Opinion: Can Americans Really Afford 4 More Years of Entitlements? Former Liberal Says Loyalties of the Poor are Misguided

Opinion: Can Americans Really Afford 4 More Years of Entitlements? Former Liberal Says Loyalties of the Poor are Misguided

(BB&W is fully aware that this post is bound to piss some people off. But we feel this is a good cataslyst to bring about some discussion on this topic as our government wrings it’s hands over the Fiscal Cliff situation.)

Author : ** Guest Author **

Author's Website | Articles from

(BB&W is fully aware that this post is bound to piss some people off. But we feel this is a good cataslyst to bring about some discussion on this topic as our government wrings it’s hands over the Fiscal Cliff situation.)

By: Virgil Brannon

With young mothers being showered with expensive poverty and bouquets of dependency; when too many males are making more babies and not raising them; when a large percentage of our youth are graduating from high school not prepared for college, and when the doors of the unemployment office are open, but no one is willing to hire, how can we afford four more years of entitlements?

How can this government raise taxes on the rich — the ones who create jobs? This will stop businesses from growing and expanding. If you raise their taxes, the community programs they support – the Little League teams and the civic projects — will suffer. Students who have put in hard work to get to college, who rely on business-funded college scholarships, may not be able to go. If these businesses fail to produce jobs, more people will fall into poverty and the need for entitlements will prevail.

When you raise taxes on businesses and the rich, you prevent companies from hiring new faces, and force them to turn away the old ones. With no jobs and no recognizable alternative presented by this administration, how can Americans become self-sufficient? As long as the Democratic Party is buying the votes of the economically poor households with free money, poverty will become the new norm because the party is using entitlements to sway votes.

How can America survive if she refuses to stand with her founders on what has always made her great? America is the super power of the world, but now it has been downgraded by entitlements to maintain a status quo? There are Americans struggling to make ends meet; they are struggling to put food on the table. With no focus on any solutions, how can there be any progress? The quick way out of poverty is a job and education. A job gets you out of poverty, and education elevates you to the next level. But how can people remove themselves from poverty when the Democratic Party’s system has been a failure from the start? What is so hard about showing those who think they cannot make it without entitlements that they can? What is so hard about showing them the long-term effects and consequences that Food Stamps and Welfare have on a them, and what is so hard about showing those who do not need entitlements the right way to stand on their own, without taking from others who are really in need? I know that most Americans would rather have a hand up than a hand-out.

When you make people believe they cannot achieve anything; make their goals become impossible to reach; and train them to believe that nothing is possible for them, failure thrives.  This leadership would rather we have less, settles for less, and be satisfied with receiving less. Struggling families and single parents who have just a little are not thinking that entitlements will kill their dreams, progress and growth while creating laziness. A young male without money or knowledge turns to crime and tries to take all that he lacks.

We have to show those who do not believe that they have a purpose; that there is something special about each of us in America and that there are plenty of opportunities for them to succeed. They need to know that America is the greatest country in the world, built on the belief that man can do anything and be anything, as long as he is willing to acquire the knowledge to put ideas into action. There is nothing that we cannot do when our minds are focused. We are all human beings, born for greatness, created by the greatest Scientist and Creator of the universe to be the most important species on this planet. We are the only species that has so many unique capabilities and talents. We have the ability to change things to make them better, and we can accomplish anything  because there  is  really  nothing  holding  us back.

But with 46 million people and rising still on food stamps and without hope and 60 million American votes without knowledge, when will the rest of us receive any Change? Either way, America cannot afford four new years of Entitlement while our neighbors suffer from choice in the Democratic Coma.

About Virgil Brannon

Virgil Brannon is the author of “Democratic Coma,” www.democraticcoma.com. He is also a private investigator and the founder of I Am Vision Inc., a non-profit program that embraces and empowers youth with academic and leadership challenges. His goal is to promote the personal growth of socio-economically disadvantaged youth and their families by encouraging their dreams and providing members with a roadmap for success. Brannon attended Shepherd’s Care Bible College and received his master’s and doctoral degrees in ministry religious counseling.

Be Sociable! Share!
Pinterest


Related Posts


Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
amiar10 362 pts

"When you raise taxes on businesses and the rich, you prevent companies from hiring new faces, and force them to turn away the old ones."

 

....no. The only thing preventing corporations and many of the rich from hiring and paying more is THEM and their greed. I don't see these executives putting their own salaries on the chopping block. If anything, they panic and start hoarding more money. Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. It's proven it doesn't work! Reagan butchered antitrust law, Bush gave the 1% tax cuts, all in the name of letting the wealth and freed-up money "trickle down". And you know what the beneficiaries of these policies did? They pocketed it! Trickle down would work if the wealth were actually distributed afterwards, but we've seen what financial stimulus for fat cats does...they give it out as bonuses...TO THEMSELVES. They're human beings, with a lot of power. Financial power. Political power. Too much power. Expecting all of them to play nice and share is simply laughable.

 

kiki100 630 pts

Just a note. Every president in recent history has allowed entitlements. Poverty was around before the current president. This article read as though the president started welfare and entitlements. He did not. I agree with the idea that too much taxes on large business may decrease the support they give the community. But the notion that our debt comes from entitlement programs?....untrue.

starzzzy 475 pts

I have a lot of opinions on this issue. However at the end of the day everyone else has their opinions as well. All I will say is this: I wonder if the stereotype of those who receive these entitlements was not of minority people how would that change how we discuss this issue? Of course this delves into my sociological side.

FriendsofJay 1973 pts

Here is one of the commentaries I wrote for my local newspaper on the subject of reform.  This particular one was published only two weeks before the the 2012 election.  This should explain my position.

 

                                                                The New Political Dictionary

 

Language is used many times to define and explain.  Other times it's used to conceal.  It goes beyond calling a secretary an "executive assistant" or a plumber a "sanitary engineer."  Many times politics and the language of concealment go hand in hand.  

 

For instance, when I was a kid, if someone had a great deal of money we called him rich.  Today he's a "job creator."  And if we tax these "job creators" we're "punishing success."  However, one might ask where these "job creators" have been for the last four years.

 

No politician would ever think of cutting Social Security or Medicare.  The new term is to "strengthen" these programs by reducing benefits for the next generation.  Messrs. Romney and Ryan aren't suggesting switching Medicare to a voucher system.  They're instead going to give you "premium support."   When you pay your car insurance, the payment is called the "premium."  That's all the word "premium" means in this sense, but doesn't "premium support" sound like the government is going to give you a large sum of money to pay for health insurance?

 

Then there's the term "small business."  Now, I'm sure you're thinking a small business is the "Mom and Pop" store at the corner of the street that employs three or four family members.   Well, the Small Business Association defines a "small business" manufacturer as having as many as 500 to 1500 employees and can make as much as $21 million dollars a year, depending on what product that manufacturer makes.  So when a politician says he doesn't want to raise taxes on small businesses he's saying something much different from what you're thinking. 

 

Again, on taxes, we don't want to leave huge debt to our grandchildren, so we're going to cut taxes again and again until we reach that new golden age.  But how are the bills going to be paid and how is government going to function with such low amounts of revenue?

 

 

But "carried Interest" is my favorite political subterfuge.  Hedge fund manager, and other investors, are paid in part with a management fee, and in part with a share of the profits.  These profits are not considered income!  Instead they are only subject to 15% capital gains tax.   If this had been considered ordinary income, the manager would have to pay 35% instead of the 15% capital gains rate.  That's why Mr. Romney's income tax was only 13% last year even though he made millions.  As you can see, the term "carried interest," which bears little relationship to its name, is a pretty sweet deal for people in certain occupations.  In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit I also pay capital gains on some of my investments. Mr. Romney also plans to do away with the capital gains tax completely which would allow him, me,  and others to effectively pay less than 1% in taxes------while the middle class bears the burden of paying for all of government, especially the military budget.  You can probably see why it really pays to make large campaign contributions to politicians.  Those politicians are highly motivated to pass laws that favor large contributors on the hope of getting more large contributions.   In this brave new political world it is no longer divide and conquer.  Its confuse and conquer.

Lilith_Eve 61 pts

I always feel very strange whenver these entitlement conversations come up.  For the first time in a long time I am unable to completely take care of myself.  I've now been in end stage renal failure for an entire year and been on the transplant list for a few months.  I'm currently on government assistance although it's secondary because through Cobra I still have insurance from my former job.

 

My stomach was in knots on election night because all the talk of medicare vouchers and severely limited resources had me and my family terrified.  Even though the American Kidney Foundation is paying for my Cobra benefits I realize that if I don't get a kidney before the 18 months is up I'll soley have to depend on government assistance at least until I can function enough to work again.

 

I never thought I'd be one of "those" people depending on the government for help.  I've had a job every summer or year since I was 15 years old and now at 28 years old it feels strange not to work.  Though dialysis wipes me more than any job or class I've ever had.  It's exhausting being so tired all the time.

 

I understand that the author isn't talking about people who are sick but I'm affected by this the same as those welfare queens and baby daddies that are always talked about.

ironcowboy 348 pts

Lilith_Eve

I wanted to like this but, I can’t like it… I can’t even begin to imagine what you are facing.  Let’s just all pray that a suitable kidney is located soon. The election has nothing to do with finding a kidney however.

 

Over the next four years, healthcare costs will continue to increase, payments to hospitals who accept government insured patients will continue to decrease… meaning that more medical facilities will no longer accept Medicare / Medicaid patients.  Private sector employers will continue to increase consumer prices to offset rising costs… or dump healthcare plans completely to remain competitive in the ongoing recession. 

 

The bleak future of US healthcare is one were we can expect to see two completely different healthcare systems evolve..#1, The best possible care and all expenses paid for members of congress, the president and the senate;  #2, a government run system based on rationed care where a government agency uses formulas to calculate your ROI based on scarce healthcare dollars.  If you breakeven over the long term, you get care… and if you don’t, you get free aspirine, end of life counseling, and a box to tissue to absorb the tears.   

 

Not to be harsh but this is what will become common place over the next 15 to 20 years.  The nation simply can’t afford to put limited quantities of money into every citizen without calculating their worth or value to society.  The PPACA was developed by a number of people who are pro eugenics movement minded people.  If you don’t know what eugenics is, read up on Margaret Sanger.

 

In an ironic moral twist… the new PPACA is a feminist nightmare!  How?  It states that healthcare providers can’t charge more for women than for men.  This is a problem…   The problem is that women consume more healthcare $ over a life time!  Ultimately this will result in women reaching their ROI point faster than men.  The future government run HC system will ultimately have a lifetime payment cap, out of economic necessity!  This will result in most women being denied care at some point in their early to mid-60’s, and men still receiving care into their mid 70’s.  Ultimately this will equalize the death age of women to that of men. 

 

In a crueler stab at feminist ideology (women who reject that men are necessary to assist and provide for them in anyway, especially financially).  The only way to pay for the real world cost of HC for women is to have more healthy men paying into the system than drawing off it.  This means that women NEED men to assist and provide for them, out of pure economic necessity!  Unless men pay in at higher rates and use less services… the future HC system WILL economically collapse, or cost will skyrocket out of control.  Ultimately women will pay for their higher costs in some way… because there is no such thing as a free lunch… all there really is in life are marginal tradeoffs!  Better healthcare now, sooner death later…something along those lines.

 

There are only 3 ways to sustain this soon to develop government run HC system long term.  Force men to pay in at higher rates, and use less resources (unequal treatment based on gender under the law, and presumably unconstitutional), or cap women off at some point at about age 60 (the point of diminished return), and deny most life-extending care after that point, where they naturally die off at the same age that men now are.  Or option #3, performing an ROI analysis on any person who comes down with certain diseases and simply denying life extending care immediately… which really is just letting the sick die off as comfortably as we can.

 

Life is all about marginal tradeoffs… sure everyone wants to live forever, but there is a point where it simply is not cost effective, and in a climate of permanent US recession triggered by overregulation and credit downgrades… we simply won’t have the money regardless of the income tax rate! 

tracyreneejones 4050 pts

I'm confused as to how you thought political policy jargon was an appropriate response to something as serious as a person's need for a kidney. No one should have a medical issue and be told their life isn't valuable enough to sustain, here or in America. @ironcowboy @Lilith_Eve

ironcowboy 348 pts

tracyreneejonesironcowboyLilith_Eve

Yes I understand completely how emotionless this may seem too you, and many others… which in a way is the entire sardonic point.  I really do hope a kidney is found, I truly do.

 

But, do you really believe that faceless people in a far off government agency will deal with peoples’ real-world healthcare needs in some different, more caring manner?   If you do, you are seriously fooling yourself in a very, very bad way.  The real crime is that many of us are being slowly pulled into this faceless, heartless, meat grinding government-regulated system completely against our wills.

 

Federalizing healthcare, as Obama and the Democrats have (and are rushing to do with blinding speed) will result in exactly what has happened here on this forum multiplied by 310 million people at some point in time…a faceless government employees at HHS interjecting emotionless reality into your life at traumatic points… surgically inserting herself between you and your doctor, severing important care decisions based on politically expedient, economic, and or math formula driven outcomes.  You can collect the tissues at window 27 if any are available; if not, use your sleeve and sanitize your hands on the way out the door.  Thank you, the management.    

 

PPACA was sold as follows:  if you like your doctor you keep your doctor!  If you like your health care plan, you keep you plan.  Your average cost will go down!  The reality: my wife and I have seen cost increases; she lost her doctor, and her health plan got changed!  100% different outcome!  But that was the real intent from the beginning.

 

Like I said if you think faceless bean counting government members of the IPAB (or any other administratively created panel) will treat you kindly down the road, I ‘m not sure you understand exactly why there was such negative reaction to PPACA in the first place.

 

<No one should have a medical issue and be told their life isn't valuable enough to sustain, here or in America.>

 

Clearly you have not researched the true morality problems inherent with many socialized government run healthcare programs, nor do you realize that no one lives forever.  I feel sorry for you in a way… I don’t think you really understand the heartless reality that PPACA will become, and how brutally efficient and emotionless it is really going to be for you.  You may like that, IDK… receiving aspirin and counseling is better than receiving nether.  Please don’t’ take me as cold… just accept it as the new brutal reality!

 

What should really terrify you stone cold hard!  Knowing that hundreds of thousands of faceless government employees with attitudes just like mine… at some point in the near future, we will be deciding what care you get by determining whether the procedure is COST EFFECTIVE for you based on the present situation… Don’t forget that we’ll have access to BOTH your medical records and your tax records… so… we will know #1, your race, #2, the income contribution you make to the nation each year, and #3 we’ll have your coded digital medical records, so we can figure out real fast IF the present condition warrants continued treatment or aspirin and tissues.  

 

Sympathy is what mother gives you… Cost effective measures are what government gives you… I think perhaps that you felt you would get A from the government, but we really have B in store for (you) everyone.  When you really stop and think about it… what is really worse, a private insurance company stopping payment, or the US government stopping payment? Or… having no care at all?   The end result is the same!  It’s just that the US government can apply more uniform rules on the termination of services… and that saves money in the long run!   And the US government needs to save money… we have a too much debt now!

tracyreneejones 4050 pts

I feel sorry for you if think paragraphs of reasons why certain lives aren't worth sustaining is how one addresses one another here. If nothing, I find it in poor taste that anything you stated here should be taken into consideration while discussing something as delicate as life or death. And you're mistaken, I know what effect "cost" has when it comes to life and death. If you had a general statement regarding the issue, I'm sure it could have been added elsewhere in the thread independent of this one person's issue. These are real people here, and not talking points. Healthcare may cost but sensitivity is still free. @ironcowboy @Lilith_Eve

Lilith_Eve 61 pts

 tracyreneejones  ironcowboy  Lilith_Eve

 Thank you tracyreneejones.  It wasn't until I saw that clip of the Santorum event during election season where the whole audience stated that a man should be left to die if he couldn't afford to take care of himself did it hit home for me that some people are truly considered expendable.  It sucks but I don't bear ironcowboy and people like him ill will for thinking the way they do.

 

I live in the upper middle class area of town so there are a lot of republicans here.  One of the men in my dialysis clinic who is well into his 70's told me how he didn't understand how anyone could be against universal healthcare.  I guess sometimes it takes someone backsliding down death mountain(to coin a phrase from my favorite cracked article lol) to see things that way.

 

For fun, here's a link to the cracked article in question :)

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-great-joys-in-life-that-healthy-people-never-experience_p2/

ironcowboy 348 pts

Lilith_Evetracyreneejones

Lilith,

 

Thank you for not begrudging me for my opinion… on this post I’m being honest about what PPACA will lead to… I’m not being personal… this is what is so difficult about nationalizing healthcare!  I would go way out of my way to get my family the best healthcare that I can afford…but this is no longer in my hands… For the most part our right to decide has now been largely taken away… we can now probably call it our right to be steered by government into the options they think is best for us.

 

But what sooooo many people did and still do not understand about nationalized healthcare is that there is only 1 way to make this new emerging semi-nationalized system work… and I’m going to say it: death panels!  This was and is actually favored by the drafters of the legislation; because, ultimately they understand the raw economics of scale here!  Some people generate better returns than other people do.  Under the new law we will see your cost to society and your tax contribution to this same society on a computer screen, and decisions will be made based on this, and other criteria that a computer program produces.  There was a reason that people who love eugenics wrote large parts of PPACA.  PPACA picks up about where Germany left off in 1945.  However, unlike how Germany went after Jews, this new evolving PPACA program will mostly go after people equally… those people who consume more than they produce will pass on sooner from complications of the diseases they have, and this will reduce the cost for the better genetically fit people who are a better stock of people.   If this sounds surprising to you or anyone… I’m surprised that more people did not research the ideology of many of the leading proponents of the PPACA, putting 2 and 2 together as to what was intended for assay 10 to 20 years down the road.  This is progressivism at its finest!   Alas, one man’s progress is another man’s setback.   

 

Tracy,

Welcome to a brave new world of unemotional corporate government running nearly every aspect of your life… and looking into everything you say and do on line too!  Get used to it kid.  The people of the United States demanded this kind of treatment from government over the last two election cycles, and you / they are all going to get something much different than what you / they thought was asked for!   Your problems are now our problems, and when we are paying for your problems, we get to decide (for the most part) exactly how to deal with those problems.

 

Like I said, sympathy, emotion and sensitive are all free… and what your friends and family are for.  Making healthcare afford for everyone in this nation requires breaking a quite a lot of eggs, the high expense people are simply going to receive end of life care at the (x) cost point… and low expense people are going to pay more, A LOT MORE.  This is the ONLY way this system will work… no one lives forever!  Cost must be reduced to not greater than revenue!  This is just basic math!

 

It’s not personal, this is just business… it’s just brutal honesty, and brutal is what government always does best.  If unemotional-cold-hard-non-sensitive government is a surprise to you… well… surprise.

Jamila 7697 pts moderator

The single largest contributor to public debt? The Bush-Era tax cuts. 

 

 

 

"If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

These tax breaks, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won't be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts,.."

 

The reason why the Bush tax cuts totally screwed our budget--and made our entitlement programs unsustainable at current tax rates--is because the programs that were funded by the Bush tax cuts were instead paid for by debt.  Since the government didn't get that money the government had to borrow it.

 

ironcowboy 348 pts

Jamila

 

No, this is quite incorrect (IMHO)… four key national events were by far the largest contributors to the US national debt.

 

#1  Creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and fractional reserve banking system. (Woodrow Wilson 1913)

 

#2, The US income tax (Woodrow Wilson)

 

#3  US confiscation of all privately held gold (FDR 1933) (largest wealth transfer in history)

 

#4  Richard Nixon severing the US dollar to gold in settlement of international trade (1972)

 

#1 broke our nations right leg, # 2 broke our nation’s leg.  #3 broke our left arm… but we could still crawl with one arm… Tricky Dick broke the right arm with #4.

 

Between 1774 and 1913 (139 years) the US dollar’s average value was $22.50 (adjusted for inflation) varying for wars such as when the inherently evil US government used the US armed forces to free the salves.  The south argued that it was an unjust war, and that it cost too much money!  The little girls of Afghanistan who get acid poured in their faces just for want of learning how to read and write… they feel our intervention was justified.

 

Anyway, between 1913 and 2012 (only 99 years) the value of the US dollar has decreased in value by 96.5%.  During those 99 years, the nation’s debt has SOARED!  This is because fractional unbacked dollars were ALL borrowed into existence, and loaned to us with interest accruing. Under the present system the debt MUST constantly increase, or the system become usable, entering deflation.  The money supply must expand by an amount equal to the interest on the debt, just to pay for the interest of the previous accrued debit.   

 

Do you ever ask yourself how the rich keep getting richer…and how the gap between the rich and the poor keep INCREASING in spite of over $16.5 trillion dollars in federal spending in the last 99 years?   This is occurring because income taxes are not wealth taxes!  Income taxes PREVENT accumulation of wealth!  The modern fractional reserve banking system and it’s companion and necessary income tax were designed by congressmen and bankers in the 1910’s to keep and maintain the wealth and power structure that the advancing industrial age threatened to completely upend!  (Powerful money families are scared to lose their political status and power)   Beside they feel good about themselves when they donate a million here or there to help the little people clamoring for crumbs…

 

It’s worked exceedingly well!  The multigenerational wealthy US families (legacy money families) are still holders of the vast majority of retained wealthy in this nation… and this is only accelerating…

 

If I can only get people to understand one thing…  Don’t look at the INTENT of ANY federal policy… look at its outcome… and then you will know what it was actually intended to accomplish… then, you can begin to figure out who benefited…  And it probably won’t be you or I by any measurable quantity.

ironcowboy 348 pts

Jamila I

I completely forgot to ask you to explain to the American people how government revenue went UP AFTER the Bush tax cuts went INTO effect?  Please explain… the data is here:

 

"Economic Report of the President" for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

 

Bush cut taxes, and government revenue went UP…the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013… and by 2015, revenue will again go DOWN!   Will this make you happy?   What purpose are you desiring to use the tax code to accomplish; to maximize government revenue, or as a weapon against your perceived political and economic class opponents?  One is economically productive; the other is merely politically vindictive.

 

The wars have nothing directly to do with tax rates, economic velocity and realized government revenue yields.  Besides the war in Iraq is over… where are the promised surpluses and savings?  I don’t see them in the budget… Oh… what budget?    Paging Harry Reid… beep beep beep beep….

FriendsofJay 1973 pts

 Jamila The Bush tax cuts were specifically designed to cause a huge deficit, all the better to plead that it was time to cut entitlements.  The was the conservative plan behind the tax cuts.  It was there for anyone to see.  When Mr. Bush presented his plan for cutting taxes, 250 economists, including Nobel Laureates, singed a two page spread in the New York Times saying the deficit would soar.  The plan was going no where until Alan Greenspan, "The Maestro" gave the plan his blessing.  From there on out it was a foregone conclusion we would accrue huge debt.  Clever, but rather obvious. 

FriendsofJay 1973 pts

 Jamila I forgot to mention the two wars that Mr. Bush indulged in during the same time he was cutting taxes.  My guess is that this was the first time in American history that tax cuts were initiated during war time.  War is the most expensive thing a country can indulge in. 

ironcowboy 348 pts

FriendsofJayJamila

Nope, war is not even close to the most “expensive” thing a nation can engage in.  Government created economic Ponzi schemes are the most expensive…but anyway, there are two programs that currently dwarf defense spending!  Actually there are more then two… but I don’t need to go there.

 

Public education and Social Security expenditures!    The real problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to put the US budget into actual, understandable perspective… This is by design!  Government exempted itself from the Sarbanes Oxley Act and GAAP reporting requirements.  By doing that, it makes it hard to see revenue and expenses and stuff…  Said differently, the largest Enron scandal going on in American history is within the halls of our own government.

 

By saying that things like Social Security is “not a federal program or expenditure”  Or that “social security is revenue neutral.” Mostly Democrats come along and say, “Golly… well then it looks like defense is the cash reaper.”  War is bad, war is bad!  I call this the PT Barnum effect. 

 

See there is the situation that liberals are still refusing to admit.  They love Bill Clinton, because he as a “budget surplus” (this is mindless idiocy banter to distract you from reality) Clinton had a higher tax rate then we have now!  So liberals see this:  High taxes =more government revenuer= budget surplus.  Wow, kindergarten math is so easy!

 

What they refuse to see (even though the data is right there in black and white on paper) is that Clinton was taking excess social security revenue and diverting it into the general revenue fund.  This is where 100% of the Clinton surplus came from!  The real truth is that when the surplus dried up….more retirees drawing off than income going in to make payments, that game was over!  Combined with this fact: Government revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.  Following the Laffer curve it indicated that under the prevailing economic conditions the optimal tax rate was lower.

 

Here we are today… taxes will go up in 2013, and government revenue will go down; this will be magnified this time, because the following the Laffer curve, and the present M2 money velocity, we can calculate that the optimal tax rate for maximum government revenue from income is BELOW current rates!  Said differently, Democrats typically think that a certain permanently set tax rate is optimal, and that this optimal rate is nearly always higher than at present time.  

 

Conservative economists will observe something very differently. They will observe that the optimal tax rate for maximum government revenue “floats”  It may be 12% or it might be 37%... but it constantly floats based on various measures of economic velocity, money velocity, and inflation rates…  But we can’t implement a floating income tax!  

 

US business would virtually shut down if that was tried, as no business could effectively plan future projects based on such wide swings of the tax rates!  This would be especially acute if project margins were within the swing range if the tax rate changed from year to year, based on changes in the broader economy.  WHAT?  Imagine you are a project manager and you have a project with a positive Net Present Value (NPV), and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of something like 7%, so the company you work for invests $9 million dollars into this new project venture… then government comes along next year and swings a 10% tax rate change on you, and this wipes out something like ½ of your project margin.  Suddenly you discover that project B or C would have been WAY better!  But it’s too late… now you eat the loss.  So we are left to realize that a fix tax rate is bad and a floating tax rate is also bad.

 

But his begs the real question:  Why worry about the debt at all?  What is the big deal?  Because we have a fractional reserve banking system we actually have the ability to create unlimited amounts of debt; because we have the ability to offset this with unlimited amounts of our own future productivity!  So it all balances! …and if it all balances out, why worry?  And because both of these arguments are 100% factually true, this entire argument of tax rates, spending, and debt are fake!

FriendsofJay 1973 pts

 ironcowboy  Education and Social Security may very well cost more over a long time, but a war is insanely expensive for a shorter period of time. In any event, would you like to have a bill in congress that would dispose of public education and Social Security.  I have people ask me why they should pay school tax when they don't have kids in school.  I tell them that if you taxed only the people who had children in school, they'd be paying forty or fifty thousand dollars per family, making education totally unaffordable.  The same idea of spreading the pain could work for SS.

 

Everyone pays into SS up to a certain income cap.   Take off the cap and have everyone pay SS tax, but have it means tested.  You've just saved SS for all time.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet obviously wouldn't need it.

 

As for military adventurism, I'm not certain but I've been told by people more knowledgable that I am, that the U.S. spends more than the next highest fourteen countries spend on the military.  Of course, we will continue to have wars because with that huge budget the pentagon must justify their existence.  If there were fewer wars, there would be talk of cutting the Pentagon budget.  Conservative would never hear of that. 

 

As to Bush's tax cuts, yes revenue did go up shortly after that, but it was fueled by the soaring economy left over from the Clinton years.  Bush's tax cuts were in 2003, it took a few years for them to reach stasis, then in 2006 the deficit started to built until finally the economy tanked in late 2007.  The conservative trickle down theory of Mr. Laffer and his curve have been the source of pubic ridicule for years.  Yet this dead horse continues to be resurrected every few years.   The American people have learned their lesson.  That's why the democrats won this year.  Conservatives lost nine seats in the House and would have lost more if the republicans hadn't gerrymandered the redistricting because of the 2010 election.  After tax rates go up and the Great Recession is over---perhaps in three years---I will watch with great interest if revenues go down and I will be happy to eat my words.  

 

I reprinted my article, "The New Political Dictionary" at the top of this page.  Read it and you will see the shenanigans perpetrated on the American people in the form of the definition of a "small business," and how "carried interest" is calculated. 

 

If "justice must be seen to be done," injustice must remain invisible.

zipporah 1915 pts

WOW you certainly stepped on some toes with this one here: (this is why i like this site--you show BOTH SIDES) --heck....Bush was goaded into it because of 9/11--we had to spend some money (sigh) for protection from the ones who wanted to kill us. The airports are maddening!....which didnt happen on Clintons watch

Patricia Kayden 1710 pts

When President Bush "won" in 2000, he inherited a surplus from President Clinton, which he pissed away on 2 unfunded wars and tax cuts for the rich. That's why we're now facing a fiscal cliff.  It has nothing to do with entitlement programs. 

 

Hope that President Obama and the Democrats stand firmly against cutting Medicaid or making any serious changes to Social Security.  The Republicans have made it clear that all they care about is extending the Bush tax cuts for the ultra rich.  With President Obama's re-election, the Republican "protect the rich" stance was rejected.  I say go over the cliff and start fresh in January when the new Democrats take their places  in the Senate and House.

dani-BBW 1840 pts

 Patricia Kayden I'm sorry but the US CANNOT go over the cliff. Our debt will be downgraded by the rest of the ratings agencies and that will cause worldwide panic. Not only will our debt become more expensive because the interest rate we pay will go up to accommodate investors taking on the additional risk that we will not repay the debt, but after the take over of Fannie & Freddie the US government now guarantees those investments, so they are tied to the US govt's rating. A lot of investors hold US agency mortgage backed securities because they are guaranteed with a certain rating. If they are downgraded various risk limits will kick in and many investors (companies, 401ks, governments, individuals, hedge funds, etc) will have to sell and replace them with something of higher quality. 

 

Another US downgrade will be extremely disruptive to the worldwide economy and possibly tank the housing market again, because there will be less of a market for mortgages sold on the secondary market. Which means less banks willing to make originate mortgages. Which mean rental prices shoot up, because less people are buying homes. And so on.

 

And I haven't even talked about the impact to the US dollar.

ironcowboy 348 pts

Patricia Kayden

What? Have you actually read the PPACA?  You do know what Obama has done here right?  No… no you clearly don’t…

 

But I agree that we should go over the fiscal cliff…

 

We will discover a deeper recession, and you will learn that Clinton had a “surplus” because he was taking excess social security money and spending it as general revenue income…NOT because he was some kind of mad economic genius and his tax rate was good…

 

We will learn that the days of excess social security revenue has now reversed!  Social Security is now permanently in the RED!  It now draws off general revenue, and where this is not available, it adds to the national debt! 

 

By 2015 tax revenue will be BELOW where it is now, and the US national debt will be much higher… and GDP will probably be flat, and your money will be worth less yet again!

Brenda55 20977 pts moderator

(Raising hand from the back corner of the room.)

Can anyone here give me a list of what they consider an entitelment?

 

24K 13 pts

First time commenting here, long time lurker.

 

The truth is, what Americans consider ‘entitlements’ the rest of the developed world considers ‘necessities.’ People need food, shelter, and healthcare to survive. Our poverty rates are high not because Americans are lazy- it’s because the system is stacked against poor people in a way that’s not present in other developed nations.  The studies are so… disheartening that ever since I completed my degree in economics, I’ve contemplated relocating to another country.

 

The people that I've spoken to in Canada and parts of Europe about our economic policies think we’re barbaric, and I’m inclined to agree.  Four things I want to add:

 

1. Most of our spending doesn't go to poor people and their ‘entitlements.’ It goes to defense spending. The people who think ‘welfare mothers’ are getting all of their tax money are directing their anger at the wrong place.

 

2. Ask yourself who benefits from the belief that Americans are ‘too entitled’ and deserve less than every other developed nation.

 

3. Keep in mind that studies have shown that women actually fare better in places with more progressive economic policies, particularly the Nordic countries.  Since this is a women empowerment site, it’s worth noting.  

 

4.Studies have also shown that it’s more difficult for people to move up the economic class ladder in the U.S than it is in other developed nations. It could be that Americans are stupid and lazy, but it’s more likely that access to universal healthcare, food, shelter, and subsidized higher education makes it easier.

 

Last thing- many people who are collecting 'entitlements' are working. I know teachers who qualify for food stamps. 

 

 

 

 

ironcowboy 348 pts

24K

 

You are an economist?  Have you applied GAAP to the US budget and looked at it?  If you have or did, you would know immediately that “most” of our spending does not go to defense… it goes to discretionary entitlements programs that are “off budget.”  But we can lie to ourselves right up till we go broke.

 

The US poverty rate is only “high” compared to selected countries, and then it’s still hard to compare them due to cultural differences.  There are few instances of famine in the US… so comparatively, we are getting plenty of food…  I’ve seen more fat homeless people this year than ever before!    20% of the population here has it really bad off…80% of the population in some countries have it bad off…  To 20% it makes no difference… it’s the same bad off… but socialism increases the bad by a lot and spreads the misery around amply.  I’ll take my chance with American freedom and a 20% change of bad!

 

Who benefits from the belief that Americans are barbaric?  That’s right most of those nations have, or are now receiving money from the USA in the form of foreign aid and or technology transfers so their citizens’ apathetic existent can improve compared to the poor in barbaric America.  Or we are purchasing their crap so they can have jobs.   

 

Q: What is the cell phone saturation in Sudan Africa compared to Montana USA?  Did you know we helped installed G3 high speed in, yes rural Sudan!… meanwhile those warring barbarian cut each other’s heads off with machetes in a persistent genocide gripping that nation, and there is no Kroger!   Yes, for them, food IS a necessity!  We have a food surplus!  Their brands of progressive socialism(ish) never seem to bring in Kroger, Marsh, or even a Piggy Wiggly!  They only want cellphones and machetes.

 

Women fair better in Nordic countries… Maybe… right up until it comes time to commit suicide!  Q: Why to Nordic women kills themselves at such high rates compared to the USA?  Are Nordic men so cold?   …well yes they are.

 

IF the USA wanted to make a difference it should eliminate the income tax… and implement a wealth tax!   Income is not wealth… The income tax is designed to PREVENT people from becoming wealthy and using that wealth to challenge people like: John Kerry, Barrack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Koch brothers too… are all opposed to a wealth tax… because it comes after their eggs!  They love the income tax because it creates a nice mote around their power structures and wealth, and keeps the messy rubble at bay!

 

IMHO the effed up situation in American has everything to do with consolidation of  raw power.

 

I know teachers that drive Mercedes Benz luxury automobiles…

 

Welcome to the forum  :) 

jasicateacher 8 pts

 ironcowboy  24K 

Just wanted to point out that low income families tend to more obese because the food that they can afford and easily have access to tends to be high in calories and low in nutrition.  It is easy to say that people should eat better when you have the money to afford fresh fruits and vegetables.  Yeah, you can buy frozen and canned, but you can still buy a lot more food that will feed and satisfy a larger family if that comes from fast food or ready meal options.  People may not be starving, but there are a lot of malnourished people in this country.  And how can you compare that 80% of people in other countries have it bad off.  Yeah, they do.  But we live in what is supposed to be a superpower.  It says something about us as a people that we would find it acceptable that 20% of our population are "worse off" and be okay with that.  Particularly when a majority of those worse off are children.  I do not find it okay that children living in poverty is an acceptable fact, when there is so much that we can do to prevent that or at least address it.

 

Also, it kills me that people automatically jump to the welfare stereotypes when talking about this issue.  There are far more working poor and underemployed people who are struggling to make ends meet who need support.  Tax cuts for them can make a huge difference and enable them to provide a better life for themselves and their children.  These are not people who want to be given anything, but people who need support to get by on what they have and have worked hard to earn.  

 

Of course, there is the argument that folks can choose to eat healthy and buy fresh, frozen or canned veggies.  But, go into a low income area and look at the stores that people have easy access to.  Places they can walk to if they don't have a car.  What is available to them and what is advertised to them?  Yes, people have options, but people are also influenced by what is available and popular.  Say what you want about that, but look at what is in your house, in your cupboards.  Companies spend a lot on advertising for a reason.

24K 13 pts

ironcowboy

<i>You are an economist?  Have you applied GAAP to the US budget and looked at it?  If you have or did, you would know immediately that “most” of our spending does not go to defense… it goes to discretionary entitlements programs that are “off budget.”  But we can lie to ourselves right up till we go broke. </i>

 

Economists are typically those who have a PhD in it, I haven’t gone that far yet. So no, I’m not an economist, however I studied economics in undergrad, plus graduate research.

 

According to this, we spend 20% on defense, compared to 13% on entitlement programs, such as food stamps, child tax credits, SSI for the disabled or elderly, etc. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

 

<i>The US poverty rate is only “high” compared to selected countries, and then it’s still hard to compare them due to cultural differences.  There are few instances of famine in the US… so comparatively, we are getting plenty of food… </i>

 

I wasn’t comparing the poverty rate in the US to developing nations, because that doesn’t make sense. It makes sense to compare it to other developed nations.

Would you suggest that we scrap the food stamps program so that we have more instances of famine? I’m not following. Being that this is a developed nation, why on earth would we be okay with citizens not having enough food to eat? We aren’t talking about designer bags, we’re talking about <b>food</b>. It’s a necessity, not a luxury item.

 

<i> I’ve seen more fat homeless people this year than ever before! </i>

 

Would you feel better if they were skinny? Again, I’m not following. Homeless people are eating so….. what? They aren’t <i>really</i> suffering? What is your point here?

 

<i>I know teachers that drive Mercedes Benz luxury automobiles…</i>

 

I believe that. My point was that many people who are using these entitlements are employed and aren’t earning enough to survive.

 

 

 

ironcowboy 348 pts

24K

I figured this was so, but that’s OK…

 

You see most people are squabbling.  They are standing on the beach arguing about where all dang the seawater went.  99% of American are clueless about the powerful economic tidal wave forces building out there

 

The root of the problem:

 

The Democrats are liars!  And the Republicans are Liars!  They get you to argue about policy differences and distract you… they offer us nice things!  But they don’t tell us the real cost!

 

IF we forced the US government to comply with GAAP, and we could pull ALL the off-book spending and obligations back into the light of day and record them NOW…. we would observe that entitlement spending is MASSIVE!  In fact, we would observe that the accounts payable of the US government hover around (76 trillion dollars) in the NEGATIVE!

 

Psst, can I borrow $77 Trillion brother?  I need a cup of coffee!

 

Let’s put $77 in perspective:  This larger than GDP of planet earth!  

 

IF we could take everything from everyone in the entire world, rich and dead poor alike… we still don’t have enough to pay this present and future obligation! 

 

The Democrats only promise to make the financial wave larger!  However, the Republican plan is actually WORSE!  They want to trim 1/164th off the tippy-top of the wave!  …Which will make the average idiot believe that the wave has been greatly reduced or eliminated at terrible cost!   It will lull them to victory dancing on the beach…Honestly believing that the tsunami has been adverted!  What is worse?  Getting smacked by an imperceptibly larger, and really big wave you know is coming, or getting smacked by a really big wave… that you though was not there!   Ahh… but ignorance is blissful!  I’m lighting a fire on the beach in celebration!  

 

There is only one way to pay for this… you (and everyone else) needs to get into the kitchen and scrub dishes for the next 42,000 years at the median national wage to produce enough activity to account for the difference over on the positive side of the accounting equation to offset the accounts payable!  Unless you have 77 trillion dollars in your bank account… we take checks!  That would be the easy way out, and you will still have $1 trillion to spare!   You can live on $1 trillion, right?

 

Your point… you are arguing about who is going to survive the beach party…  This housing market glitch, accompanying recession, 18%+ underemployment, diminished median wages, the increasing gap between the rich and poor… the US government credit downgrades and 96.5% loss of value in the dollar … these things are merely ripples on the receding economic sea off the coast of the USA!  Party on Wayne… Party on Garth!

 

My point… only the people who have some guns, access to crop land and food resources, and have better organizational skills, and are located on non-leveraged ground will have any chance to survive.  In 25 years, there may not be a USA… like how there is no USSR today… it collapsed simply by spending more then it’s inherent (low) production could sustain… and it broke up into its former states.  This will probably happen to the USA in our lifetimes… or a massive inflation wave will crash, coupled with a zero productivity moment… most likely both will occur!    

dani-BBW 1840 pts

I am not even going to address the points in the post, I don't have the energy to do so. It's as crazy to me as the $15/hour living wage idea being pushed on the left. To me, to address the US rising debt a few things need to happen:

1. Address social security spending. People are living much longer. There is going to be (if there isn't already) more people taking out of the system than paying in eventually. Does the age to qualify for full/partial benefits need to go up? In my state, there are serious issues with public pensions, so the retirement age was recently age was recently raised.

 

2. Address medicare/medicaid spending via healthcare costs. I understand from my friends who are hospital administrators that under healthcare reform, reimbursements are eventually going to be tied to patient outcomes, vs a fee for service model? That seems like a good first step. I am not sure about the rest of Obamacare, on one hand more people participating in the healthcare decision process is good - especially if more get on high deductible healthcare plans where they start paying attention to the initial out of pocket costs. That should also help bring prices down. HOWEVER, with lower prices, will doctors' salaries also come down and you have less people willing to go to medical school?

 

3. Address defense spending. I have a friend who works for a top defense contractor and the money they waste and are not held accountable for is disgusting. I'll leave it at that.

 

4. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. If you are earning some form of income, you can pay something in federal income taxes, even if it's $10. The earned income credit seems odd to me, though I know it helps out lots of poor families. If you are living entirely off dividend income, is it really fair that your income gets taxed at a lower rate than someone actively working? I would need to look at the market effects, but I think some sort of sliding scale needs to be applied to people who live mostly off passive income. For example, if the system is designed so that 90% of people are to pay an effective rate of 17%, but only 80% of people are paying that because 10% are only paying at 13% because their income is passive, then obviously there will be shortfalls. Also, what about people who inherit money, move it offshore, live off of it and then don"t pay federal income taxes (yet are consuming thins provided by the system)? I don't like the Estate tax - theoretically it seems unfair - but how do you prevent people from gaming the system? Practically speaking, I understand why it would be necessary.

 

5. For the remaining non-defense discretionary spending (which is a much smaller percentage of federal spending compared to the items above), have at it. Figure out what makes sense to cut, maybe oil or farm subsidies, or things that are interfering in the market that perhaps once had some sort of sovereign purpose but those industries are now stable enough to stand on their own.

Browncow 1615 pts

I'm just going to eat popcorn and watch the show.

MixedUpInVegas 1691 pts

 Browncow

 Me, too!  I avoid political discussions.  They never end well.

ironcowboy 348 pts

 MixedUpInVegas  Browncow LOL...  you guys...  Oh you guys... you guys are good!

Jamila 7697 pts moderator

A good article for everyone:

 

http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/2012-us-election-results-finance-industry/

 

It's written by a guy in finance and I think he does a really good job of explaining the current situation of the US and what needs to be done to begin digging us out of the hole. 

Veron 1412 pts

"America cannot afford four new years of Entitlement while our neighbors suffer from choice in the Democratic Coma."

 

Just so I'm clear, you are also referring to the entitlements that are being given to the wealthy, correct?  Re: lax taxation on earned capital gains, NO taxation on inherited capital gains, no taxation on social security, essentially unlimited income tax deductions, corporate subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare), et al, etc. I can go on.  Because if we're working under the assumption that government policy and tax code is formatted to benefit the poor and not the rich, then we are in Narnia.  Maybe Lala Land.  But certainly not in real life.

 

"How can this government raise taxes on the rich — the ones who create jobs? This will stop businesses from growing and expanding."

 

Can someone please explain this line of thought to me? Honestly.  Because I don't get it.  Has taxation on the rich never happened before? Did I completely imagine the taxation rates of the 90s? Of the 50s? The 60s? The 70s? When GDP, job growth, and wages were growing faster and more stably than when Reagan and Bush Sr. came in and turned corporations into demi-gods? Did those tax rates not happen? Did we not live to tell the tale? Did this country not benefit immensely? 

 

That's the only logical reason I can come up with for the fear mongering that is going on in regards to asking high earners to be a little bit more patriotic to the country (and its government policies) that allowed them to prosper so greatly in the first place.  Taxation rates must have never been fair, the massive gap in class wealth has always existed,  resource distribution has been favoring the rich since forever, Bill Clinton is a truck driver in Arkansas, and the decades after World War II never happened. That must be why everyone is freaking out. 

 

"With no focus on any solutions, how can there be any progress?" "But with 46 million people and rising still on food stamps and without hope"

 

Well, if you're looking at the world with such a dire view, and none of the solutions proffered by the current administration are even solutions to you, then of course you're going to assume our future is hopeless.  Instead of compromising, and attempting to make work the plan the majority is trying to enact, you're promoting pessimism and essentially rooting for failure.  The founding fathers wanted the citizens of this country to be united in our quest for liberty and happiness, and that is what made America great.  Not divisive rhetoric.

 

zipporah 1915 pts

My aunt did better under REAGAN than any other president.I didnt like Reagen either because i worked a union job . She worked as an RN before she created a nurses registry and ended up with tax writeoffs for the registry, etc.--its not just big corporations that did well under Reagan/Bush, but people making around 250,000 a year-which will be taxed now--no,,,250,000 isnt really 'rich'

Veron 1412 pts

 zipporah 

Reagan is a popular president for a reason.  High income earners did very well under him, and Reaganomics was very successful in drastically lowering inflation that was doing a lot of damage to the economy when Reagan first stepped in.  However,saying that times were great during Reagan is like a farmer saying "It sure was great when I seeded all of my fields and had all that food to eat", while he's starving because now all of his fields are stripped of nutrients and won't grow anything.

 

It was lowering inflation that made everyone feel prosperous, even though it was really only the very rich who were getting ahead during Reagan's terms.  The middle class was very much in the pinch and bearing the weight of the entire economy, and there were consequences of that, just like there are consequences of it today.  Reaganomics functioned for the times.  High inflation, a pending recession, and generally low deficits were the perfect storm to allow those policies to be of benefit to some.  Right now, inflation is low, the economy is coming out of a recession, deficits are high.  Reaganomics will not work, point blank, period.  Even Reagan's adviser, Bruce Bartlett said earlier this year: "Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan's era, and different conditions demand different policies."

Jamila 7697 pts moderator

I favor a sane approach. 

 

1. Raise taxes

2. cut entitlement spending

3. lower military spending

 

All three of these steps are necessary in order to bring fiscal sanity back to the US. 

DWB 8836 pts

 Jamila You are correct on numbers 2 & 3.

Gabrielle 105 pts

 DWB  Jamila Are you against raising taxes for everyone? Or are you against raising taxes for the rich or for the poor. I am taking an economics class and today someone ask "What is the who-ha over raising taxes? Why not raise them for everyone?" Do people of America understand that taxes need to be raised or are they fighting over how and who should be taxed?  

 Ask a young college student I feel that it is my civic duty to be taxed and to not complain as long as the tax imposed is not off-the wall ridiculous. 

DWB 8836 pts

  Gabrielle  Jamila What we need is fundamental tax reform, eliminating some (estate taxes payable on death, corporate taxes as corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do) raising some and lowering others (capital gains.)

 

Even though the stated claims of taxers is to raise revenue, too often the tax code is used to punish "inappropriate" behavior (sin taxes) and reward "proper" behavior (installing solar panels) and the ever popular "soaking the rich."

 

Raising taxes will only bring so much as the higher they go, the more people do to avoid paying them (if working harder raises your taxes and you can't benefit from harder work, why work harder?

 

"Since World War II, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP hasn't budged much from a bit shy of 19 percent. Regardless of tax rates and what have you, that's the amount the feds have been able to collect."

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o

 

SEE ALSO:

 

http://reason.com/reasontv/2008/02/12/the-laffer-curve-an-introducti

http://reason.com/reasontv/2008/02/27/laffer-curve-part-two

http://reason.com/reasontv/2008/03/25/part-three-of-the-laffer-curve

Toni_M 20097 pts moderator

It's too early in the day for a blood-pressure spike.

 

Good luck and please remember the rules!

 

 

JannaAshley 585 pts

 Toni_M 

 

IKR! Lol I have opinions on this issue, but I'm not gonna give myself the stress today of even jumping into debate. I guess I'll just say only focusing on raising taxes on the rich and cutting certain types of welfare does not really dig into the issues that is causing this growing inequality.

Brenda55 20977 pts moderator

 Toni_M Just getting bace from a short vay-kay.  Nice punt Toni.  LOL

Jamila 7697 pts moderator

"How can this government raise taxes on the rich — the ones who create jobs?"

 

It's not the rich who are creating jobs, it's the middle-class. And the middle-class is being squeezed to within an inch of its life. 

 

"Students who have put in hard work to get to college, who rely on business-funded college scholarships, may not be able to go."

 

The vast, overwhelming majority of those attend college and require funding are getting student loans, work-study, or other government assistance--not utilizing privately funded scholarships. 

 

"How can America survive if she refuses to stand with her founders on what has always made her great? "

 

Welfare and subsidies made America great--particularly to the business community, housing subsidies, farming subsidies, farming subsidies, textile industry subsidies, tariffs and all sorts of other protections. I really wish people knew more US history.  How can we afford to protect and subsidize corporations and rich people, but we can't protect and subsidize the poor and middle-class people who come to work everyday for pennies on the dollar? 

 

This post was very long and rhetoric and very short on reality. The REAL problem with America right now is rising inequality. All of the tax benefits, and subsidies are going to the rich, while the poor and middle class have less and less money to buy anything. The poor and middle class have to have money to buy in order to spur the business owners to produce anything and the investors to make investments. We need more "bubbling up" and less "trickling down." 

 

 

 

Toni_M 20097 pts moderator

 Jamila "It's not the rich who are creating jobs, it's the middle-class. And the middle-class is being squeezed to within an inch of its life. "

 

I am FLABBERGASTED at how this fact is so willingly overlooked and the confusion persists. The top 10% in terms of wealth and business is NOT the middle class and I'm sick and tired of the ultra-rich being allowed to hide amongst the very people they are screwing over. What makes it all the more disgusting is the fact that people are allowing them to do it because they bumped their heads and somehow mistook themselves for mega-millionaires and multi-billionaires. 

 

The gap is widening largely because so many Americans have their heads up their behinds regarding what class they actually belong to. And at this point, many people aren't even in the "middle" anymore, but nobody talks about the poor in America....

violalove 141 pts

 Toni_M  Jamila I agree. Many sociological studies have indicated that people often overestimate their economic class, and far more fall into the working poor and underclass than they realize.  I find if funny that so many people who lobby against "entitlements"  forget about all the housing subsidies after World War II that effectively pushed many ethnic Caucasians (especially in the inner cities) into the middle class, giving them the social and economic capital they needed to move to the suburbs and create/reproduce more wealth over time, while poorer blacks and Latinos were forced to sell their homes and/or move into segregated housing projects.  Karen Sorkin's "How Jews Became White" and Denton and Massey's "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass" articulate your points right on the head. 

zipporah 1915 pts

It was the middle class creating jobs--but they could only hire so many people when the corporations could hire more people....yes both middle class and large corps have or had tax writeoffs---heck people used to writeoff their children and marriages so they could have more money to spend in the economy

DWB 8836 pts

 Jamila "It's not the rich who are creating jobs, it's the middle-class."

 

Please elaborate. Small business does provide the (slight?) majority of jobs, but the rich provide them as well. Both in the corporations that they run and the products and services they consume (as well as the wealth they invest)

 

"Welfare and subsidies made America great..."

 

Nonsense ... individuals, acting on their own initiative and for their own benefit, have made America great. Subsidies either prop up failed business models or are used by political ideologues to fund their pipe-dreams (please note the long list of failed green energy and electric car failures ... all on our dime.)

 

"The REAL problem with America right now is rising inequality"

 

How is my neighbor having more than me harming me exactly? Envy is such a hateful and destructive emotion.

Jamila 7697 pts moderator

 DWB "Please elaborate. Small business does provide the (slight?) majority of jobs, but the rich provide them as well."

 

Yes, the rich do provide jobs as well, but as you already noted, they do not provide the majority of them. 

 

Lets look at a company like Google or Facebook. Both companies are owned by people in the one percent--both companies are owned by people who  could afford to have more of their income siphoned off under taxes without the owners experiencing any drop in personal well-being. Some internet business and certain finance careers produce extremely high profit margins--those profits could be taxed at a higher rate or more of the funds could be paid to employees with little-to-no harm done to the business, but the employees would be much better off receiving a higher wage. 

 

Also, lower-, working- and middle-class people have a higher marginal propensity to consume than rich people. When people in the lower classes get money they tend to spend it, which spurs businesses to produce and for the economy to grow. When rich people get even richer, they have less incentive to spend--thereby reducing economic growth. This is why growing inequality is not a good thing. Too much money stays locked and not available for growth producing activities.