shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Jul 5, 2011 12:27:15 GMT -5
"The incentive to create jobs has to come from somewhere other than demand?"
Where else would it come from? Job creation would create more demand and I don't see too many businesses giving up the opportunity to expand with higher demand because taxes were increased by a certain %. Business certainly will not create jobs without demand so how possibly could it not be demand?
I think I ma talking in circles and not making sense I just realized....hmm ignore.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 12:29:21 GMT -5
Honestly... the reason the stimulus didn't work... is because TAX BREAKS DON'T WORK....
So the less money people have, the more they spend to stimulate the economy? Is that what your saying? Please explain how that works.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 5, 2011 12:30:42 GMT -5
Yes cutting back on regulations in banking & mortgage loans wasn't the brightest of ideas.
the real issue was that we didn't cut enough...........we had a thousand different agencies doing this and doing that, and no one agency knew what they should be doing, so no agency did anything.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Jul 5, 2011 12:41:05 GMT -5
The real problem with the stimulus, is that of the 666 billion we were discussing in the other thread... 292.7 billion went to tax reduction. 126.1 billion went to provide state fiscal relief, and only 161.9 billion went to public investment outlays... Honestly... the reason the stimulus didn't work... is because TAX BREAKS DON'T WORK.... The only break I got in MY taxes was the making work pay credit. That was Obama's idea. The only tax break that I'm getting this year is the decrease in my SS payroll taxes. Again, that was Obama's big idea. I'm sure both were intended to spur the economy, but due to inflation in home heating, groceries, and gasoline, there is nothing left for anything extra out of the "Obama money" that people are getting to buy anything extra that will give the economy any kind of boost - even short term. As far as I'm concerned, most people are just treading water. Now maybe if they would do SOMETHING to lower the cost of gasoline like issuing permits for drilling etc. then some of that money would be spent on things other than essentials.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Jul 5, 2011 12:50:27 GMT -5
Yes cutting back on regulations in banking & mortgage loans wasn't the brightest of ideas.the real issue was that we didn't cut enough...........we had a thousand different agencies doing this and doing that, and no one agency knew what they should be doing, so no agency did anything. Or there were several that had overlapping efforts and were spending money trying to regulate the SAME things there by WASTING money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 13:16:14 GMT -5
According to the report, 39 shallow-water permits for new wells have been issued since June 8, 2010, when new rules and information requirements were put into effect. Shallow water drilling operations were not affected by the deepwater drilling moratorium following the gulf oil spill. And there were lots more shallow-water well permits issued by the Obama administration prior to June 8, 2010. Remember, Bachmann's statement referred to permits issued "under the Obama administration since they came into office." In addition, there have been six deepwater well permits issued since Oct. 12, 2010, when the gulf moratorium was lifted. Five of those were for projects that were under way prior to the moratorium. The operators were required to come back and meet the new, modified standards. And last week, BOEMRE approved an "exploration plan" submitted by Shell Offshore Inc., for deepwater oil and gas exploration. It was the first new deepwater exploration plan approved since the gulf oil spill. According to a BOEMRE press release, "An exploration plan describes all exploration activities planned by the operator for a specific lease or leases, including the timing of these activities, information concerning drilling vessels, the location of each planned well and other relevant information that needs to meet important safety standards. Once a plan is approved, additional new applications for permits to drill can be issued." In other words, it's not a permit. Permits come down the road. In all, BOEMRE has received 45 deepwater drilling permit applications that are subject to the new regulations. These include applications to drill new wells, bypasses, and sidetracks. Twenty-four of these permits have been returned to the operator with requests for additional information (most regarding subsea containment). BOEMRE has approved seven of these permits (for six unique wells), with 12 applications pending. Again, these are deepwater permits issued after the moratorium. The Obama administration issued lots of deepwater permits prior to that. In addition, BOEMRE has received 31 deepwater drilling permit applications for activities such as drilling water injection wells and drilling from a fixed rig with a surface blowout preventer that were allowed under the moratorium. BOEMRE has approved 28 of these permits. www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/well_permits.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 13:21:25 GMT -5
oldtex, i don't think 400$ to everyone was the right answer... the majority of the tax breaks... (and prefer the AMT was fixed rather than further bandaided)... a few others...
Anyway, i think that money would have been a lot more productive long term if it had gone to improvements in infrastructure and energy...
Would 400$ less per person have limited indivdual spending a little... yes, and that would have had some impact, but 33$ a month doesn't do all that much for me... on the other hand, i think the agregate 116 Billion could have produced a much larger impact in other places...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 16:41:58 GMT -5
oldtex, i don't think 400$ to everyone was the right answer... the majority of the tax breaks... (and prefer the AMT was fixed rather than further bandaided)... a few others...
Anyway, i think that money would have been a lot more productive long term if it had gone to improvements in infrastructure and energy...
Oped now that you explained yourself....I have to agree. I don't think that it's the Presidents fault because that same thing has worked in the past. I think that people just had too much debt & couldn't afford to spend the money on stimulating the economy...it went on credit cards & debts.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 5, 2011 17:23:17 GMT -5
I think the Senator "gets it" exactly. I hope Obama wakes up one morning and "gets it", too. But I'm not holding my breath.
The problem is not the tax code. It is not even tax breaks. Until the country, (congress), learns to live on what it takes in we will be headed for national bankruptcy.
One way to head it off would be to shop American and put Walmart, Target, and the entire import industry out of business.
When will we ever see or hear of a union member or a Democratic politician not only agree with that, but take the lead in doing it?
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Jul 5, 2011 17:36:17 GMT -5
Did anyone happen the catch the rerun of the bicentennial move "1776" yesterday. There are 2 bits of ranting by the John Adams character. In one he says t0 the effect (regarding Congress) , My god they have sat here a whole year! A whole year and done nothing! In the second he is ranting toward the heavens saying to the effect.. a plague, famine, locusts, floods, I could understand, but why did you send us Congress?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 5, 2011 17:44:10 GMT -5
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 5, 2011 20:26:53 GMT -5
The unions seem to have been very successful at buying the American government at a variety of levels.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 5, 2011 22:39:01 GMT -5
Did somebody say unions are at the forefront of selling the thought of "Shop American"? If that is true, why is Walmarts biggest stores in union labor states? Is it because that's where the wages are highest, and where "shopping for value" is practced the most? In fact, isn't their 265,000 square foot, (that's more than 6 acres), three story Albany, New York store WalMart's absolute biggest store? And isn't New York a unionized labor state? I think so, if this map has any truth connected to it. I guess that union effort for Americans to "shop American" only applies to NON-union shoppers. Oh, and while you are looking, try to focus on what you know about which states are having the worst budget deficit, (public debt), problems. And just to needle the liberals, it might be fun to post a red state/blue state map, too. Whooo hoooo!
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 6, 2011 7:13:12 GMT -5
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 6, 2011 7:15:28 GMT -5
And what is a forced union state? No one is forced to apply for a job at a unionized place. With union workers what, 12 percent of the workforce,why are you so afraid of them?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 6, 2011 9:35:26 GMT -5
You mean the chart that shows the higest populated states being blue?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 6, 2011 9:39:07 GMT -5
And what is a forced union state? No one is forced to apply for a job at a unionized place. With union workers what, 12 percent of the workforce,why are you so afraid of them? 7% of the private workforce is Unionized compared to 36% of the Government.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 9:39:23 GMT -5
One way to head it off would be to shop American and put Walmart, Target, and the entire import industry out of business.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 6, 2011 9:52:13 GMT -5
No history of class warfare? ... Why do we have Unions? Why did they develop? Why did child labor laws develop? Why did our public school system develop? What were the demographics of this country during the Great Depression? When have we had a government that doesn't spend money they don't have? ... wasn't Reagan on anyway... wasn't at ANY time since we started cutting the top tax brackets like we have... not that i'm advocating a return to 70%.... but it is disingenuous to talk tax reform when federal tax rolls are at lowest percentage of GDP in decades... Yeah... lets cut regulation... that's been working for us... in banking in particular... and child labor law... yes, lets cut those... Great... the tax cut for jets is insignificant... lets end it... TODAY. unions were created for better working conditions not because of classwarfare.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 6, 2011 9:53:19 GMT -5
And what is a forced union state? No one is forced to apply for a job at a unionized place. With union workers what, 12 percent of the workforce,why are you so afraid of them? no, but they are forced to be in the union to get the job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 10:07:47 GMT -5
One way to head it off would be to shop American and put Walmart, Target, and the entire import industry out of business.
Henry we usually agree but on this one I disagree with you. First about Walmart: Walmart is a savior for the poor & lower middle class. They sell goods at a discount so that those classes can afford to buy more & better goods than if they shopped at other stores. I think they are the best thing to come along for people that don't have a lot of money since the government started giving out free money to them.
Now as to the buy American thing: It's a stupid slogan & not practical. Oh sure people love to quote it but they don't DO it. We are living in a global economy & that's where we need to be selling our goods, to the world. Back in the old days we killed in world markets because we produced more of something, it was better made & we sold it cheaper or for the same price. Now days it cost more & it isn't made as well. Hell, look at cars (as example). You pay a premium to buy a Honda, Toyota, or Datsun & you get a discount when you buy something from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Now you could argue that the quality is getting better at American companies but the "perceived" quality isn't there for a lot of people & NOBODY (even the buy American crowd) is paying extra to buy American. I think we need to get back to basics. Design a better product. Be inventive & discover ways to make it cheaper. Transport it cheaper. Then sell the hell out of it to world markets. Also quit falling for "fads". Green items only really sell here (it's a fad). Most other countries could care less & won't pay the extra that they cost. Manufacturers need to stop limiting their markets. If American manufacturers can't compete in design, inventiveness, or cost then they NEED to go belly up so that new companies that can compete in those areas have a chance.
Now as support for what I said, let's look at Walmart. Has any company out there got more people that actively hate it? More percentage of the population that won't shop there? Probably not, yet they are still (possibly) the most successful company in America. They are also a World company that sells goods in other countries (& at least some of that money comes back to America). That's because they do business right. Their product is selling to a mass of people & having what that mass of people wants at a decent price. We need more companies like that. Instead about the only place that we truly lead the world is growing food & food is cheap. That's because countries that usually can't supply enough food are usually poor. Selling items (anything) to countries that are broke is not a great way to make money. Just my thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 10:12:20 GMT -5
Oh & for the comments about it being just a 2 minute speech. Sadly I believe that most of our politicians couldn't talk for 2 minutes & fill that 2 minutes with easy to understand rational thoughts. Sad to say but I get the impression that the people that are drawn to running for public office are either in it for the money or missing the main "logic" circuit in their brain.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 6, 2011 10:26:22 GMT -5
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 6, 2011 10:40:46 GMT -5
One way to head it off would be to shop American and put Walmart, Target, and the entire import industry out of business. Henry we usually agree but on this one I disagree with you. First about Walmart: Walmart is a savior for the poor & lower middle class. They sell goods at a discount so that those classes can afford to buy more & better goods than if they shopped at other stores. I think they are the best thing to come along for people that don't have a lot of money since the government started giving out free money to them. Now as to the buy American thing: It's a stupid slogan & not practical. Oh sure people love to quote it but they don't DO it. We are living in a global economy & that's where we need to be selling our goods, to the world. Back in the old days we killed in world markets because we produced more of something, it was better made & we sold it cheaper or for the same price. Now days it cost more & it isn't made as well. Hell, look at cars (as example). You pay a premium to buy a Honda, Toyota, or Datsun & you get a discount when you buy something from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Now you could argue that the quality is getting better at American companies but the "perceived" quality isn't there for a lot of people & NOBODY (even the buy American crowd) is paying extra to buy American. I think we need to get back to basics. Design a better product. Be inventive & discover ways to make it cheaper. Transport it cheaper. Then sell the hell out of it to world markets. Also quit falling for "fads". Green items only really sell here (it's a fad). Most other countries could care less & won't pay the extra that they cost. Manufacturers need to stop limiting their markets. If American manufacturers can't compete in design, inventiveness, or cost then they NEED to go belly up so that new companies that can compete in those areas have a chance. Now as support for what I said, let's look at Walmart. Has any company out there got more people that actively hate it? More percentage of the population that won't shop there? Probably not, yet they are still (possibly) the most successful company in America. They are also a World company that sells goods in other countries (& at least some of that money comes back to America). That's because they do business right. Their product is selling to a mass of people & having what that mass of people wants at a decent price. We need more companies like that. Instead about the only place that we truly lead the world is growing food & food is cheap. That's because countries that usually can't supply enough food are usually poor. Selling items (anything) to countries that are broke is not a great way to make money. Just my thoughts. Couldn't have stated it any better.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 6, 2011 12:00:32 GMT -5
I'm a bit surprised, but I find myself agreeing with Oped.
The key to getting out of this mass is job creation, and a tax friendly enviornment isn't enough to do that alone. If you're running a business, and your taxes drop, that doesn't mean you're going to run out and hire someone. You're going to simply pocket the money and increase your profits. You only hire people for your business if there's a need to hire people, i.e. you want to expand your business so you can make more money. In order to expand your business there needs to be sufficient demand for your goods or services. So what's the key to increasing demand for goods and services? Essentially, what will get people and businesses ready to spend money? I don't have the answer to that, the best answer I can think of is innovation or providing a service better or cheaper.
But having low taxes or few regulations doesn't create demand for jobs, it simply removes barriers, but isn't enough to create jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 12:04:15 GMT -5
Is the sky still blue? ... lol...
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 6, 2011 12:19:50 GMT -5
"Do you really expect people to believe that you did not start your business in the hopes of making a profit that would EARN you a living?"
I think everyone agrees that people don't start businesses with a social mission to create jobs. They start businesses to make money and a good life for themselves and their famlies. Again, I think we all agree on that. But you argue that tax friendly envornments means they will automatically invest that savings in job creation, despite the fact that the whole point is for THEM to make money. These two staements are contradictory, you can't run a business to make yourself as much money as possible and when savings come down you run out to hire people. You want to make as much money as you can so you'll pocket it and only hire people if you need/want to.
Capitalism is fundamentally driven by two forces, greed and fear. Greed will drive a business owner to pocket money saved from taxes instead of hiring people, greed will also make that business owner hire people if he thinks he can make more money by expanding his business. Fear will prevent him from hiring or expanding his business. Fear of additional regulation, fear of the economic climate, fear of taxes, fear of lack of demand, ect.
I'm not a business owner or an economist, but as I see it the best way to create jobs is innovation. Make it chaper, better, faster, whatever. Or create new products or services that everyone will want.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 15:51:32 GMT -5
But having low taxes or few regulations doesn't create demand for jobs, it simply removes barriers, but isn't enough to create jobs.
Oped was right it his statement that giving those taxes back didn't stimulate the economy (although I'm surLoprised that other liberals didn't argue with him about it. Some seem to feel (when defending President Obama) that it did work & we are going full speed).
As for lower taxes on business (this is long term). It allows companies to reinvest in business. They can spend it on research & development or to re-tool, buy other companies, (or even to get in better financial shape), etc. Long term I think it's great for both companies & our economy. Who knows, maybe if they paid lower taxes our products just might be more competitive in world markets. Now of course we are talking about well run companies here.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 6, 2011 15:55:45 GMT -5
oldtex, i don't think 400$ to everyone was the right answer... the majority of the tax breaks... (and prefer the AMT was fixed rather than further bandaided)... a few others... Anyway, i think that money would have been a lot more productive long term if it had gone to improvements in infrastructure and energy... Would 400$ less per person have limited indivdual spending a little... yes, and that would have had some impact, but 33$ a month doesn't do all that much for me... on the other hand, i think the agregate 116 Billion could have produced a much larger impact in other places... Actually if you look at your paystub, if you get one(or maybe one of your employees). You will see that your SS decreased but your federal income tax increased almost enough to over-ride the amount you are getting back from SS. Plus a decrease in SS was just ridiculous, that ponzi scheme is already blowing up and Obama wants to take more revenue from it . ROFLMAO, that is one way to reform SS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:10:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 15:55:52 GMT -5
Oped is still a girl tex. ... and i think it has/is worked/ing to some extent... but not nearly as efficiently as it could/should have.
|
|