasly (Sep 21, 2011)

If i understand business right, if you increase taxes on big companies they will simply increase thair prices to compensate and in the end, rich people will get same money as before and poor (as always) would have to pay for it.

Its kind of pointless, because even if 10-20% of people trying to understand politics, there are still 60-80% of other voters who know nothing about it, imho its going to have same result as if it was some beauty contest, as for now, Obama is the cutest, so no matter what you do, hes going to win.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The first two aren't particularly valid, since there's no real reason to keep given unwanted areas populated except for historic/tourism reasons, and farmers aren't really self-sufficient anyway since they're already dependent on society anyway (Just giving someone enough money through subsidies to be self sufficient is not them being self sufficient anyway)



I believe the "self-sufficiency" aspect Lizzie was referring to was national food self-sufficiency (i.e. growing enough food to feed one's population without relying on food imports) rather than individual farmer self-sufficiency.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Sep 21, 2011)

Funny how Obama said no more transparency then seals up all his records.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I believe the "self-sufficiency" aspect Lizzie was referring to was national food self-sufficiency (i.e. growing enough food to feed one's population without relying on food imports) rather than individual farmer self-sufficiency.


 
Ah, alright then. That makes more sense.



HAXX said:


> Funny how Obama said no more transparency then seals up all his records.


 
Oh god it's a birther


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Sep 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oh god it's a birther


Oh God a libtard. =p

Just pointing out how he says one thing and does another, like every other president.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

HAXX said:


> Oh God a libtard. =p
> 
> Just pointing out how he says one thing and does another, like every other president.


 
Oh god it's still a birther


----------



## Attaman (Sep 21, 2011)

Rasly said:


> If i understand business right, if you increase taxes on big companies they will simply increase thair prices to compensate and in the end, rich people will get same money as before and poor (as always) would have to pay for it.


 Not necessarily. Profit is a major concern for businesses, yes. In fact, you need to be concerned about such. However, just because taxes raise on the business does not immediately mean "PRICES RISE RICH GET EVERYTHING POOR POORER KYA-HAHAHA!"



Rasly said:


> Its kind of pointless, because even if 10-20% of people trying to understand politics, there are still 60-80% of other voters who know nothing about it, imho its going to have same result as if it was some beauty contest, as for now, Obama is the cutest, so no matter what you do, hes going to will.


 There's... so much here... I can't stop laughing...

Rasly, question, very brief one: Whose idea on raising money to reduce the deficit (note: This was not a problem anyone cared about until the last year or two) do you think is best? Do note that if you think a plan entailing "Keep taxes low" or "Continue cutting fat from programs" is the best solution, I have this _wonderful_ bridge I'd be interested in selling you.


----------



## Rasly (Sep 21, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Rasly, question, very brief one: Whose idea on raising money to reduce the deficit (note: This was not a problem anyone cared about until the last year or two) do you think is best? Do note that if you think a plan entailing "Keep taxes low" or "Continue cutting fat from programs" is the best solution, I have this _wonderful_ bridge I'd be interested in selling you.


I think only way to get some money is to print them or to stop wars, tax fixes and cuts not gona do any good in this situation , i think rich people will always find a way to make poor pay for them, that is why they are rich.

I may not know something however, all i know about us politics i know from daily show and some political interviews.


----------



## Blutide (Sep 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Why so optimistic? :V
> 
> You can come here, stay in my house and eat all lutefisk you like. Great success!




looks goooood.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Sep 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oh god it's still a birther



And you're still a sheeple. Cool deal, bro.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 21, 2011)

Wait, reading what Telnac is saying, it's almost like he thinks that the 1.5 million dollars is taxed: payroll is taken out.  Investments in plant/property/equipment is written out.  There are all kinds of things that can be expensed, and any sole proprietor that has any idea of what they're doing will take advantage of every deduction they possibly can.  So if they're taking in $1.5 million yet expenses are $1.2 million, and $300k is left in the clear, part of that 300k can be invested back into the company for further deductions, and (I'm pretty sure) whatever's left is taxed as income on an individual basis.  To leave this fact of accounting out is either disingenuous or outright lying on one hand, or speaking from profound ignorance on another.

To put it in more certain terms: PAYROLL IS A PRE-TAX BUSINESS EXPENSE TELNAC IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS OPENING YOUR MOUTH.

This is assuming that when when everyone was talking "gross profits of 1.5 million" they really meant gross revenues.  Jesus Christ this is basic accounting.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 21, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Also please leave, Rukh. We're trying to have a serious (if somewhat sarcastic) conversation here.



How about you actually keep the to discussion and stop with the stupid insults and such. Or, is that to much to ask?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2011)

HAXX said:


> And you're still a sheeple. Cool deal, bro.


 
THE MOON LANDING DID 9/11. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How about you actually keep the to discussion and stop with the stupid insults and such. Or, is that to much to ask?


 
See, this happens every time. You join thread, hear something you don't like, get mad and start on this track. Oi vey. Come back when you're less angry.



Getting back to the serious conversation, raising the tax on businesses (or in this case closing the loopholes on taxation) doesn't necessarily mean an increase in price. Those only tend to happen if the change in business happens to change the profit margins so much they have to increase price to make a profit. (Long story short: customers bodies react very strongly to increases in price, a lot more than they do to decreases.) - However, as Bobskunk said, taxes are taken out of profits after payroll and other expenses are paid, which will not cause in increase in price, or really even operating costs at all- just how much money is removed from profits.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> See, this happens every time. You join thread, hear something you don't like, get mad and start on this track. Oi vey. Come back when you're less angry.




No, you continually post snide remarks that serve no purpose at all in the conversation. So, it has nothing to do with hearing some opinion I don't like.

Its when you say crap like this:


Mojotech said:


> Also please leave, Rukh. We're trying to have a serious (if somewhat sarcastic) conversation here.



Nothing, I repeat nothing in that comment at all has ANYTHING to do with the subject of the thread.

Then, when I say something, you come in and say "oh stop being so angry, then I will talk with you" bullcrap.

Every, single, time, you do this, I will call it out. Until you stop. So, how long we gonna do this? Its up to you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No.


 
Rukh, for the good of this thread, and possibly your blood pressure, I'm going to stop responding to you until you have something worthwhile to contribute. Please stop bothering me.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Mojotech said:
> 
> 
> > It's so wierd how some americans can be supposedly so vehemently pro-capitalism, yet the second someone manages to out-compete them on price it's so unfair... Why do you hate the free market?
> ...



Mojo, you've still failed to respond to the above.  Care to correct that oversight now?  It was only two very simple questions asking you to confirm your claims with an outside source.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 22, 2011)

*2Re: Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan*



HAXX said:


> And you're still a sheeple. Cool deal, bro.


 
were you completely serious about posting this?

because intentional or not this is the parodic epitome of wild-eyed conspiracy theorist comebacks



Roose Hurro said:


> Mojo, you've still failed to respond to the above.  Care to correct that oversight now?  It was only two very simple questions asking you to confirm your claims with an outside source.


 
two seconds in google for "unfilled jobs united states": http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/409...ed-in-the-u-s-qualified-applicants-scarce.htm

also http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/07/there_are_26_mi.html

part of it is geographical, person in region X needs job, a job that's right for them is in region Y, but they're tied to a house that can't/won't sell in region X, so jobs in region Y may as well not even exist.

also the prospect of (usually, if not less than) minimum wage fruit picking jobs is reasonably unappealing; hard labor for 18k a year?  good luck even getting hired by companies that would rather exploit undocumented workers and prison slave labor because it's cheaper, even if they're taking the risks of an INS (sorry, ICE) raid and a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2011)

*Re: 2Re: Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan*



Bobskunk said:


> part of it is geographical, person in region X needs job, a job that's right for them is in region Y, but they're tied to a house that can't/won't sell in region X, so jobs in region Y may as well not even exist.
> 
> also the prospect of (usually, if not less than) minimum wage fruit picking jobs is reasonably unappealing; hard labor for 18k a year?  good luck even getting hired by companies that would rather exploit undocumented workers and prison slave labor because it's cheaper, even if they're taking the risks of an INS (sorry, ICE) raid and a slap on the wrist.


 
That's not even getting into issues like applicants being over-or-underqualified, or the ones who think a part time fruit-picking or burger king job is beneath them strictly on issues of pride, or ideology reasons. There are many people who refuse to work at wal-mart despite it being one of the few places that'd actually take them, and sometimes the people who would take the job in the area just don't know about it. :V In short there's a lot of reasons 3 million jobs remain unfulfilled even in times like these.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 22, 2011)

*Re: 2Re: Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan*



Mojotech said:


> That's not even getting into issues like applicants being over-or-underqualified, or the ones who think a part time fruit-picking or burger king job is beneath them strictly on issues of pride, or ideology reasons. There are many people who refuse to work at wal-mart despite it being one of the few places that'd actually take them, and sometimes the people who would take the job in the area just don't know about it. :V In short there's a lot of reasons 3 million jobs remain unfulfilled even in times like these.



and even then the issue is of different levels of qualification, or stability/turnover (why would a company hire someone who knows they are worth more in a more specialized job and will probably bolt the moment the opportunity comes up? training time and effort wasted, new effort needed to find a replacement..), or just the jobs being inaccessible... that's three million jobs that might have people to fill some or most them, but still several more million people trying to find work, and many more after that that are desperate for any income.  Don't people fall off most given statistics after 99 weeks?  Yet it doesn't stop some people from saying "all these unemployed people need bootstraps and stop being lazy and GET A JOB" when there are no jobs for them.  How many people say that while comfortable in their own job, or even more awfully, partaking in some welfare program that they publicly decry?  Fuck you, got mine.  Though they'd change their tune in a heartbeat the moment they got laid off or denied, yet would never even admit they were wrong, they'd just come up with some excuse as to why everyone else are still bums but they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires or something.

awful


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Wait, reading what Telnac is saying, it's almost like he thinks that the 1.5 million dollars is taxed: payroll is taken out.  Investments in plant/property/equipment is written out.  There are all kinds of things that can be expensed, and any sole proprietor that has any idea of what they're doing will take advantage of every deduction they possibly can.  So if they're taking in $1.5 million yet expenses are $1.2 million, and $300k is left in the clear, part of that 300k can be invested back into the company for further deductions, and (I'm pretty sure) whatever's left is taxed as income on an individual basis.  To leave this fact of accounting out is either disingenuous or outright lying on one hand, or speaking from profound ignorance on another.
> 
> To put it in more certain terms: PAYROLL IS A PRE-TAX BUSINESS EXPENSE.



That's what I was thinking - that's the case here in NZ, but I wasn't sure about whether it was in the US. I just couldn't work out how to describe it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2011)

*Re: 2Re: Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan*



Bobskunk said:


> Don't people fall off most given statistics after 99 weeks?  Yet it doesn't stop some people from saying "all these unemployed people need bootstraps and stop being lazy and GET A JOB" when there are no jobs for them.
> 
> awful


 
Actually the cutoff point for most corporations is 6 months, with some more competitive ones using 3 months. The reason for unemployment doesn't matter, even if they were laidoff and unemployable purely for external reasons such as the economy or illness, after this point they won't even read the resume.  This also applies if they filled the months with something not related to their career, such as a part time job in any of the less prestigious and/or physical labor fields such as  janitor, food service, administrative assistant, greasemonkey/auto mechanic- they'll generally regard that as the same as being unemployable. "If they settled for less, clearly they don't have the skills they need to do the previous job even if they did that for 10 years..."


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> That's what I was thinking - that's the case here in NZ, but I wasn't sure about whether it was in the US. I just couldn't work out how to describe it.



Like I said, either he knew it and intentionally lied because he's some deluded "oh god class warfare is terrible and it is defined by the lower and middle class pushing back a little" water carrier and willing footsoldier for the rich, or he had no idea and was just bullshitting for paragraphs at a time.  At least one is less hell-worthy than the other, but they both advance the same terrible narrative.  Also fuck these tax cuts for "job creators," if there's insufficient demand (because of low consumer confidence/available spending money due to unemployment/threats of layoffs which further drives down demand which further squelches jobs etc.) they won't hire no matter how much money they get.  Any business owner that cries for tax cuts so they can hire are either incompetent at business management or they're lying.

Also there are a number of places that will not hire people who have been unemployed for a long period of time, so that only worsens everything.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Like I said, either he knew it and intentionally lied because he's some deluded "oh god class warfare is terrible and it is defined by the lower and middle class pushing back a little" water carrier and willing footsoldier for the rich, or he had no idea and was just bullshitting for paragraphs at a time.  At least one is less hell-worthy than the other, but they both advance the same terrible narrative.  Also fuck these tax cuts for "job creators," if there's insufficient demand (because of low consumer confidence/available spending money due to unemployment/threats of layoffs which further drives down demand which further squelches jobs etc.) they won't hire no matter how much money they get.  Any business owner that cries for tax cuts so they can hire are either incompetent at business management or they're lying.
> 
> Also there are a number of places that will not hire people who have been unemployed for a long period of time, so that only worsens everything.


Wait... what?  Sorry; I must have missed that post Mayfurr quoted. This thread had devolved to name calling so I wasn't watching it all that closely of late.  

I've always been told that payroll is a post-tax expense, and that business income passed onto employees is effectively taxed twice.  My ex-wife was looking to start up a business (yes, it would have been a cafe... which is why I used the cafe owner as an example) and that was one of her major concerns.  It ultimately isn't why she didn't start the business (the real estate bubble at the time made the building itself simply not worth buying) but the tax professional she hired never told her that employee wages would be a pre-tax expense... and I (being a programmer & not a businessperson) took that at face value.

If that's wrong, then damn... that changes everything.  In that case, you might as well disregard practically everything I said.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Wait... what?  Sorry; I must have missed that post Mayfurr quoted. This thread had devolved to name calling so I wasn't watching it all that closely of late.
> 
> I've always been told that payroll is a post-tax expense, and that business income passed onto employees is effectively taxed twice.  My ex-wife was looking to start up a business (yes, it would have been a cafe... which is why I used the cafe owner as an example) and that was one of her major concerns.  It ultimately isn't why she didn't start the business (the real estate bubble at the time made the building itself simply not worth buying) but the tax professional she hired never told her that employee wages would be a pre-tax expense... and I (being a programmer & not a businessperson) took that at face value.
> 
> If that's wrong, then damn... that changes everything.  In that case, you might as well disregard practically everything I said.



Yeah, sorry about that.  I am so unbelievably frustrated with the state of things, especially when it comes to these delicate economic matters and anything even suggesting a continuation of the status quo, or even deepening what makes it so awful.  I was particularly irate because I'd just seen this bullshit: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html and noticed some similarity in the connections being made between cost of doing business with taxes and such.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109807,00.html tax deductable business expenses: check out all the stuff you can write off.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Yeah, sorry about that.  I am so unbelievably frustrated with the state of things, especially when it comes to these delicate economic matters and anything even suggesting a continuation of the status quo, or even deepening what makes it so awful.  I was particularly irate because I'd just seen this bullshit: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html and noticed some similarity in the connections being made between cost of doing business with taxes and such.
> 
> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109807,00.html tax deductable business expenses: check out all the stuff you can write off.


Thanks a ton!  

As for Obama's plan, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.  That's not to say I support it yet, since the devil's in the details.  I need to do more research before I'll decide which side of the debate I'll side with.  That said, I no longer oppose raising the marginal rate on millionaires, if it indeed does no harm to small business and the overall job market.

I still think the retirement age is set too young, and that's not going to change.  If humans can be reasonably expected to work 75 years, having them retire 10 years before that is a drag on the overall economy, even if Social Security itself can be made solvent through other means.  But as for the other parts of the Obama deficit reduction plan, I think there may be something there we can work with.  Convincing members of Congress of that fact, of course, is another story.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Sep 22, 2011)

*Re: 2Re: Obama's 3,6 $ trillion debt plan*



Bobskunk said:


> were you completely serious about posting this?
> 
> because intentional or not this is the parodic epitome of wild-eyed conspiracy theorist comebacks.



And his was not? I can't take politics seriously on a furry forum! I just get humor seeing how defensive people get over little statements!


----------



## Bliss (Sep 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> In other words, subsidising _country lifestyles_ at taxpayer expense - at over â‚¬49.8 billion a year


Hey! Those are our _values_ - most parents of today's generation were borne in the countryside. :V



> I don't know about Finland, but places like the UK passed the point of being self-sufficient in food supply over a century ago... else U-boats during WW2 wouldn't have brought the UK to the brink of starvation. That horse has well and truly bolted.


Not absolute 'self-sufficiency' like in North Korea. As far as I know we have lost it recently in a short period of time.

 But of course we couldn't live without coffee and our statutory coffee breaks. 



> Then how is it that when I was in the UK I saw Irish and New Zealand butter at the _same price_ - despite the fact that:
> 
> * the farmers making Irish butter were subsidised by the EU, and they only had to ship it across the Irish Sea, while
> * the farmers making New Zealand butter not only _don't_ get _any_ government subsidies, they have to ship their product across from the other side of the globe AND pay tariffs on their product entering the EU.


My brainfart. I'll elaborate: our crop/hectare is small (farming is expensive) here so if we liked to stay self-sufficient without agricultural aid that would increase the price of food to unbearable levels. It is conditional to the supposed self-sufficiency.



JesusFish said:


> I still want out of this country... Economic stability wouldn't be an issue if we didn't invest too much in several wars & billions of dollars in development packages to third-world countries, and if we didn't invest billions in social services being provided by inept persons. I don't want politicians or other people to be doing that with my money. Fuck that.


You don't even give that much development aid...

It is also probably a good time to remind that Sweden's debt is 35% of GDP, for US that is 65%.



HAXX said:


> Funny how Obama said *no more transparency* then *seals up all his records*.


Is it my Engrish or does this sentence _make sense__?_


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Not absolute 'self-sufficiency' like in North Korea. As far as I know we have lost it recently in a short period of time.
> 
> But of course we couldn't live without coffee and our statutory coffee breaks.



I've heard of the Finnish obsession for coffee, yeah. 

We're getting like that too.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, for the good of this thread, and possibly your blood pressure, I'm going to stop responding to you until you have something worthwhile to contribute. Please stop bothering me.



Then stop with the snide remarks. Its that simple. The choice is yours to make.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, for the good of this thread, and possibly your blood pressure, I'm going to stop responding to you until you have something worthwhile to contribute. Please stop bothering me.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Then stop with the snide remarks. Its that simple. The choice is yours to make.


You two start behaving in my _precious_ thread or I'll spank you both like hell hath no fury. >:V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You two start behaving in my _precious_ thread or I'll spank you both like hell hath no fury. >:V


 
Hey now, I already put an end to it. :V Getting onto me once I've made it clear I'm not continuing isn't going to help.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Sep 22, 2011)

Hey look at me!  I didn't read the thread but I will predict the future: Obama makes a deal with Republicans!  Situation normal!  Ok!


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Hey look at me!  I didn't read the thread but I will predict the future: Obama makes a deal with Republicans!  Situation normal!  Ok!


Not if the republicans create a artificial recession first.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not if the republicans create a artificial recession first.



We are already in a recession. In fact, we never got out of the last one, we have just been barely limping along.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We are already in a recession. In fact, we never got out of the last one, we have just been barely limping along.


Technically we have been out of the recession for a while, it's just that after the great depression the stock market dipped and rebounded a couple of times as the stock holders were worried about another depression and slowly after a while it regained strength and the stock holder's confidence in the system improved.  As of right now the stock holders are fearful they may lose their money all over again.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Technically we have been out of the recession for a while, it's just that after the great depression the stock market dipped and rebounded a couple of times as the stock holders were worried about another depression and slowly after a while it regained strength and the stock holder's confidence in the system improved.  *As of right now the stock holders are fearful they may lose their money all over again.*



The irony being that they can very easily self-fulfill their own fears.  But, hey, that's how the "Stock Market" works.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> The irony being that they can very easily self-fulfill their own fears.  But, hey, that's how the "Stock Market" works.


With how the republicans are trying to start a artificial recession, if Obama just bids his time he can stop them from causing this to happen.  If they got their way there would be another recession and then they could place all the blame on Obama, like how they blamed him for the 2007 market crash even though he wasn't even president yet.


----------



## Rasly (Sep 23, 2011)

http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/11/country-distribution-2010.png


----------



## Telnac (Sep 24, 2011)

Our recovery's been feeble at best.  If we double-dip, I don't think it'll be artificial at all.  With all the crap going on in Europe, not to mention the fact that banks like Citibank still get away with borderline criminal activity that's been bleeding consumers dry, I'm surprised we posted GDP growth in the last 3 years at all.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 24, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Our recovery's been feeble at best.  If we double-dip, I don't think it'll be artificial at all.  With all the crap going on in Europe, not to mention the fact that banks like Citibank still get away with borderline criminal activity that's been bleeding consumers dry, I'm surprised we posted GDP growth in the last 3 years at all.



It could be artificial in the sense of GOP action/obstruction/posturing worsening conditions, such as that stunt pulled with the (ultimately arbitrary) debt ceiling.  They would happily plunge the world economy back into crisis as long as it a) can be a bargaining chip in obtaining whatever demands they think up and b) can somehow be blamed on Barack Obama if it does topple.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> It could be artificial in the sense of GOP action/obstruction/posturing worsening conditions, such as that stunt pulled with the (ultimately arbitrary) debt ceiling.  They would happily plunge the world economy back into crisis as long as it a) can be a bargaining chip in obtaining whatever demands they think up and b) can somehow be blamed on Barack Obama if it does topple.


I can't deny some Republicans would, particularly the power brokers in Washington, D.C.  However, I don't think rank-and-file Republicans would support that.  No matter my opinion of Obama (and it isn't good), I'd rather have a job and a solid economy even if it means Obama wins in 2012.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 24, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I can't deny some Republicans would, particularly the power brokers in Washington, D.C.  However, I don't think rank-and-file Republicans would support that.  No matter my opinion of Obama (and it isn't good), I'd rather have a job and a solid economy even if it means Obama wins in 2012.


 
A lot of them haven't, so they don't, which is why the republican party's been gradually growing more and more insane as their moderate base has been alienated by the increasingly strident Tea Party/Birther/etc types. At this point the party's mostly running on a mix of fundamentalism, voter apathy and funding from certain media moguls. The remaining republican base apparently does agree with it, otherwise they'd have left the party, let alone continue to cheer over people being executed/boo gay soldiers off the stage/etc. :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> As any economist can tell you, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and *there's no fighting the invisible hand- Jobs* brought back to here will have to be pulled from foreign economies (simply shifting our economic problems to there), and as long as some other market can offer the same process for cheaper, many companies will take the lower prices over buying local, as can clearly be seen from US companies doing just that.


 
i am amazed nobody saw this


----------



## Bliss (Sep 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> It could be artificial in the sense of GOP action/obstruction/posturing worsening conditions, such as that stunt pulled with the (ultimately arbitrary) debt ceiling.  They would happily plunge the world economy back into crisis as long as it a) can be a bargaining chip in obtaining whatever demands they think up and b) can somehow be blamed on Barack Obama if it does topple.


Have they not been doing that for dog knows how long?


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 25, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Have they not been doing that for dog knows how long?



That's a pretty broad concept (fuck you Grover Norquist I will have a party when you die and rest in piss with reagan) but you're right.  Another tactic is to jack up spending on wars and war-related expenses and handouts/giveaways to the rich- and oh god pardon the tangent but anyone who says job creators deserves to be assaulted.  "Job creators" is this phrase that should be code for "PLEASE PUT ME IN THE HOSPITAL" and yes I am advocating violence toward conservatives.  I only wish this rhetoric of "union thuggery" was true because I want to see some beatings and I want to see some deaths and-

...Ahem, jack up spending on wars while slashing any social programs, convincing people that this is right and that the government spends too much money.  This way, when what passes for liberal in this country gets back into power, there is no money nor acceptance among the masses to spend on things like bridges and fire protection and making sure people aren't starving in the streets.

Keep in mind these are rubes that have been tricked into holding up signs that say "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY" to protest a president that has cut their taxes to unprecedented levels.  The trend has been downward for ages, the taxes are lower than most of the world (as well as the relative return, that's WAY down) yet these people think their taxes are high and are being raised when they simply fucking aren't.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 25, 2011)

*"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may  have helped you. 
We're saying that for America to get back on track,  we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. 
We're  going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." *
- Hillary Rodham Clinton

The Clinton regime - eight years done, eight to go.


----------

