Republicans value the rich more than jobless Americans

[IchabodPlain]

Why is economic growth considered a good thing?

Because it reduces poverty, allows for longer lifespans, and a higher quality of life.

Does it have limits or do we just keep growing until we've made the planet uninhabitable?

Depends on the growth. Growth through efficiency is endless (100% efficiency is not possible). Besides, we're a looong ways off being anywhere near some elaborate doomsday you have imagined.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The unemployed would be paying people to work and create wealth. So again, what's the problem? And because of current economic situation, the money the unemployed get is money that comes from otherwise idle funds that are not being used to pay for creative work.

No.

The money comes from employed people who have earned it by participating in the creation of wealth, and who, if it wasn't taken from them in taxes, would have it to to spend themselves.

 

[theprestige]

...the money the unemployed get is money that comes from otherwise idle funds that are not being used to pay for creative work.

No, it isn't. The Federal budget is running a deficit in the trillions of dollars.

All the available money has already been spent. None of it is sitting around in "idle funds".

 

[eeyore1954]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101118/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_jobs

Hmm..it appears that the GOP is willing to increase the deficit, by insisting on tax cuts for the rich, but refuses to increase the deficit by extending unemployment benefits for millions of lower and middle-class Americans.

How's this work again?

If either the democrats and the republicans were that interested in the unemployed they are working today. They have just returned from some time off.

House Democratic leaders said they would take up the measure again but Congress has little time before the benefits expire on November 30. Lawmakers are expected to leave Washington next week for the Thanksgiving holiday and the Senate has not scheduled a vote.

 

[3point14]

Conservatives simply don't see how a person's bank statement is in any way indicative of that person's character.

(Quote heavily edited)

I just have to pick up on this. I thought this was the whole basis of conservative thought on the matter. That one's bank balance directly reflects how hard working, dedicated and innovative one is, therefore justifying the rewards of the rich and the troubles of the poor. I thought this was a very right wing, capitalist premise?

Am I mistaken? I frequently am.

 

[novice skeptic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101118/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_jobs

Hmm..it appears that the GOP is willing to increase the deficit, by insisting on tax cuts for the rich, but refuses to increase the deficit by extending unemployment benefits for millions of lower and middle-class Americans.

How's this work again?

Republicans aren't proposing tax cuts for the rich. Accuracy fail.

 

[Magyar]

Republicans aren't proposing tax cuts for the rich. Accuracy fail.

maybe in the fantasy land YOu live inthey aren't but here in the REAL world.
Republicans ARE very much pushing for tax cuts for the rich! to the tune of 360billion for the top 2 percent AND that's when fewer rich people control MORE wealth than at any time in history.


Oh and don't even give me the limbough meme about hard work and wealth creation, cause the only people that ACTUALLY believe that none sense are tea bagging morons.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101118/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_jobs

Hmm..it appears that the GOP is willing to increase the deficit, by insisting on tax cuts for the rich, but refuses to increase the deficit by extending unemployment benefits for millions of lower and middle-class Americans.

How's this work again?

Since I'm closer to be rich than I am to being unemployed, I favor this.

 

[Beerina]

Can you show who would be working less due to the transfer?

This would require an analysis of the taxes used to pay for it and their drag on the economy, offset by the hypothesized benefits of increased spending.

You, sir, must believe the latter number is the larger, lest it cause harm rather than benefit.

 

[novice skeptic]

maybe in the fantasy land YOu live inthey aren't but here in the REAL world.
Republicans ARE very much pushing for tax cuts for the rich! to the tune of 360billion for the top 2 percent AND that's when fewer rich people control MORE wealth than at any time in history.


Oh and don't even give me the limbough meme about hard work and wealth creation, cause the only people that ACTUALLY believe that none sense are tea bagging morons.

Republicans are not looking to CUT taxes. They are looking to keep the current rates. Your mock righteous indignation is entertaining and all, but again, your statements are inaccurate.

 

[Magyar]

Republicans are not looking to CUT taxes. They are looking to keep the current rates. Your mock righteous indignation is entertaining and all, but again, your statements are inaccurate.

RIGHT - the shrub tax cuts were sold as TEMPORARY - but now they want to make it PERMINENT! In addition the rich are getting the same tax cuts as everyone else on income up to 250K but that's not enough for them, They want the SECOND tax cut for above 250K.


Where is that not an extra tax cut above every one else and where is making it PERMINENT not looking for a tax cut.

Bush Tax Cuts Were Meant to Be Temporary: Because They Were About Returning the Clinton Surplus

At the time President Bush and the GOP Congress enacted massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, in 2001 and 2004, the argument they used was that the government should not have a surplus but should instead give the money back to taxpayers. Every analysis showed that it was not sustainable to keep rates that low for the rich, or the nation faced a sea of red ink a million miles long.

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-tax-cuts-were-meant-to-be.html



Bold part mine - So EVEN BACK in 2001 the repugnicans KNEW that we were heading for a deficit crisis they are whaling about now pretending that it's the Dems fault and using their tea bagger tools to shriek about it.
So while your pretence at accuracy is entertaining, the fact bear you out to be the typical delusional or lying right wing sock puppet.

 

[eeyore1954]

RIGHT - the shrub tax cuts were sold as TEMPORARY - but now they want to make it PERMINENT! In addition the rich are getting the same tax cuts as everyone else on income up to 250K but that's not enough for them, They want the SECOND tax cut for above 250K.


Where is that not an extra tax cut above every one else and where is making it PERMINENT not looking for a tax cut.


http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-tax-cuts-were-meant-to-be.html



Bold part mine - So EVEN BACK in 2001 the repugnicans KNEW that we were heading for a deficit crisis they are whaling about now pretending that it's the Dems fault and using their tea bagger tools to shriek about it.
So while your pretence at accuracy is entertaining, the fact bear you out to be the typical delusional or lying right wing sock puppet.

Do you have something other than a blog post from the faithfulprogressive showing the "repugnicans" knew we were heading for a deficit crisis.

Why are you so hateful of people with other views than you? (schrub, repugnicans, tea bagger, lying right wing sock puppet )

In my opinion if I had been paying a tax rate for 8 years and now it was raising I would view it as an increase and I suspect you would to if it was your money.

 

[JihadJane]

Because it reduces poverty, allows for longer lifespans, and a higher quality of life.

While using up the planet's capital.

Depends on the growth. Growth through efficiency is endless (100% efficiency is not possible).

Infinite growth? Sounds great, though there are diminishing returns from efficiency.

Greater efficiency hasn't led to a reduction in energy consumption.

Besides, we're a looong ways off being anywhere near some elaborate doomsday you have imagined.

That's a very convincing argument.

 

[deepatrax]

The Democrats have 3 problems on this issue, which is why they will fail:

1) they define "rich" as individuals making $200K and couples making $250K...sorry, but that ain't rich. You may be doing well (depending on where you live) but your are certainly not rich and you're not part of the "Millionaires and Billionares" that the Dems keep talking about.

2) MOST Americans aspire to make $ and be successful and the Democrats seem to be the party that wants to punish success and claim you're not doing your fair share when you finally succeed.

3) The Republicans just won the House and will take control in January

 

[leftysergeant]

Increasing unemployment benefits doesn't lead to increased economic growth (in fact, it does the opposite) whereas cuts to marginal tax rates do increase economic growth.

I personally think that the drag of our sovereign debt on the economy is greater than the potential growth we would gain with the tax cuts, but I've seen compelling arguments both ways.

So we need to adopt a program of austerity and sacrifice. Those who have made out like bandits from piddle-down ecconomics can make the first sacrifices, since they are not going to starve or freeze to death any time soon. Let the rich pay off the sovereign debt and feed the hungry so that small businesses do not go belly-up while waiting for the investor class to get over their serious attack of capituts in ano.

 

[leftysergeant]

1) they define "rich" as individuals making $200K and couples making $250K...sorry, but that ain't rich. You may be doing well (depending on where you live) but your are certainly not rich and you're not part of the "Millionaires and Billionares" that the Dems keep talking about.

Well, DUH! But they are better able to pay taxes than the former industrial worker who is now a greeter at MaoMart. You do realize, don't you, that we have a graduated income tax, so that the greatest increases will be on the actually wealthy, especially if the inheritance tax comes back and the cap gains tax is set at the same rate as earned incomes.

2) MOST Americans aspire to make $ and be successful and the Democrats seem to be the party that wants to punish success and claim you're not doing your fair share when you finally succeed.

Snivelling again. The rich are not paying their fair share now and are deliberately screwing up the industrial base because working people are unwilling to operate at a loss.

 

[deepatrax]

The rich are not paying their fair share now and are deliberately screwing up the industrial base because working people are unwilling to operate at a loss.

I refer you back to #1

1) Democrats define "rich" as individuals making $200K and couples making $250K...sorry, but that ain't rich.

 

[leftysergeant]

I refer you back to #1

1) Democrats define "rich" as individuals making $200K and couples making $250K...sorry, but that ain't rich.

Well, DUH! It's middle class, and they can bear a slight increase in income taxes. Above $1 million, they can afford a more serious increase. Over $1 billion, whomp 'em good. Those people are often among the fools who screwed us.

 

[deepatrax]

Well, DUH! It's middle class, and they can bear a slight increase in income taxes. Above $1 million, they can afford a more serious increase. Over $1 billion, whomp 'em good. Those people are often among the fools who screwed us.

I think you're missing my point...

I agree that the richer you are, the more you could afford to pay, and in fact, in our system, you DO pay more already.

My argument is that the Democrats are describing EVERYONE who makes over 250k as "rich"...and in the same breath, they claim they are "Millionaires and Billionaires."

they are wrong on both counts...and that is why they will have to compromise here.

If they started the debate with "if you make over $1 million a year", then they may have a point...but they didn't and now they WILL be forced to compromise. book it.

 

[Thunder]

I should have included "foreign wars" in the OP.

The GOP values foreign wars & the rich, more than jobless Americans.

We can increase the deficit to pay for foreign wars and to give tax cuts for the rich, but not to extend jobless benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

But thats ok, cause if the GOP actually kills the extension, Obama will sign an executive order extending them anyways.

Obama will look like Santa Claus..while the GOP will look like Pontius Pilate.