Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

But no one is coveting another's wealth or trying to take it. It's just another complaint about another side of economic conditions, and one which questions whether all of that wealth was really gained fair and square in the first place.

That makes sense, but still, his point is, that despite regulations, unions and taxes (the liberal "RUT" can we call it?), every couple of decades we do still get a more conservative leadership that grants these businesses and leaders a lot of breaks, yet this does not seem to reverse that trend. In some ways, it seems to speed it up (less regulation and taxes as far as international business, etc.) So it looks like that RUT is just an excuse for trends that are occuring independently of it--mainly for global reasons more than anything else.

One person here suggested that it would take time to undo all the liberal damage, but that just sounds too fishy. ("Just give us more time; eventually it will trickle down to you; give or take a generation or two").

 

I couldn't disagree more.

Now...I'm not promoting anarchy. There needs to be regulations to some degree. We can't have businesses dumping raw toxins into our rivers without any punishment.


But...your argument is easily explained: The damage done to businesses by:

• Onerous regulations (don't leave out my modifier);
• Punitive and confiscatory taxes (because of government overspending)
• And unions (their greed and its costs, the fact that union employees tend to be less excellent employees as non-union, and government's coddling and favoring of unions, especially under Obama)...

...cannot be undone in a matter of weeks or months. In fact, it's kind of like the tax code: We don't really "undo" it; rather, we create exemptions and breaks. It benefits some...but it has the undesirable effect of complicating the process, creating more bureaucratic red tape, and essentially feeding the monster we ought to be starving. We don't need more time as much as we need more revolutionary, freedom-friendly ideas and policies.

 

We're not really talking about individuals; these discussions have been very general. The problems have been generalized, and that is precisely a big part of the problem.
These threads, and the headlines they are based on, states "the rich". I posted links showing the general problem in that sector. Your side then fires back at general categories of people, likewise.
Just like this statement:

You have no idea whether any individual who disagrees with your position wants to take someone's money, because neither I, nor as far as I know, anyone else here has ever said that. (Nor, the same as every individual union employee). You just lump us all together as greedy and covetous, and you seem to think you're really the one entitied to something you imagine us as getting, or trying to get.

But as I keep saying over and over, it is not all one or the other. There is greed on both sides, but the only reason this issue about the rich keeps coming up, is because people like you refuse to ever consider that side of it, and imagine the entire problem is all these greedy poor people taking all the money. That is just totally inaccurate.

So then, what exactly is your idea of these policies. There is a lot of firing at what the current adminstration is doing wrong, but what exactly should be done?

This particular discussion is about whether tax cuts for the rich should be extended. Is this supposed to be one of these ideal policies?

 

You are what you are. You just want the government to do it for you. Same difference.

Wealth envy is unbecoming a Christian.

 

And you are what you are:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm
(Esp. #2 & 3).

You just want big business to do it for you. So to even exercize the right to speak against this gains accusation of "sin".

 

>We're not really talking about individuals; these discussions have been very general.

In general, why should any company pay a US resident $20/hour total labor package costs when it can pay a worker off shore $5/hour total labor package cost to produce the same product? (unit shipping costs are insignificant)

Quality control is immaterial for several reasons. It should be obvious that, for example," Chinese quality control is non-existent and the big box stores have a no questions return policy. If one out ten sales of a junk product are returned the company still makes money. We have learned to expect a high percentage of defective goods. A $20/hour person is not going to spend two hours returning a $2 junk purchase.

 

First of all, these have been the tax rates for a decade. Let's quit throwing "cuts" out there like they'll pay less tax in 2011 than 2010.

Secondly, it is stupid to increase taxes on the economic engine of our country during a recession. Especially when coupled with healthcare reform--which will cost us all a lot more. This disincentivises spending to the point that a "double-dip" recession is not only likely, it's pretty much inevitable.

You do realize, don't you, that when taxes are cut as they were in the '60's and '80's...revenue went up? Folks spend and invest more when they aren't being punished for doing so.

That's funny...so you're in a union, and somehow that makes me greedy.

So why is it that non-union states like Alabama are doing so well in areas like auto manufacturing...but the old union strongholds are hemmorhaging jobs?

One word: similar to "onion," with a different first letter.

 

I meant to mention, I've been seeing this claim that this is really about adding tax increases rather than cutting tax breaks. I'm just curious where the basis for that claim is. From what I have been hearing the issue is about extending the breaks for middle class, and cutting them only for only the top brackets, and whether the breaks all have to stand or fall together. It seemed this was what was to finance the health care.

I'm not for tax increases, as I did not even see that as what the issue really was.

That seemed to be a matter of opinion. I don't know about the 60's (too young), but with the 80's, it seemed to lead to an immediate shortfall, and then a near crash in the long run (the next decade). That's what people are fearing is happening now. (And then for that matter, the 60's were followed by a crash, at least in the cities, in the 70's).

Of course, both sides will claim their ways were working, and it was the intrusion or residue of the other side's policies that were to blame. (Which leads to the whole thing of whether a current or previous president is to blame for the prosperity or deficit of his own or subsequent periods).

So it gets to a point of "he says, she says".

That actually wasn't aimed at you. At least not necessarily. (Which is why I took your name off of that part of the quote it was drawing upon). I was only using the quote to illustrate a point.

I don't know how a state-by-state union concept works. I would think it was company by company (Like Walmart is known to keep unions out). I guess more conservative states will have them less. And less populated ones where people can live off of less money.
State economies are dependent on many different things. I don't think just the presence of unions would be the cause of that.

I actually never liked the idea of unions (a mandatory third party in an employment relationship that seemed to complicate things, and they take your money, become corrupt, and in this current political climate, lose a lot of their effectiveness, do unwise things like our strike 5 years ago, etc).
But it is still true that in the real world, we need the protection. Here in the north, and especially in the big city, we need to be able to afford the high cost of living. Management (private or government) do not always do the right thing with their employees. So to me, it's just a necessary evil.

I do not advocate everything unions or governments do, but to readily just blame and abolish all of this stuff and tell people they should just be defenseless, penniless or priced out of their area; OR pull themselves up and become executives (which all do not have the talent, temperament or good fortune to do) is just wrong.
It's not about taking someone else's money, though that is what some solutions might come down to in practice. Our economic system in a bind, and there is no easy solution for all this mess, and I wish we could all at least realize that much.

 

Please explain why my voluntarily employing a union to represent me is any different that sports stars, actors, and writers employing agents to represent them?

 

The difference is that an agent represents one person - of supposed high talent - that is highly sought after to several competing employers. The leverage being the talent of the individual being represented.

A union represents all the workers - regardless of skill level - that work for a single employer. The leverage being the threat of a work stopage against that employer and a lock out of other workers willing to take those positions.

The limitation that prevents a union worker from understanding the difference is the same limitation that attracts him to the union in the first place. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I like the way you continue to call them "tax cuts for the rich", when the truth is that the tax cuts were across the board.

And yet, you never refer to what the current Congressclowns want to do as "tax increases for the rich", when the rich are the only ones affected.

Out of curiousity, why do you feel that the wealthy are less entitled to the money they earn than everyone else?

 

Since so many here seem to believe that corporations working off-shore to sell their poducts in the U.S. is an unfair practice, perhaps letters to your congressmen is in order.

Corporations do that BECAUSE THEY CAN, and since congress has been owned for two years by the Democrat party, it should have been already fixed, right?

Actually, I haven't seen any of the major issues addressed by all the campaigning that led up to the 2008 election fixed. Not even the healthcare issue is a fact yet - and hopefully, it never will be.

If corporations could make and keep as much profit while operating in the U.S., they would. The trouble is that they can't.

 

Was reading this article earlier regarding European riots.

This guy says it better than I ever could:

Read more: Rosen: Revolting against reality - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16810133#ixzz17o7ofpqj

Brilliant.

The social welfare state is unsustainable. We're seeing its demise worldwide.

​

 

Common sense - liberal mindset

The two are mutually exclusive. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Closed shops are prohibited by federal law.

Talented people hire personal agents. Working class people who are smart enough to know they are "run of the mill" join a union. Average people and sub average people with false egos don't need union representation. Income statistics indicate lots of people don't know what's good for them.

There's no one on this list who secretly wishes he was making union scale?
If you all hate unions on principle, fine. Good for you. In the same way I lost lots of money because I hated borrowing on principle and missed the big 1965-75 or so inflation. Same reason - principle - I missed the big run up in gold. Not complaining, only saying I put my money where my mouth was and came out OK anyway. Much better than OK. You put your money where your mouth is even if it requires you work for less than union scale - good for you! But don't bad mouth me because I am smart enough to realize I only have average abilities.