Where are the jobs?

Are referring to those jobs of the 21st century? that the last two presidents spoke of? They had something to do with a particular color…or something like that?

@woodcutter I recall, the last two presidents were Bush and Obama. In his final term Bush was loosing (usually through “free Trade”) millions of jobs. Obama stopped the drain but the jobs aren’t coming back because there is no reason for manufacturers to produce more. Nobody has any money for luxuries, they are concerned with protecting themselves when the bottom finally drops. By the way that has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling. That is for money already spent (mostly by Republicans). The talks that are now having should be part of the budget discussion, not the debt ceiling. The people that made the debt are like the guy that borrows a new car from a dealer, drives it around for eight years then says he’s not going to pay. Somehow instead of being jailed as a deadbeat, the Tea Party is calling him a hero.

You are right about one thing. There is little money to buy goods and services. It went away when the promise to pay back borrowed money turned out to be a fraud.
Otherwise, they are someplace where other than the US where regulation, taxes and union coercion are less onerous

@josie GA!

We must be living in different countries. Here in the US the administration keeps bragging that they are creating jobs. Of course, the unemployment rate keeps going up but let’s not squabble about details. And here the guy you mentioned that drives around for eight years, Obama bought that car, cash for clunkers I think it was called. Wait a minute, if I recall, Obama bought the whole damned car company. Paid off most of his mortgage too, as I recall (or at least tried to). Hell with all the things Obama has bought how could we be having a problem?

As I recall, thousands of jobs were to be created by the health care bill, and unemployment insurance was supposed to be the best stimulus you could get. Hell, we have tons of that. And let’s not leave out the green jobs that are pressing us into world leadership on creating jobs.

Surely you’re mistaken. With all the job creation Obama has done over his first three years we can’t possibly have a problem. And even if we did, we could just do the same things again. They’re bound to work sooner or later.

@Ron_C Let’s remember that Democrats actually have proposed a number of jobs initiatives since the 2010 elections, but with a majority in the House and a cloture-proof minority in the Senate to filibuster everything, nothing is going to happen. There have been no jobs bills passed because, as Mitch McConnell said, his number one priority is making sure Obama is a one-term president. We couldn’t even get a payroll tax holiday—a Republican idea. We can’t repeal the tax credit for corporations that off-shore jobs. GOPers won’t hear of it.

Let;s review some history. In 2000, we closed out 4 years of successive balanced budgets, and the largest budget surplus in US history. George Bush ran on a promise that he could slash taxes (mostly for the rich, although he didn’t bother to mention that detail) and preserve the surplus. He lied. He blew through the surplus and was into deficit in his first year in office.

Bush pushed through tax cuts that took $1.8 trillion out of the revenue stream in his 8 years alone, and are still running up that figure. He started 2 unfunded wars and passed an unfunded prescription drug benefit that amounted to taxpayer welfare for big Pharma. The result was Bush doubled the national debt.

He also drove the economy into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Certainly not all his doing, but it happened on his watch, and by the end of his 2nd term, we were hemorrhaging almost 800,000 jobs a month. We’ve been adding private sector jobs now for over 15 months. Not enough, but better than losing 800,000 a month. That drove federal tax revenues even lower, compounding our deficit problems. In total, Bush and his policies continuing effect have contributed nearly 50% of the total national debt.

The housing bubble and its collapse left American consumer fearful and unable to borrow. Many were broke. Many were jobless. Business isn’t going to invest in a climate like that. They would end up stuck with inventory on hand. American corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash assets and they are going to continue to sit till the economy comes back.

So if consumers can’t spend and business won’t spend, who is left? Government. But the GOP thinks that by cutting spending there too, jobs will suddenly erupt everywhere.It will not happen. If they succede in their goal fo budget cutting instead of a balanced approach with revenue increases, they will drive us back into deep recession. If they stay that course, we are headed for another Great Depression.

Now @Jaxk and our resident right wingers can have their go at claiming my numbers are slightly off, and therefore what I said is backwards—down is really up. But mark my words, they are leading this country over a cliff. And they will not be able to blame Barney Frank this time.

Oh yes, my brother-in-law has so many job offers he doesn’t know what to do! And there really isn’t any inflation… it’s all due to the oil and ( for some reason no one seems to know about ) the food ( neither of which are figured into this government’s computation of inflation ). Yeah, we’re doing great, and anywhere we’re NOT doing great, it’s obviously Bush’s fault! [ rolls eyes ]

@CaptainHarley the inflation index is really screwed up, mostly to keep cost of living increases down for government employees, retirees, and the military. We are not doing great for a number of reasons starting with Reagan. Most of the increase in the deficit directly points to Bush. He started (with the help of both parties) two wars off the books. Then he gave a tax break to the richest corporations and individuals; add another trillion dollars. In a desperate move in the final hours of the Democrat House, they extended the Bush tax cuts and did nothing to enhance tax collections OR reduce spending.

Personally, I would agree to an over-all reduction in rates for the lower 90% of tax payers and a lower corporate tax rate as long as ALL of the subsidies, and special provisions for deductions are removed. There are probably some companies that should have special tax consideration or even subsidies, that should be a special process where each special act is voted on separately. We need to see who votes for what during budget negotiations and why they vote for them. If we get rid of backroom deals we will have a much better chance of getting what we paid for without the quid pro quo that is currently practiced by the Budget committee.

There is an interesting lesson to be learned by the recent debt debacle. Obama went on TV and described a stalemate between Democrats and Republicans. He laid out a scenario of impending doom for the country with little chance of a good outcome. Yet when the Democratic pundits describe these speeches they rate them as a resounding success. That would seem strange but if you listen to why they were a success it is very informative. It is because the polls show that Republicans will get the blame. That is how they measure success, by who gets the blame. It was staggering to me that no progress was being made, the situation was dire and worsening for the country, yet Democrats feel successful by merely shifting blame.

We went into this recession with a Democratic congress, but that doesn’t matter because we can blame Bush. The biggest deficit during Bush’s term was with a Democratic congress but that doesn’t matter because we can blame Bush. Obama has tripled the deficit but that doesn’t matter because we can blame Bush. Unemployment has risen and stayed in the 9% range for two years but that doesn’t matter because we can blame Bush. Democrats passed numerous jobs bills, Health care, Stimulus, Omnibus, Cash for Clunkers, mortgage reduction, unemployment extensions, etc. They didn’t work but that doesn’t matter because (everybody sing) we can blame Bush. Hell we’ll even take it a step further and take credit for any minor job creation but blame Bush for all the losses.

If you listen to the Democratic spin machine, Obama has been a resounding success. Not because they’ve improved anything but because they’ve been able to shift blame to the Republicans. As the country sinks into the depths of despair, Obama and his cronies are touted as successful even though there has been no success. The job left to him by Bush was just too tough for anyone to fix. Frankly if I had someone working for me that told me the job was just too tough for them, I’d get rid of them. Oh wait, I do and I will.

@Jaxk there was no blame to shift. Normally raising the debt ceiling is a routine administrative matter. It was done with little fanfare dozens of times under Reagen, Clinton, and both Bushes. It is a crisis because the tea party made it a crisis.

I don’t believe that Obama is a resounding success but his success has been amazing considering the the prime goal stated by House Republican leaders is to make Obama a one term president. There have been ridiculous measures taken to block all of his appointments, and a record number of filibusters in the Senate. Considering all of that, you could say the he has done a remarkable job. The only reason for all of this is that the Republican machine failed to steal the 2008 elections, unlike the two previous ones.

@Ron_C

If you recall, it was not so routine that Obama would vote for it. In fact he called raising the debt ceiling a sign of leadership failure. In fact he voted against it. And that was for much smaller increases. The massive increase he demands is triple the number proposed that he was against. $2.4 trillion is not routine and hopefully never will be.

As for your conspiracy theories, I’ll let you debate them amongst yourself.

@Jaxk we are way past the conspiracy theory state. There is no doubt that the tea partiers think the economy collapsing as a boon to their future leadership. Of course they are blind and can’t see that they will be blamed. Of course the tea party people I’ve heard or talked to are so blinded by their own rhetoric that they can’t see the damage they are doing.

Oh my God. Obama has “done a remarkable job?” At WHAT? Destroying the Country? Putting us all in the poor house? Making us all dependent on nanny government?

Sometimes I wish I was still a cussin’ man! Grrrrrr!

@CaptainHarley

None of that matters because….. Drum roll, They can blame the the tea partys. Or Republicans or whoever else they can think of. Results don’t matter.

@Jaxk

[ buries head in hands and weeps ]

@CaptainHarley and @Jaxk I have much less hope for Obama getting us out of this mess than when he was elected but you need to remember, he did not cause the mess, he inherited it. When things look really bleak I consider that there was a real possibility that McCain and Palin could have won. Just where would we be now!

You can’t have a balanced budget amendment because it would hamstring the government in a recession (depression) like we are now experiencing. You don’t cut back in spending on jobs when the economy is depressed. Remember we need jobs to get the manufacturing and production centers to spend money. How can we have a recovery if we just concentrate in bringing down spending and reducing taxes when there is nobody to buy the products?

The proposals from both parties and Obama are just ridiculous. First, the debt ceiling needs to be raised (that is for money already spent) Second we need to increase jobs in any way we can. I like the idea of really opening up infrastructure projects. Finally we need a budget that redirects funds away from the occupations of foreign countries, employees the soldiers what we will not need, and protects U.S. manufacturing from predatory practices of our “free trade partners”.

We can’t (and shouldn’t) fix other people’s economies until ours is fixed. This problem is thirty years in the making and the fault of both republicans and democrats. It will not be fixed in 3 years by one president and it won’t be fixed by the reactionary Tea Party elements.

We now have a corporatist state. When you join corporations and government and strong right wing patriotism, you have fascism. If we don’t have it now, there can be little doubt that’s where we are heading. This crisis should not be paid for by taxing the middle class to save the rich.

@Jaxk I was sad to see the Party of Personal Responsibility merge with the Party of No back in 2008. It gave us the Party of No Personal Responsibility. All they seem resonsible for now is figuring out how to blame others for their past and present policy disasters.

@Ron_C

Obama was hired to fix the economy. He hasn’t done that and in fact the economy is worse. Continually telling us that he didn’t cause the problem does not relieve him of the responsibility for creating growth. If he is not up to the task, if his only response is to say he’s not responsible, then we need to get rid of him. Put someone in that can accept the responsibility.

We import $1.5 trillion/yr in foriegn goods. If we had a more business friendly environment we could pick up some of that business. It’s not that the public has no money to spend but rather that they spend it for foriegn goods. The only way to grow the economy is to insure John Q. Public has more money to spend. You don’t do that buy raising the price of energy, raising taxes, and Levying onerous regulation that raises the price of everything you buy. We have been pursuing policies that raise the price of everything and stripping away any chance of investment for the future. Unfortunately we have squandered so much money in the past two years that we have little left to try another round of either spending or tax reduction. But there are still opportunities for pro-growth policies. We just need to pursue them.

You obviously hate the large international corporations but continue to pursue policies that make them consolidate and grow even larger. The regulation is pushing small corporations to merge with large corporations in order to survive. You’re creating the very essence of too big to fail and don’t realize it.

@ETpro

Another one of your talking points that makes no sense. A cute way to blame the other guy while decrying the blame game. Pretty pathetic.

@Jaxk I’ve been studying from experts. You guys. Thanks for all the guidance in politics by spin and smear. Indeed it is pathetic. But it’s all I see you doing.

@Jaxk you are right about Obama not fixing the economy and maybe he should be thrown out but who would or could replace him? There are a good number of people on the left that would make a good president. All I see on the right except Huntsman are wacko or have gone way past ignorant into stupid.

The US economy is failing to keep up with the rest of the world. The attitude that taxes are bad for a country will result in serious long-term damages whether it’s infrastructure, education or the overall functioning of administrative processes. Money stowed away in the Cayman Islands is not put to productive use inside the US.

The US seems more and more to depend on taxes paid by the secretaries of hedge fund managers. Well, you will get what you pay for.

It used to be that industry paid almost 60% of the taxes in the U.S. They also paid pensions and medical care. Now, what’s left of the middle class pays the majority of taxes and only 7% of industry provides a pension. At the same time unions are being disbanded, even made illegal and there are record profits and multimillion dollar salaries paid to chief executives. Since the middle class buys most items in the American economy, I wonder who will be the customers when international corporations finalize the seizing of America..

@Ron_C & @mattbrowne

Just a quick reality check here. I know you guys want the wealthy to pay more. We’ll forego the argument about what wealthy means. As it sits right now the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes. That means that entire government structure rests on whether they make more or less money. During a recession the top 5% generally see a decrease in their earnings. Consequently the government revenue takes a disproportionate drop in revenue. Exactly what has happened in this recession.

Whether you feel the top wage earners are paying their fair share or not, when you rely this heavily on the income of such a small percentage of the population, you will see major fluctuations in the government revenue. Increasing thier share of the tax burden will not solve this problem but only make it worse. I know you all think it would be wonderful if the top wage earners paid everything and the rest of us paid nothing, but your not solving any economic problems by doing that. Your not part of the solution but rather part of the problem. IMHO

@Jaxk I think you see the problem. Now the top 1% own more than the bottom 50%. Since they own nothing and are paid little, how can they pay more to make the richest people feel more secure? This latest series of tax breaks benefited rich and not the people that didn’t make enough money to pay taxes so isn’t it fair to ask the richest to back a little of their vast gains?

I guess I’ll have to explain it again. You cannot force banks and businesses to spend to money creatie jobs if there are no customers for their products. The only way to create demand is to have people that can and want to buy things. All lessening taxes does is give the rich more money to hoard which has a detrimental effect on the middle class. When you eliminate the middle class you eliminate your market. I suppose the really rich will be able to find other really rich people that are willing to trade to keep themselves occupied but we already had that sort of society. It’s called the feudal system. I guess that is really the aim of the Tea party and the other know-nothings.

@Jaxk One more time. Income taxes per se apply almost exclusively to the top income brackets. Therefore by tossing the term “Income taxes” out offhandedly, you get to claim that the righ pay and everybody else gets a free ride. Back when tere was an estate tax applying to estates over $10 million you could have said that the rich pay 100% of the estate taxes. True, but certainly not an indication that nobody else pays any taxes. They just pay taxes that aren’t called the same thing.

@Ron_C The wealthiest 1% owns 42.7% of all the financial wealth in America today. They last time they held as much was just before the Great Depression. @Jaxk is determined to use spin and selective definition to make the case that the rich are overtaxed and need a hgge tax cut lest they be taxed out of existence. The truth is just the opposite..

The rich and corporations are not going to create jobs till they know consumers will line up to buy. If we keep cutting spending wnd this ensuring more job cuts and layoffs, and shipping off ever more moeny to the wealthy, jobs are not coming back. Instead, the wise multinationals will move on after the harvest is complete.

@Ron_C & @ETpro

You guys are so hung up on your tax increases, you can’t see the forest for the trees. I think we can agree that the way out of this mess is to get more money into the hands of those that would spend it. You for some god awful reason, think the only way to do that is to take it from some and give it to others (wealth redistribution). That in not the only way to do that in in fact is the worst way to do it. Hell, even Obama has said the Shovel Ready projects didn’t work.

The best way to get money moving through the economy is for individuals and business to spend more. There are many ways to accomplish this other than taxes. Lower energy prices would be one. Instead of encouraging Brazil to drill for oil so we can buy it, we should be drilling for our own. This both creates jobs and leaves more money in the hands of the middle and lower income people to spend. Mortgage interest rates are another. The rates have dropped significantly but no one can take advantage because they have lost too much value on thier home. Allowing refinance at the lower rate would not only put money into the hands of many homeowners but create refinance fees for the lenders putting more money in their hands as well. Not to mention the lower interest rate would reduce the tax deduction creating more tax revenue for the government.

These kind of things provide more expendable income for the average American AND increase tax revenues. But anything that does not increase the tax rate is a non-starter with you guys. Try to think things through and actually come up with solutions to the problem instead of advancing your social justice agenda. And for god’s sake take facts as facts instead of trying assign some nefarious purpose to them.

@Jaxk I am not committed to tax increases. There are other ways we can jump start jobs without raising tax rate. What would be wrong with a complete revamping of the tax system with rates from 0 to 25% and no deductions, or special provisions for anybody. This gets rid of corporate welfare and simplifies taxes to post card forms similar to ones used in many states.

Capital gains is also included as income so that Hedge Fund managers pay their fair share of taxes. The only caveat would be for short term capital gains where stocks held for a week or less pay a 150% rate, stocks held for less than a month pay a 125% rate and long term (stocks held for a month or more are counted as regular income. This would put a halt to speculation that can raise prices for commodities on an over-night basis.

@Ron_C

Simplifying the tax code is a good idea. I do have some problems with some of the points you raise. For instance capital gains. I understand the issue you have but the solution you propose will cast a wide net. If you’ve ever had a situation where you need to liquidate an investment, either because it was headed south or because you needed the money, you would be caught in this web. For instance stock options (used by many companies as profit sharing) granted by an employer would become great fodder for this 150% tax rate. Not to mention that when you begin manipulating the tax rate and holdings periods, you gone way past your post card tax return.

I should also mention that commodities are by thier very nature, short term investments. I’m not sure that doing what you suggest wouldn’t kill the commodities market entirely. Not just the part you don’t like.

I also have some pain in accepting a loss of the home interest deduction in this housing market. I afraid it would kill what little life is left in it.

Generally I like the national sales tax simply because it completely eliminates the IRS. I understand however, that many don’t like it.

@Jaxk capital gains is calculated from the money you made from the sell of the stock so if some emergency like the stock tanking happens, you probably won’t have much tax exposure anyway. I know that the stocks I buy do great for a couple months then tank as soon as I quit watching them.

If you are worried about protecting the commodities market, why not put a transaction tax on the trade, somewhere of about ¼% . That way it would encourage very short term investments and pay so that they can be properly regulated. Wasn’t it the Koch brothers that tried to corner the silver market? That kind of trading is supposed to be regulated but the conservatives won’t pay for the regulators.

A national sale tax is a really bad idea. It puts the main burden on the middle class and poor. The rich wouldn’t pay much if you look at it as a percentage of their income. Besides, I saw a calculation where the tax would have to be about 25% to compensate for the money lost in income tax. The last thing a guy making minimum wage needs is a 25% tax on everything he buys.

@Ron_C

It would seem much easier to simply increase the ‘margin requirements’ for commodities. Currently you can buy futures for as little as 5% of the price of the contract. It allows brokers to control huge quantities for very little up front money. I could get behind raising those margins considerably. Using the tax code to try and manipulate behaviors just seems wrong to me.

As for the sales tax, I’m reluctant to get into that debate again as it is a long term fix rather than anything we could do in the near term. But if you eliminate food and services (which most sales taxes do) your basic needs, food and rent, are not taxed.

@Jaxk good point on raising the margins but there still should be a small transaction charge.

The way I understand it, if you don’t tax food or necessities the tax rate gets really high to make up for the income tax.

@Ron_C

I don’t know about ‘necessities’. That definition is way too broad for me. If I recall, the sales tax estimates were in the 15–20% range so yes, they’re not trivial. Home purchases have been sometimes included and sometimes excluded. I would include them. It would definitely cut down on the turnover but would also incent you to keep what you have longer.

It struck me as interesting when I looked at tax revenue in California. We have both sales tax and income tax. When the current recession hit, sales tax revenue didn’t really change much. Income tax revenue however, dropped like a rock. The sales tax revenue is a much more stable source of revenue for the government than income tax. As such it would have curtailed some of the deficit problem created by the recession. And I like the idea that everyone has some skin in the game regarding taxes.

@Jaxk No, you are misreading as usual. I have said repeatedly that I am against increasing tax rates before we first close all those loopholes that help only a small number of special interests. I’ve also said that I would lover the corporate tax rate to 25% but make sure that all US corporations that are profitable pay their fair share. Currently, over ⅔rds of the large, multinational companies operating here pay no income taxes even when they are enormously profitable. I would end subsidies that pick winners and losers; and leave the free market to do that.

Only when all that is done would I look at tax increases if we still were not bringing in enough revenue to do what governent needs to do. Our current revenue level of 14% of GDP is insufficient to invest in those things that will keep us competitive in the future. We can’t tax that little, and spend more on defense than all the other nations of the Earth combines, and have enough left to invest in the education, research and infrastructure we will need for this century and beyond.

You can no more cut your way to prosperity than you can diet and rest your way to a weightlifter’s body. If America wants to be a great nation, it has to invest in its future. An that means we much have sufficient revenue to support that investment.

@ETpro I agree with you assessment for the proper rate of tax with the assumption that all the special interest loop holes are removed first.

As to the military budget, I heard a commentator say that the military/industrial complex is too invested in congress and cuts to the military budget are very unlikely. Further, there is a seperate budget for the CIA and NSA that is kept secret from even ranking members in congress. I find that absolutely unacceptable. They just tell congress how much they want and congress passes it.

I saw estimates that we could take 650 million dollars out of the military budget without hurting the military. I suspect there is a trillion available if we could cut the secret budget. Of course that will never happen. Any large cuts will be to programs, regulation and education that mainly benefit the middle class and poor. They have no voice in Washington.

@ETpro

We have agreed on most of your issues before. However, I’ve never seen what you believe to be those loopholes. The subsidies should be eliminated. All subsidies. I think that might address many of the loopholes.

The current 14% of GDP is a direct result of the recession. Get people back to work and we will see that bounce back to the 18% range which is where I believe it is sufficient.

As for investing in the future, I think we may disagree. I would like to see private enterprise do the investing. It seems you want the government to do the investing. There may be room for both but government has shown it’s incompetent to make good decisions.

@Jaxk ” I would like to see private enterprise do the investing.” That is exactly the issue. How can they justify investments if they don’t have a customer base. I have been in industry for about 40 years and have never, never seen a company I owned or one where I work invest unless they saw a future profit. Right now there is no profit in the forseeable future.

@Ron_C

We are in complete agreement on that. Where I think we differ is why there is no profit in the foreseeable future.

@Jaxk The US Tax code today has so many pages I’ve never been able to even find an accurate count. I am not about to spend the next 50 years reading it line by line to identify what is a loophole. We’re agreed that thnings linke mortgage interest on a first home is a reasonable deduction. I might cap it so true mansions only qualify for the first $500,000 in mortgage. But the basics we agree on. Borrowing and costs of education are not a loophole. They pay back ore than they cost us. Real business losses are not a loophole. Buying unprofitable businesses to use their losses as your own are. There’s certainly more to it, but that’s the giust of how I would approach it.

@ETpro

I agree with the sentiment and would only disagree with one point. The limit on mortgage doesn’t really work very well. If you trying to buy a home in NY or San Jose/San Francisco, $500K doesn’t buy much. If your buying a home in the Midwest, Mansion comes to mind. When we try to fix a number for national values the disparity is just too great.

I agree that trying to identify the loopholes is difficult at our level. I have tried to find an analysis of why GE paid no taxes. Alas, no luck. It would be interesting to know what tricks they used if any. I’m always a bit uncomfortable saying they must have used accounting gimmicks to pull that off even though I believe it to be true. I would sure like to know how they did it.

@Jaxk I think we disagree as to how we can get people to buy things. The way I understand it, you think that giving tax breaks or lowering taxes to business will somehow cause them to hire more people. I think it is a “chicken and egg situation”. To me, the egg came first (from a slightly different animal) so our egg will have to be government by shifting some money to the consumers either by direct subsidies (which I don’t like) or adding jobs instigated and partially paid by the government. I always valued money earned more than gift money.

There were proposals for high speed rail service to connect cities together. That would have been excellent but was shut down. In my state, Pennsylvania, we have thousands of bridges. The majority need rebuilt or upgraded. That is another excellent way to do it except that I have seen projects like that contracted to out of state companies that brought in workers (sometimes illegal ones) that did little to help local economies.

We now have a big natural gas discovery but the Republican leadership is essentially giving it away. Low taxes, no extraction fees. I think that with a little common sense and less lobbying by special interests infrastructure and natural gas would get the state back into high employment rates. I see, however the trend to privatizing state functions, including inspections and contract letting as a drain instead of a boon to our economy. I see the majority of the money going to large out of state companies and little staying in the state. In the federal government we pay for private prisons, mercenary armies, and foreign contractors. That all has to stop. We need to concentrate on this country first.

@Ron_C

It may actually be a ‘Chicken and egg’ scenario. First, I’ll admit my bias that smaller government is better than bigger. So growing government is always abhorrent to me.

Temporary measures whether tax cuts or spending don’t solve the problem. If you build a new bridge, yes you get some jobs but once built you lose those jobs. In other words temporary. Same with the stimulus tax cuts. One year is a temporary cut which does not modify behavior. Neither the consumer nor the industry can plan on that so it gets wasted. If you want a lasting recovery, you need a permanent change (or at least as permanent as we can). When the change is permanent and it puts money into the hands of the taxpayers, it grows the economy.

We had a High Speed Rail planned here as well. Apparently the recent budget cuts have put that in jeopardy. But when you look at the business case for it, it was a loser to begin with. I’ve seen no evidence that the government can run a railroad or a business of any kind, efficiently. Whether you are talking about roads or prisons or anything else, the decision should depend on who can do it better. When the government builds roads or bridges, they don’t really build them, they contract with private enterprise to have it built. When private enterprise seems to costly, you put it out for bids. If it’s done by government employees, changes are monumental and generational.

I find it interesting that I have an annual Air Quality inspection. The work to do the testing I contract out to a vendor which I pay for and the state inspector to oversee the testing I pay for as well. The inspector has never shown up on site but I pay anyway. What a cushy job. I’m not sure how you see privatizing as a drain. Does having the guy work directly for the government somehow make it better? A prison run by private enterprise has the same cost the same number of employees (all the statistics I seen on this show a mixed bag), and the same quality. Why is one a drag and the other not?

I think we can totally agree on this statement;

“adding jobs instigated and partially paid by the government.”

Anytime we can get private money into creating jobs, I’m all for it. I’m just not too keen on having more government jobs. Is there nay example you can provide where the government only partially paid for the jobs?

@Jaxk first of all if you have ever visited Pa. you would see that fixing bridges is almost an infinite project, especially on Interstate 80. Second, certain aspects of government such as prisons should not be profit centers. If the state pays for prisons, it is in the state’s best interest to modify prisoners behavior so that they don’t return or modify law to reduce the number of people that must be imprisoned. If it is a profit center and your business model then the more restrictive and punishing the laws, the better your business. That is part of the lobby for harsh drug laws and the “three strikes” laws.

There are things the government can do better than private industry. One of them is thinking on a grand scale. No single industry can build a nationwide railroad but with government incentives, the nation was tied together by rail. Later we (the government) built the interstate system. To do this they coordinated a nationwide system of private contractors.

Another thing that should be only run and operated by government is war. It is bad enough when we have one, it is unconscionable for mercenary forces to profit from it.

Health care is another big project that can only be originated and coordinated by government. Medicare runs 3–10% overhead. Health care insurance companies make profits in the 15 to 20% range and specialize in rationing health care. There is no rational reason for them.

Big government projects encourage private companies to expand and create jobs. If the companies tried to expand without good reason, they’d be doomed to failure.

@Ron_C

Actually I lived in Philadelphia for a while. Fixing roads and bridges is an ongoing project for all states. Federal involvement should be limited to Interstate Highways. As far as prisons, we’ll have to disagree. If I get much deeper into it than we have, It will gain a life of it’s own. I haven’t see nay compelling data to suggest that government is any better at running prisons than private industry but I understand your argument about the conflict of interest.

I don’t know that government is better at it but the free flow of interstate commerce is one of the few, primary functions of the federal government. I have no squabble with them doing it. I’m not sure however, that running a railroad fits that primary function nor that they are good at it.

You keep bring up the ‘Mercenary’ argument and I’m not sure what you mean. I assume you’re talking about Blackwater which is primarily a private security firm. I’m not aware of them fighting any wars for us.

Health care is a totally different issue. I suspect we’ll disagree vehemently on this one. The administrative costs that are so commonly quoted are however, very misleading. Government statistics do not include any billing since that is done within the taxes (IRS) nor do they provide any customer service. Fraud and abuse policing is one of the reasons medicare is out of control. I think they could afford to spend a few bucks on that, it would be money well spent.

We can agree that no company would expand without good reason. Only the government does that. Our only disagreement on this is the temporary nature of the jobs created.

@Jaxk In 2009 contractors mad up 57% of the military force in Afghanistan. I believe that the ratio is almost the same today There are about 150 thousand contractors In Iraq and about 39 thousand soldiers. It is true that the majority of contractors, in Iraq are just supporting the troops like operating mess halls and roughly 7% are “security” forces. Before Blackwater got caught abusing the system, they outnumbered the military without falling under military protocols. They committed most of the real war crimes. Now Blackwater has bases all over the world and several in the U.S. with equipment, at least comparable to the military. They were sent into New Orleans because the Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq. That’s why I hate mercenaries. We have a long history of having to fight them especially in the revolutionary war.

I didn’t say that the government should run the railroads but that they facilitated the building of the transcontinental system. Of course it was also government policy that subverted them in favor of the trucking industry. I never claimed that the government was perfect.

Medicare fraud has always been a problem. Even with that, overhead was never more than 10%. Medicare uses private contractors to do the billing, I know because I paid my father’s medical bills. Fortunately he had good insurance from his Steelworkers pension, something that no longer exists for young steel workers. Even though they are in a union, they understood that they would have to give up some benefits to keep the remaining industry in this country.

My real bitch is that the anti-union propaganda and “right to work states” facilitated our race to the bottom. That is what really bothers me. Now we have states competing in give aways to profitable industries while the workers wages drop lower and lower. Sure, some industries are moving back to this country but it is because we are winning the race to the bottom and labor costs here are comparable to operating costs in third world countries. That does not make me proud of our country. Wow, we’re winning the race to the bottom!!

@Ron_C

We’ll never agree on unions but I’ll leave you with this thought. It wasn’t the unions that broke the steel industry and it wasn’t the companies either. It was the regulation that killed it.

@Jaxk I grew up in a steel town. The steel mills were making bucket loads of money and the unions were greedy and stupid. The steel mills had terrible leadership and followed no regulations at all. Towns were covered with iron ore released from mistakes loading the furnaces. The rivers were sewer lines filled with acids and chemical waste. If you fell or jumped into the river you came out orange and infected.

Yes regulations were initiated to clean up the mess but the steel workers, factory leaders and trade policies were more responsible for the demise than regulations (long neglected regulations), I have experienced it directly and have seen what it does to towns in the U.S., U.K., and in India. The only reason the mills survive in their original form in third world countries is very cheap labor, no regulation, no concern for the area surrounding the mills. You cannot blame the loss of the steel industry on any one thing except the failure of leadership in management and unions, they were both stubborn, stupid, greedy, and lazy. I know because I lived with both sides and the consequences.

@Jaxk – Increasing taxes is one useful and necessary element of dealing with the debt problem of countries. But there are other important elements as well such as reducing spending without seriously hurting people who are already in dire situations. Not increasing taxes now means taxing our grandchildren i.e. future adults inheriting the problem from us. It could happen indirectly via inflation as well.

@mattbrowne

Here’s where I think we differ. You don’t think that raising taxes will hurt the economy and I think it will. So from my perspective raising tax rates will cost us jobs so the increased rate will come from a smaller base. I don’t know if you subscribe to the democrats theory that the only way to stimulate the economy is through spending but I definitely disagree. The best way to stimulate the economy is to get taxpayers and businesses to spend their own money. Hopefully create programs where they actually have more of thier own money to spend.

Refinancing mortgages is one way. It costs the government nothing, puts more money in the hands of homeowners and creates more tax revenue. Opening the federal lands for oil is another, and it requires no government spending (hell opening the drilling for oil may very well solve the problem all by itself). It creates jobs (a lot) , lowers the price of gas (increasing expendable income for everybody) and creates more government revenue. Repatriating the off shore profits is another. It costs the government nothing and actually provides tax revenue on money that would otherwise be lost. By repatriating this money we make it more likely to be invested here rather than overseas. If we don’t it will more likely be invested overseas. Seems like an easy one to me but many are worried that someone may make money so they don’t like it. Suspending some of the more onerous, costly and useless regulation would be another. Hell the EPA has shut off the water to California’s central valley for two years now. this man-made drought has created unemployment in some of these communities of greater than 50% and forced us to import fruits and vegetables from Mexico. Not to mention the permanent destruction of some of the farms. Hell nobody wins in that one.

There are lots of ways to get money flowing without government spending. We need to pursue those. Tax hikes will only slow down any potential for growth. I think we both agree that economic growth is the only way out of this mess. We simply disagree on what will and won’t make that happen.

@Jaxk “The best way to stimulate the economy is to get taxpayers and businesses to spend their own money. Hopefully create programs where they actually have more of thier own money to spend.” That’s what I have been saying all along.

What kind of programs will stimulate this sort of spending. I suggested big infrastructure projects.. What are your suggestions?

@Ron_C

This was my response to virtually the same question on another thread.

“International corporations earn profits overseas which they pay taxes on overseas. If they then return that money to the corporate headquarters here in the states they pay additional taxes here. So rather than bring the money home, they leave it in foriegn banks and use it for expansion in their overseas business. Many would like to bring it home but the tax penalty is just too great to make it worth their while. As long as it never returns to the US we have no control or ability to tax it. A tax rate of say 5% would bring that money (at least most of it) back into the US, generating both tax revenue and stimulative spending. A quick article about this is here. The total amount is estimated between $1 -$3 trillion (depends on who is doing the estimate).

I’ve presented a number of ideas over the past month that would create expendable income yet not cost the government any money. In most cases would generate additional tax revenue as well. Opening up our own drilling for oil is an obvious one. I know environmentalists are against it but we are encouraging others to do the drilling and sending our resources overseas to feed their economies instead of ours. We’re talking about millions of jobs over the next few years and substantial new revenues for the government. Not to mention the injection of money into our economy and more expendable income for everyone as the price of gasoline declines.

We currently have interest rates in the 4% range for home loans. Normally when interest rates decline there is a flood of refinancing. We haven’t seen that because too many are underwater on their home loans. No equity, no refinance. If the government brought pressure to bear on the banks to refinance existing mortgages at the prevailing rate, we could add an incredible amount of expendable income to those homeowners. If you’ve been making payments at the higher rates, your likely to make the payments at the lower rate so I see little risk. The banks would still be able to charge their refinance charges so they don’t really lose anything. And the lower interest payments reduce the interest deduction on your home so tax revenue actually increases. No cost to the government.

Another idea I’ve been toying with, is to allow people to use their 401K to buy a house. No penalty and no tax on that withdrawal. Whether you believe the housing market is a good investment right now or not, it is certainly as safe as the stock market which is where most 401’s are invested. It would provide the down payment for a home which currently is a major stumbling block to middle America in buying a house and would have no immediate cost. Some degradation of future tax revenues might be realized but I don’t think it would be significant. And it would provide a significant injection of cash into the industry most affect by the recession, the housing industry.

Of course a reduction in regulation would be a great boon as well since no regulation is free. That’s not to say don’t regulate anyone but rather just do the cost analysis that should be done anyway and if it can wait, then wait.

You may not agree with me on some or all of these proposals, but that is what I am referring to when I say no cost but getting the private markets to invest rather than the government. I think there is significant opportunity for injection of cash while controlling spending and increasing revenues. You may disagree or see other opportunities. I think the future could still be bright, but we need to tap our collective intelligence to make it so.”

hmmm, this looks familiar…

@cockswain

The fact that you recognise it warms my heart :)

@Jaxk – Of course raising taxes will hurt the economy, because people have less money to spend. But not raising taxes will hurt the economy dozens of times more seriously especially mid term with the debt situation getting totally out of hand.

@mattbrowne

We’ve raised spending by 30% over the past 3 years. Now you say we must raised taxes to cover that. I simply disagree. If we held the line on government spending, if we didn’t cut the budget by 1 dime we would emerge from this debt crisis. It is the continued growth of this spending that is killing us. Hell even if we held the growth to 1 or 2% we come out just fine. But the planned 8%/yr growth in spending is too much for us handle.

@Jaxk the money paid is taxes for foreign governments is fully tax deductible here. A company might have to pay the difference if U.S. taxes are higher but that is unlikely because of all the other deductions that are available. That does not, however cover the Caribbean Island tax hiding havens. Personally, I would make them Illegal for companies doing business in the U.S.

As for the oil drilling, I don’t have too much problem with that except that the companies also want to limit or eliminate regulations for safety. We have a similar problem in PA. We have a lot of out of state companies that want to drill here but a Republican governor that wants to give it away without extraction taxes. I think that is obscene.

The bankers should have been forced to renegotiate home loans BEFORE they got the bail out money. Congress hasn’t even addressed the regulation of derivatives and no banker has gone to jail for operating a PONZI scheme and no rating agencies have been punished either. I think putting a bunch of these guys on trial would go a long way to cleaning up the banking industry. We cannot depend on Congress, the Attorney Gen. is an insider to say nothing about Obama’s Sec. of Treasury or other financial advisors. I don’t have much hope for the present congress doing anything.

Generally, I like most of your ideas but don’t see a way to get ANY reform legislation passed. I doubt that they will even pass a budge this year. All of Congress should be up for election, not just half. Republicans are Tea Party hostages, and the Democrats have no balls or are bought and paid for just like the Republicans. It is disgusting.

@Ron_C

Yes the foriegn taxes are deductible but since we have the highest corporate tax rate, they can’t bring it home without paying (in most cases) significantly more taxes. The latest suggestion has been that they bring the money home with no additional tax but 25% of the money must be used for either new jobs or capital investment (plant and equipment). I could be swayed to go that way as well.

The loan renegotiation that was done was to lower the outstanding balance. No bank wants to do that so they resisted with every trick they had. Frankly I don’t blame them. If they are only changing the rate (not the loan balance) they don’t lose money and actually make money off the refinancing fees. Much less difficult to push through, and no cost to the government. As far as putting a bunch of people in jail, I’ll let you push that, I don’t see it as very productive.

I don’t know how you say nothing can be done since there have been several proposals that have gone through the house including a budget. Democrats and Obama specifically just won’t allow anything that isn’t either a tax increase or a spending proposal. They are fixated on that. Even the revenue increase ($800 billion) agreed to by Beohner was unacceptable to Obama just because it did not include a rate hike. Hell even today, in the midst of the market crash and after the credit downgrade, the only things he suggested were additional spending (extend unemployment, infrastructure spending, and payroll tax cuts). Was he not listening to anyone? Is he unaware of the debt problem? Yes he will have trouble pushing additional spending and rate hikes through the House. As well he should.

The “effective corporate rate” is below 25% Exon paid 0%. The bigger the company the greater the deductions and subsidies. My company is a type S corporation with tax rates similar to personal income tax. A flat rate with no special subsidies for big business would go a long way to help our business. Regardless of the tax rate, we will not hire more people until we have more customer orders.

Putting the corporate CEO’s and CFO’s would show these big wheels that there are consequences to their actions. Right now the consequences for the massive fraud is an additional bonus worth millions. Yeah, that’ll teach them a lesson!

Obama proposed a very unpopular plan to cut 4 trillion off the budget but was shot down because there were some minor increases for the top percentage of beneficiaries of the Bush tax scam.

How can you negotiate with a group of people whose goals are to ruin the president and consider getting rid of subsidies to the biggest corporations as a tax INCREASE? There is no reasoning with them.

@Jaxk As you know, I am not a great fan of high corporate tax rates. The bills get passed on to consumers, and the burden makes it tough for small US companies that can take advantage of all the multinational loopholes to compete on a world stage. But corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP has been steadily falling since the 1950s. The curve has its spikes and valleys but its trend has been steadily down. It’s fallen from 6% in 1950 to about 1% of GDP today.

About ⅔rds of all US corporations pay no taxes. Corporations are sitting on $2.5 trillion in cash right now. The Greedy Oligarch Party argument that we need to transfer even more of the wealth of the American consumers who can’t spend to corporate jet setter plutocrats to create jobs is as absurd and obvious a self serving Big Lie as anything Hitler conceived in his quest for world domination. It’s downright fascist in its direction. The new GOP (Greedy Oligarch Party) is tirelessly working to merge corporate power with the state for the betterment the pl;plutocrats in of both.

Benito Mussolini defined the policy direction perfectly when he said, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

@ETpro

Good data. I am having some trouble aligning it with your points however. On your corporate taxes graph, it is quite obvious that tax revenues declined from 1950 until 1983. But after the Reagan tax cuts they climbed from 1% to 2 % until the recession of 2000 where they fell again. Then they climbed back rather sharply from 2003 until the current recession and dropped again. It would appear that rather than bending the curve down the tax cuts actually bend it up. More likely it is the recovery that bent it up but the tax cuts certainly aren’t responsible for decline.

Your statistics on corporations not paying taxes is quite interesting as well. Since they choose a period from 1998 to 2005, it is hard to blame the tax rate on this problem. In fact, it should be easy to see that if you paid no tax at the 35% rate, you would likely pay no tax at the 40% rate. The rate simply doesn’t address this problem. The $800 billion that Beohner offered was directly to plug the loopholes. It was to address this problem which is why I still think Obama should have gone for it. He wouldn’t simply because it didn’t raise the rate. Raising the rate is his prime concern and as your data shows won’t affect the problem.

I think the transfer pricing mentioned in your article is a good point. Transfer pricing is incredibly difficult to control and easily manipulated by corporations to shift their profits. It is a loophole that should be addressed but honestly I’m not sure how to resolve it. It will need some clearly thought out rules and I haven’t seen congress think anything through clearly. Nonetheless, a good hole to go after.

@ETpro

I should also mention that if our corporate tax rate was competitive, the corporations would have no incentive to manipulate the transfer pricing and if our rates were lower they would be incented to manipulate them the other way. In other words show the profit here as opposed to over seas.

@Jaxk The tax rate is not the problem with revenues generated. It’s too high, and should be lowered. But it should apply equally to all corporations that earn at a certain rate. GE and Exxon-Mobil shouldn’t go tax free while topping the profit charts while I have to pay 25%. That’s not fair, and it isn’t helping the small businesses that generate most new jobs grow andn get people back to work.

@ETpro and @Jaxk when you look at tax rates for the rich and poor and big corporations and small business the tax disparity is outrageous. It is conceivable for a rich person, living on dividends will only pay the capital gains maximum range of 15% and if they live is a state with income tax, they’ll pay no income tax. Additionally they don’t even have to pay social security taxes because they are only on wages. Compare that with a middle class person with a good job or a small business incorporated as an S Corp. They could pay up to 46% of their income in taxes including state, federal, social security, and medicare.

I agree that investments should be encouraged but how can you justify a 15% to 46% disparity? Or a zero net tax for corporations like Exxon and G.E. We need some sort of rational system to get the people that live off their inheritance, run hedge funds and fewer loopholes for large international corporations to jump through. The main reason the funds aren’t repatriated is that many corporations like the former Black Hawk and other disreputable corporations don’t want the people of the U,S, to know what they are up to. For instance, a lot of overhead in Africa and the Middle East is for “gifts” to the local warlords. I would bet that many of the investors would pull out if they found out where their money was spent.

@Ron_C

I understand your points. But it is seldom as simple as it seems. Dividends for example are already taxed. The corporation pays tax on profits and the dividends are paid from profits already taxed. How many times can you tax the same profit? Also if you own an S Corp you’re not paying SS or medicare on your profits. You’re also not accruing any benefits.

If I have a billion dollars, I can invest in tax free bonds and create an income of $40 million/yr and pay no state or federal tax on that income. It seems unfair. Yet if I eliminate this ‘Loophole’ cities and states will pay a much higher interest rate on their bonds and everyone’s taxes will go up. It provides a tax shelter for the rich but serves a public good as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The capital gains rates work much the same way. It is an attempt by the government to get much needed investment into the economy. As the rate goes up, investors will shift to safer investments. It is the allure of low tax that encourages them to take a chance with thier money.

This is not to say there aren’t real loopholes in the tax code. I recently discovered that futures trading can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate. Futures by definition are short term. And futures trading is the darling of the hedge fund investor. I wonder why. There are a number of other holes that need to be plugged that I’m aware of and I’m not a tax lawyer. I would agree that we need to plug those holes but not all tax breaks are loopholes.

I would disagree on the reason funds are not repatriated. If you’ve made a billion overseas and paid little or no tax on it. repatriating that money could cost up to 35% or $350 million. Why bring it here unless it is absolutely necessary. Nothing unethical about that, it’s simply the smart way to handle it. And few investors, give a shit about how the money is spent as long as they’re earning a profit.

@Jaxk Actually, it is as simple as it seems. The share of the total tax burden paid by the rich has plummeted in the past 30 years. That paid by those below has not. The disparity in both wealth and income has steadily widened, and if it keeps on, we will eventually reach third world status.

The typical college graduate with a decent mid-level job will earn about $2.4 million dollars in a lifetime and pay a total tax burden averaging around 35% of of income. The top hedge fund manager on Wall Street earns $2.4 million an hour and pays a total tax around 17% of his earnings. How can you claim that is fair and promotes the common good? I can reach no other conclusion than that increasing income and wealth disparity is what you and other Republican leaders want. It truly has becooe that party of the rich,m and the policies are hurting America to the point some very rich people are beginning to say it’s time to change course. What’s being done isn’t good for business.

@Jaxk what ETpro said is what many of us have been saying all along. The disparity between the richest and poorest is at least the level reached before the last depression. Besides the relative unfairness of the situation, this disparity will eventually cause some sort of revolution. It will either be an uprising started by the diminishing middle class or a complete break-down in civil society where both remaining classes suffer. If you want to call progressive taxation income redistribution and socialist, go ahead. Regardless, we can not remain a democracy with the rich causing the bills to build up and expecting the poor to pay for them.

This is not a matter of the poor not wanting to work, it is a result of the poor not being able to find a job, period.

Without jobs, the economy cannot sustain the present level of civilization. Every depression we have ever had was the result of loosening regulations and the accumulation of wealth at the top of society. Not all poor are worthless drones and not all rich are “job creators”.

@Ron_C

I’m struggling a bit with some of your concepts. The federal government is supported primarily by income taxes. The poor pay no income tax. In fact the poor rather than paying actually receive money from the federal government in the way of food stamps or welfare, or medical care, etc. So when you say the rich cause the bills to build up and the poor have to pay them, how does that work. The poor aren’t paying tax but rather receiving subsidies.

So can I assume in you’re scenario, the poor will rise up and demand more subsidies? They can’t rise up and demand lower taxes since they aren’t paying any.

We all want job creation. We’re arguing over the best way to create jobs. It would seem that we’ve tried the government spending route and it didn’t work. In the face of failure, I suggest we try something else. And I would think that a statement like:

“Every depression we have ever had was the result of loosening regulations and the accumulation of wealth at the top of society.”

Should have some back up. I don’t have a problem believing bad regulation plays a part. But in my lifetime there has been no period when the Code of Federal Regulations has shrunk. Even minimally.

Good talking points though.

Here’s an infographic about where the American jobs are these days.

79% of employers cite labor costs as a factor in selecting an outsource destination. 61% cite skilled labor. 49% cite language proficiency. Why in the hell would most of these jobs ever come back? What is so special about Americans compared to Indian or Chinese workers that would make them worth 2 to 10 times more valuable? Particularly if they are skilled enough and bi-lingual?

Want to stay relevant? Get into really high tech. Stay cutting edge.

@Jaxk the poor didn’t collapse the stock market, they didn’t cause the failure of the stock market, neither did they start the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the limited bombing of Libya.

The poor didn’t raid the Social Security fund to give tax breaks the the top 4% and they aren’t willing to crash the world economy to keep tax breaks for the richest Americans.

They do however pay state taxes, sales taxes, and support tax breaks for corporations transferring jobs overseas. They also provide the majority of people that die in wars they didn’t start. They are you gardeners, McDonald’s workers, and hundreds of thousands of them work at Walmart and other big box stores.

What the poor don’t pay for is the money spent to buy legislatures and support the tea party designed to protect big corporations and insurance companies.

Now the right wants them to pay for the privilege. It seems pretty sick and cruel to me.

We are degenerating to a feudal state with the surfs and corporate nobles. Remember the biggest corporations have built in tax and welfare payments from the government. All I want to do is take the rich off of welfare and spread some of the wealth to people that will spend it to help the economy. I suspect that the majority of the poor work much harder and provide better service to the community than any hedge fund operator.

@Ron_C

I understand that you don’t like this country, that’s your right. You seem to be making a lot of assertions that have no basis in reality.

The stock market in case you haven’t noticed, is doing fine.

Social security was designed to be a piggy bank for congress. SS can only invest in Government insured securities (government bonds) which means that it lends money to the government and the government spends that money anyway it likes. It was designed that way back in the thirties.

If you don’t like the military, don’t join. It is a volunteer organization. To be frank, the military is more educated and affluent than the general population. It provides education and training you can’t get anywhere else. But much like being a cop it has dangers. If you don’t like the danger, don’t join.

I can’t even decipher your comment about the Tea Parties, they take nothing from government. Nor can I tell what you mean by the poor paying for the privilege (nor anything else for that matter).

Being poor does not make you a good person nor does being rich make you bad. There is good and bad in every group. Good luck with your class warfare. And socialist utopia.

@Jaxk That may well be the most loathsome post you’ve ever managed. I won’t take it up issue by issue, because I have confidence @Ron_C is quite capable of that. I’d only ask, “Sir, have you no shame?”

Apparently not. Hell, I don’t even know what there is to ashamed about.

@Jaxk I would have answered earlier but I am just recovering from a multi-computer problem.

The reason I write my comments is because I love this country. I remember when the middle-class was the economic engine that moved the country forward. The middle class is making the same (adjusted for inflation) as they did in 1973. The great downturn started with Carter and was exacerbated by Reagan. The remnants of the Republican party are attempting to finish the process and turn this into a third world country with the very rich and the very poor with no one in between.

Sure, the stock market is doing fine but look at who is reaping the profits. It’s not the middle class. Productivity is up but not salaries. All and I mean ALL of the increased profits go to the top 1%. The real job creators are the labor and they are being oppressed in way not seen since the Depression.

I am a 12 year veteran of Navy service. My father was an Army veteran from WWII, both of my daughters served in the military and their husbands are also veterans so don’t tell me that I hate the military. What I hate is the way the military has been used to muscle countries for oil and to distract America from its real problems. I also hate the fact that the military is almost the only way for a young, ambitious person to get ahead. The civilian job market is abysmal so normal school to work and promotion paths have been eliminated.
I also dislike the idea of an all volunteer military. All citizens should spend some time serving the country and the draft is the only fair way to run a military in a democratic country.

I have worked continuously for 50 years and paid social security taxes and have paid medicare taxes since the program began. I need and deserve my social security check. I also deserve the treatment I get from the VA for the PTSD I acquired in Vietnam.

The Tea Party movement is a corporate entity disguised as a citizen’s movement. The senior citizens in the Party wanting the government to stay away from their Social Security and medicare it a gross indication of the idiocy of the movement and shows the deterioration and ignorance promoted by the groups that make up this party of NO.

That’s about all I have to say, I hope my responses are clear.

@Ron_C

OK, I have a few issues with your post. If I look at median wages, they have not been decling since the 70s. In fact they have been decling for the past 5 years. And nowhere near the level of the 70s. In fact during the reagan administration, salaries increased, workforce participation increased and unemployment fell. I’m not sure what your problem is with Reagan but those were the good times and they lasted for 20 years. I would agree with Carter, those were the bad times.

The stock market is up because we have forced it up. Low interest rates and quantitative easing is pumping trillions into the economy and only affecting the stock market. Making your 401K look good but not your income. If you’re a trader or a CEO your income looks better but that is government forcing that, rather than the economy. It’s hard to blame business for what the government is doing.

The only issue I take with your assessment of the militry, is the implication that we are taking anybody’s oil. We’re not. For good or ill, we have an economy based on oil. We need to insure the free flow of or lest we collapse. We could harvest our own oil but the government doesn’t like that so we have to import it. Until we become energy independent we will be at the mercy of oil exporting countries. If we reap own own resources, we could let those guys blow themselves to hell, and it won’t affect us. We have the ability and resources to be enegy independent but not the will. Unfortunate.

I will comment on the draft as well since I don’t see how that would work today. We would have to increase the military dramatically to accomodate everyone serving. We can neither afford that nor do we need it. Would you include women in the draft? That really expands it.

I feel exactly the same as you do about my SS. I paid in and expect to be repaid. The truth however is that I actually oinly paid half, my employer paid the other half. So when we talk about all the poor supporting the government through SS taxes, remember that business contributed half of everything you get. The Tea Parties feel the same way. I’ve never understood the hatred of the Tea Parties nor why they should be such a threat. They merely espouse the values we’ve always had, lower taxes and a government that listens to the little people. Is that really so bad?

@Jaxk

Wages have increased in amount, not value. When you account for inflation, middle class wages, $50k to a little over $100k, do not compensate for increased productivity and inflation. The productivity increase went strictly to the top 10% and the majority of that money went to the top 1%. We are truly entering third world status.

The stock market is up but the number of middle class participating in it has dropped and will probably stay out unless there is an increase in good paying jobs. The present increase in jobs is in the service industry because people have been forced into low paying jobs.

The connection between the use of the military and oil is unassailable.

I take your point that the military would have to be much larger to accommodate a draft. Of course the logical course should be through attrition. Thousands retire or quit the military each year. Drafted individuals should make up at least half of the needed entry level jobs. And yes, I women should defiantly included in the draft!

As for social security, I have been an employee, military, and an employer. I was reluctant to pay double social security for myself until I realized that all of the money would be paid back to me. I also hate the idea of our older citizens eating cat food to stay alive. I really didn’t mind paying part of their social security either.

Social Security, Medicare, and Veteran’s hospitals are amount the most efficient and well run businesses in this country. Overhead is very low, and service is extremely good. We would have a much better country is we could streamline medical service into a single payer system. By the way, I am speaking from experience because I have needed all three.

The tea party is a lobbying group by and for big business. I have talked to a number of their members and was surprised by the lack of understanding for the opinions they hold. The Tea Party is a group of organizations began by big business and supported by the ignorant, with an anti-intellectual and anti-science agenda whose goal is to turn this country into a feudal state.

The “little people” to which you refer are the ignorant lead by lobbyists that are actually working to eliminate all of the protections the “little people” now enjoy. They are anti-union, anti-taxation for large business and support laws that actually pay for companies to move overseas. They use issues like abortion and gun control to rally their troops and bend the group-think toward their real issues which are deregulation of industry and finance and the elimination of environmental laws which reduce their profits. They even support the new situation where corporations have the rights of actual humans regardless of the fact that they don’t die, and you can’t sentence them to death or even jail.

So where does that leave us? The Tea Parties are right-wing reactionaries that have the potential to destroy the government similar to the brown-shirted bullies in prewar Germany.
They are instigated and supported by people that have so much money that their only interest is power. Their power grab is supported by improperly taxed money and a proletariat that has no understanding of the actual goals of the organization.

Your explanation sounds good, ” lower taxes and a government that listens to the little people” but did you really look at their leaders proposals? The actually wanted to reduce the tax of the people at the top and extend taxes down so that the poor pay taxes on their meager earnings. They want to build a pipe line to pump dirty, abrasive tar sands across the entire country. They want to eliminate environmental and financial standards. Nothing in their agenda will help the poor or middle class, in fact, it increases their financial and environmental burdens. I feel sorry for people duped into supporting the tea parties and worry that the rest of us will survive.

@Ron_C

Actually wages have increased since the 70s and have fallen over the past 5 years. That’s why I gave you the numbers in ‘Constant Dollars’. Saying it ain’t so, doesn’t change anything.

Calling the Tea parties stupid or ignorant doesn’t change anything either. We are in a recession or at such low growth that it may as well be. The only way out is economic growth. You can tax all the money the rich make and it still won’t cover the deficit. And you want to dramatically increase the size of the military to boot. We have about 4 million people turning 18 every year. With a minimal term of 2 years service, that means we would have to have at least 8 million in uniform plus those that stay longer. Conservatively about 10 million. Currently we have 1.4 million and enough volunteers to cover attrition. How big do you want the defense budget to grow? Hell, we can’t afford it now.

Your view of the Tea Parties is so far out of whack, there is little point in debating it. It’s like trying to convince a kid there is no monster in the closet.