Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican Tax Plans in the Spotlight

Tonight, the Republican candidates for President will gather once again for a debate. This time, moderated by Fox Business Channel. While Fox is traditionally favorable to conservative viewpoints, the earlier debate by the primary Fox News Channel proved that Fox is perfectly able to run a tough debate.

The previous debate, hosted by CNBC, also presented Republicans with a venue more favorable to conservatism. Nonetheless, many candidates struggled to truthfully answer basic questions about their own tax plans. With these proposals moving even further and further to the right and beyond the American mainstream, scrutiny of these plans is essential.

Here at Watchblog, much hay has been made about the nation's debt, currently an eye-boggling 101% of GDP. While Obama's leadership has done much to stabilize the debt after the tumultuous years during the previous recession, we will not have him around in 1.5 years to manage things anymore.

Obviously, as the GDP grows, the debt burden will decrease, so even in the absence of cutting spending or raising taxes, we are in a good position. Nevertheless, it will take discipline to resist the temptation to increase spending or to cut revenues. Already, many Republican candidates have vowed to increase the deficit with their ridiculous tax plans. Of course, they lie and deny it, but the truth is that any of these proposals is extremely dangerous for the nation's well-being.

This is why the decision for President in 2016 is so very important. Although it is ridiculous to imagine our posterity actually having to fork over $16T on some ill-fated day of reckoning, it is not preposterous to imagine this debt becoming a burden 20 years from now as inflation may rise to unacceptable levels. Of course, in the short term, inflation is at record low levels and the risk of deflation remains ever present, stymieing efforts to reduce the deficit even further.

Nonetheless, as the economic recovery matures, this pattern should end eventually. Probably, this will happen during the 44th President's term. The question is, will the 44th President have the courage to do the politically unpopular thing and reduce our debt? Or will they bend to populist sentiment with unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that leave the rest of us holding the bag for an even more monstrous debt?

Posted by Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 10:11 AM
Comments
Comment #400415

WP, careful there you are advocating “magical thinking” when you start talking about being in a pretty good position as long as we don’t start hacking away at revenue.

Of course if a Republican gets elected as our President, we could possibly see another Bush Stimulus. I remember getting that $600 check and thinking WTF couldn’t this have been better spent on infrastructure or actual jobs creation?

Of course even with FBC running the debate there will probably be claims of “loaded questions”, “gotcha questions”, and of course “personal affronts”. It’s kind of funny how just asking candidates how they expect to cut revenue and lower spending whilst keeping the country safe is accepted by the collective field, but not it’s not amusing at all.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 10, 2015 11:51 AM
Comment #400417

What I cannot understand is why the Republicans refuse to defend their positions. Obviously, they don’t give a damn about the debt or deficit, which is reflected in the records of all GOP Presidencies in the last 40 years. It’s clear that the conservatism is primarily concerned with reducing revenues, not balancing the budget. Why not own the position and run with it?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 12:19 PM
Comment #400419

I am equally perplexed at the inability to assume some responsibility (not all) but some responsibility by Republicans and then attempt to move on and gain support. All I can presume is that the Republicans are wont to blame liberals and Democrats for all of the problems this country has. That assumption is much easier for them since it obviates any need for them to assume responsibility for their leader’s actions or come up with ideas other than cutting taxes for the “job creators”.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 10, 2015 12:39 PM
Comment #400422

“more symbolic posturing than realistic policy agendas”

That there pretty much sums it up.

Republicans will campaign on letting Americans keep more of their own money, but won’t implement the needed spending cuts.
Liberals will campaign on taking more money from Americans, but won’t implement the badly needed control over spending.

Americans know these things, so they now vote for their pet issues, rather than what’s best for the country.

The country will continue to sink.

Posted by: kctim at November 10, 2015 1:04 PM
Comment #400426

Warren, on candidate tax plans it is easy to find fault and post links. Here’s my contribution.

Hillary’s inconceivably stupid capital-gains tax scheme

“The worst sectors of the worst recovery since World War II are business investment in new plants and equipment and new business start-ups. These are the biggest job creators, and their slump is a key reason for the sub-par labor recovery, with low participation rates and high involuntary part-time workers.

So if investment is the problem, what does Hillary Clinton go out and do? She proposes jacking up the tax on investment. It’s almost inconceivably stupid.”

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/25/hillarys-inconceivably-stupid-capital-gains-tax-scheme-kudlow-commentary.html

I am not qualified to pontificate on any candidates early sketches of a tax plan unlike some others on WB.

We absolutely require taxes to run our government. The real question for me and many is; how much government do we absolutely need?

Presidential candidates are expected to present a “tax plan”. Does anyone really believe that any candidate is a tax expert?

Congress, with all their recognized experts, can’t even present a balanced budget in the time frame allowed and resort to continuing resolutions.

Frankly, I believe our federal government collects sufficient tax revenue for necessary spending. Rearranging who pays the tax is fair game and should be discussed. Adding more tax revenue to support more wasteful spending will not get a majority of votes come November.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 2:41 PM
Comment #400427

RF,
Larry Kudlow is an absolute idiot. Do you know anything about him? He was fired from his last legitimate gig for snorting too much cocaine. He became a ‘television personality’ and an ‘economic commentator,’ and his primary job on FOX is to criticize Obama and Hillary.

Some great quotes from Larry Kudlow:

“The recession debate is over. It’s not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that’s a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come.”
Larry Kudlow, December 2007

“President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country.”
May 2008

“I don’t believe we’re heading into a recession.”
August 3, 2008

The last quote is especially incredible. Seriously, you don’t get to be that wrong more than once in a lifetime. Kudlow nailed it. He was staring into both barrels of the biggest recession most of us have ever seen, and he was so partisan, he was one of the very few people who could not even see it.

And what about his commentary on HRC’s capital gains plan?
First, you might ask, what exactly is her plan?

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal

Kind of wonky stuff, but perfectly reasonable. She wants to deter short term ‘corporate capitalism,’ and encourage longer term investments.

The “purpose of this tax change was not to raise substantial revenue (which it will not) nor to increase holding periods (which it will, but this isn’t per se a good thing.) The purpose… is to improve corporate behavior…”

Kudlow objects because higher tax rates on short term holdings supposedly deters investments. But that is precisely the problem. Short term holdings are not ‘investments.’

Posted by: phx8 at November 10, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #400428

correction, that should be “quarterly capitalism.”

Posted by: phx8 at November 10, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #400429

The Republican game plan since 2009 has been “anything bad for President Obama, any liberal and any Democrat is good for us”. That works if all you want is a partisan approach to problems, which is what they have gotten. Now that there is a Presidential election on the horizon they are sticking to their plan which, aside from the rabid base (22% of the country), doesn’t seem like much of a plan to any logical thinking voting age person. Of course I don’t expect them to recognize this. They sometimes seem to think that they are running against President Obama. To a certain degree they are, they are running against the successes of the Obama Administration. Which again appeals to their 22% of the country that is their rabid base but again does not appeal to any logical thinking voting age person. And yes I pulled 22% from the ether but it sounds about right to me.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 10, 2015 4:11 PM
Comment #400430

Frankly phx8, I don’t care what your opinion of Kudlow is. I merely picked the first one on Hillary’s tax plan that came up in a Google search. It was to prove a point about opinion links.

How about comments on what I wrote; rather than what I linked?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #400431

Thomas Sowell provides a little insight on tax “planing”.

“There is nothing inevitable about either a higher or a lower amount of tax revenues, whether the tax rate is raised or lowered. The government can only set tax rates. How that will affect the tax revenues actually received depends on how people react, and you can know that only after the fact. Sophisticated projections have often been laughably wrong.

Contrary to the way some people on the left conceive of the world, neither rich people nor poor people are inert blocks of wood, to be moved about like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design from on high.

Even outright confiscations of people’s wealth, including whole industries in some countries, have failed to spread prosperity, and have even led to collapsing economies.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/10/21/politicians-words-n2068012/page/full

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 4:23 PM
Comment #400432
We absolutely require taxes to run our government. The real question for me and many is; how much government do we absolutely need?

Presidential candidates are expected to present a “tax plan”. Does anyone really believe that any candidate is a tax expert?

I agree, simply stating one’s goals for revenue and spending as a percentage of GDP is far more useful than these “tax plans”. But alas, I must work with what is provided. Personally, I’d aim to keep revenues above 20% of GDP at all times. Spending should be lower in times of economic prosperity (such as right now) and greater when the economy is struggling. Ideally, this should generate a cycle of spending between 20% and 25% of GDP.

Congress, with all their recognized experts, can’t even present a balanced budget in the time frame allowed and resort to continuing resolutions.
You aren’t understanding the nature of the issue if you are focused on whether or not the FY 2017 budget is balanced or not. The issue is if the debt burden is stabilized or not and this is accomplished by charting the debt to GDP ratio as a time series.
Adding more tax revenue to support more wasteful spending will not get a majority of votes come November.
Today’s revenue is still far less than what it was 15 years ago.

Frankly, I believe our federal government collects insufficient tax revenue for necessary spending.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #400433

Warren, playing word games such as “debt burden stabilization” is misleading. We need debt burden reduction, not stabilization. We need the cure, not more chronic treatment for the unabated disease. Balanced budgets don’t add to our debt. In good times, with a balanced budget, we might actually pay off some debt.

“Deficits fell in 2014 because President Obama and Congress raised taxes on all working Americans, the economy saw some improvement which helped to bring in more revenue, extended unemployment benefits were allowed to expire, and spending cuts from sequestration and spending caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011 took effect.

Congress should not take this short-term and modest deficit improvement as a signal to grow complacent about reining in exploding spending. Existing spending cuts and tax increases will not prevent deficits from rising next year, and before the end of the decade exceeding $1 trillion again. Driving this is federal spending, which is projected to grow by 66 percent by 2024.

The nation’s long-term spending trajectory remains on a fiscal collision course. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are too large and growing rapidly. While the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration are modestly restraining the discretionary budget, mandatory spending—including entitlements—continues to grow nearly unabated.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #400434
We need debt burden reduction, not stabilization.
Again, you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. The problem is that the debt exceeds GDP, not that the debt is a gargantuan number.

The terrible advice and analysis of the Heritage foundation during the 2000s was instrumental for the explosion in deficit spending during the Bush Administration. Their thoughts are not needed here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #400435
Driving this is federal spending, which is projected to grow by 66 percent by 2024.

This is entirely due to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Heritage does us a disservice and lumps Obamacare in even though the PPACA actually reduced the deficit. Of course, these entitlement programs need serious reform. In particular, I have been a longtime advocate of reducing benefits for younger retirees. The age of eligibility should be raised and indexed to life expectancy. And lastly, the silly cap on payroll taxes ought to be done away with. Too bad nobody running for President has the bones to do that. Republicans can’t afford to lose votes from conservatives desperate for a government handout and many Democrats simply don’t understand the costs of subsidizing the retirements of many able-bodied people in their 60s.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 6:12 PM
Comment #400436

Yes, national debt exceeds GDP and yes, our national debt is gargantuan contrary to Warren’s belief. The ratio of debt to GDP may decrease as a result of a government surplus or due to growth of GDP and inflation.

If your family spends every dollar they earn every year, and has a huge debt load, would you, as a child or grandchild of that family, be pleased when you inherit that debt?

The federal government spends every dollar they earn and borrows to spend even more every year and has a fiscal debt load of nearly $20 Trillion. We, and our children, are not pleased.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 6:34 PM
Comment #400437

“PPACA actually reduced the deficit”

Warren, that depends upon how it is scored. You can find positions on both sides. If there is a reduction due to obamacare it comes from the pockets of the middle class.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 6:44 PM
Comment #400438
our national debt is gargantuan contrary to Warren’s belief

I just wrote that debt was gargantuan. Just because it is a gargantuan number doesn’t mean it is a problem.

If your family spends every dollar they earn every year, and has a huge debt load, would you, as a child or grandchild of that family, be pleased when you inherit that debt?
This analogy makes no sense. Families don’t issue currency and nobody inherits debt. If an inherited estate is not large enough to settle a debt, the creditor is out of luck.
The ratio of debt to GDP may decrease as a result of a government surplus or due to growth of GDP and inflation.
Exactly. So if we keep deficits to a minimum and continue to grow our GDP, the debt burden decreases even though we haven’t actually balanced the budget in any particular year. This is why your microscopic focus on balancing next year’s budget is so foolish.
The federal government spends every dollar they earn and borrows to spend even more every year and has a fiscal debt load of nearly $20 Trillion. We, and our children, are not pleased.
Someone should’ve thought about that before the voted for a guy who led us into a multi-trillion dollar quagmire in Iraq. Not to mention irresponsible tax cuts and a reckless mismanagement of the economy that led to its implosion 7 years ago. I wasn’t even eligible to vote until those trains had left the station. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2015 7:11 PM
Comment #400439

Sorry Warren that you can’t wrap your mind around a simple concept of comparing family and government. Liberal minds are soooo limited. Everybody inherits federal debt my friend. And if the same were true of families the murder rate would increase to collect the life insurance.

Magical thinking on steroids. So if we keep deficits to a minimum and continue to grow our GDP, the debt burden decreases even though we haven’t actually balanced the budget in any particular year. What if pigs could fly?

Of course a family will be better off if they don’t increase their debt and increase their income. Glad you get it Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #400440

It appears to be a common mental defect with liberals that they can’t accept the concept of living within ones means.

An educated logical person understands that if you want to spend more you find a way earn more. Not so with the libs. Spend more, borrow more, and send the bill to their children is their mantra.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2015 7:29 PM
Comment #400441

A lot of bizarre statements at last’s night debate that went unchallenged by the moderators- statements ranging from the bizarre to outright frightening.

Can Fiorina use 10 minutes of debate time without telling a whopper?

“Can I just — could I just say, as a chief executive who’s had to make tough calls to save jobs and to grow jobs, I think what’s interesting about Dodd-Frank is it’s a great example of how socialism starts.”

This, coming from a woman who laid of 30,000 and shipped jobs en masse to India. She continues:

“We’ve created something called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau … that’s digging through hundreds of millions of YOUR credit records to (finger quote to indicate disbelief) detect fraud. This is how socialism starts, ladies and gentlemen.”

The CFPB has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism. It benefits consumers by prosecuting fraud committed by the credit card industry, mortgage lenders, and others. It has already returned $10 billion to consumers!

In general, the candidates seemed to be opposed to Big Banks, yet called for repeal of Dodd-Frank in order to deregulate. They called for increased capital requirements. But that is one of the main purposes of Dodd-Frank. It increases capital requirements. They are pretending they are on the side of consumers, but they are actually shilling for the Big Banks.

Several seemed anxious to shoot down Soviet planes in Syria in order to enforce a no-fly zone, as if nothing could possibly go wrong with downing Soviet fighters.

Bush and Rubio claimed more businesses are failing than being created. That is an obvious falsehood. It might have been true during the Great Recession, but creation has outpaced failures since 2012.

For Democrats, the best part of the debate was the entire GOP field coming out against minimum wage. 68% of Americans favor increasing the minimum wage. If there for Democrats to celebrate, it was that one. Trump even added that American wages were too high!

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2015 12:05 PM
Comment #400442

Court Deals Third Blow to Obama’s Amnesty by Executive Action

“On Monday night, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck a blow to President Barack Obama’s attempt to confer lawful presence and work authorizations on more than four million illegal immigrants.”

Good analysis and history of the 2012 administration created Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #400443

“For Democrats, the best part of the debate was the entire GOP field coming out against minimum wage.”

A $15 minimum wage? And some wonder why even more jobs disappear.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 1:57 PM
Comment #400444

Best quip of last nights debate was by Marco.

“Welders make more money than philosophers,” the Florida senator said, making the case for an expansion in vocational training. “We need more welders and less philosophers.”

“During an appearance on Fox and Friends on Wednesday morning after the debate, the hosts joked that Google searches for welding classes went up 1300% and said there were philosophers now probably wishing they were welders.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/politics/republican-debate-marco-rubio-welders-philosophers/index.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 2:11 PM
Comment #400446

The funniest part is that philosophy majors average @ $61k, and welders average @ $37k. Oops.

Posted by: Phx8 at November 11, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #400447

Philosophy majors may make more — but if you can’t get a job, that won’t do you much good.

America has nearly 370,000 welders versus just 23,000 philosophy and religion professors.


The U.S. needs more professors — in science, technology and economics.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 2:26 PM
Comment #400448

And there is also the Health hazards from welding to be considered. Can’t find much health hazards for philosophers though. But hey it sounds pretty cute as a sound bite, right?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 11, 2015 2:34 PM
Comment #400449

So Republican tax plans, or pandering to the voters as I call it, will raise the debt depending on the plan another 15 trillion dollars. It seems the repubs after years of telling us austerity or reducing the debt is the way to go once again want to continue the war effort and yet again regressively cut taxes. Not one of these plans will reduce the debt,it seems they have forgotten about the debt as the election season opens. They are the party of borrow and spend as history shows us.

Yet we have Royal trying to insult us by claiming it is liberals who don’t understand living within ones means. He also refers to “magical thinking on steroids” as if war and tax cuts for the wealthy isn’t magical thinking! Continuing to do so and to vote for more of the same is “magical thinking on steroids”.


Royal it is time to answer your own question because “I would like to know why he wishes to continue adding to the debt.”

Either your team has been lying this past 4 years Royal or they are lying now. Or as I believe they have lied and continue to lie as they pander to the voters. If only conservatives voters understood “educated logical person understands that if you want to spend more you find a way earn more.”

Instead these conservative voters, Royal included blindly follow their movement leaders into the ” Spend more, borrow more, and send the bill to their children is their mantra.” mode. Then as Royal does he makes false claims and blames the liberals for the problem despite the history that proves otherwise.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2015 2:54 PM
Comment #400451

Howdy j2t2. Your comment directly above is strong on accusations and short on detail. We do know for certain that our national debt has nearly doubled under OObama.

For those who would like some meat to chew on rather than j2’s ramblings I suggest going here:

https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan_summary/

I don’t really expect j2 to read this tax plan as he is more inclined to imagination rather than information.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 3:48 PM
Comment #400453

OK, let’s discuss Senator Cruz’s tax plan.

Who will collect the flat tax if the IRS is abolished? Who do I mail my post card to? When a business needs to account for all its capital expenditures to calculate its VAT, they’ll have a lot of paperwork to fill out. Who do they send that to?

Even with the benefit of dynamic scoring (and all of the dubious assumptions contained therein), Cruz’s tax plan reduces revenue by $0.768 Trillion. This would nearly triple the deficit in 2017 if we use the CBO’s current estimate ($416 Billion). How can Cruz be serious about our unsustainable debt-to-gdp ratio if he plans to triple the budget deficit? Even if we take into account his promise to cut government spending by $500 billion, we will still be $684 Billion in the hole.

Now, what happens if Congress prevents Cruz from cutting spending as much as he wants? What happens when the promised economic growth doesn’t materialize (as happened to GWB in the 2000s)? Who will be left holding the bag?

If you are serious about finding a path to a sustainable debt burden, Ted Cruz isn’t your guy.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #400456

Warren, please link the sources for your contentions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #400457

Regarding who receives tax data, the Cruz website says it will abolish the IRS “as we know it”. That suggest leaving in place necessary parts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #400458

Whoops!

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #400459

In other words, the IRS will be completely unchanged. And just wait until Congress gets their dirty hands on Cruz’s simple plan.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 5:16 PM
Comment #400460

Warren, draw your own conclusions about what Cruz means by abolishing the IRS as we know it. I am not qualified to address what remnant of the IRS is necessary for receiving and assessing tax returns.

Now, back to my question, please link your sources for your contentions regarding the Cruz tax plan reducing revenue and increasing deficit.

I visited Hillary’s website and reviewed her tax plan. Have you done that Warren? If so, what do you think about it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #400461

Looking at the tax foundation numbers a second time through, I realize I made a mistake. The $768 billion reduction in revenue is over a 10 year period, not a single year like I assumed.

However, we must remember that the Tax Foundation is always extremely optimistic about the economic growth resulting from a tax cut. Their models were wrong in the 2000s when they evaluated Bush’s tax cuts and they are likely going to be wrong again.

Despite this, the Tax Foundation still show’s Cruz’s tax plan as decreasing revenue. This is very damning.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 5:37 PM
Comment #400462

Interesting tidbit from: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/07/437589596/amid-a-shortage-of-welders-some-prisons-offer-training

“The American Welding Society estimates there will be a shortage of nearly 300,000 welding-related positions by 2020.”

Will there be a shortage of philosophers?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #400463

I withdraw my earlier mea culpa. Cruz’s proposed $500 Billion in spending cuts is also over 10 years, so it all works out.

Revised numbers:

Cruz’s tax cuts reduce revenue by $76.8 bilion and his spending cuts reduce spending by $50 billion. Therefore, if we assume everything distributes evenly over the decade (probably not realistic), then we have Cruz increasing the deficit by $26.8 billion per year.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #400464

Interesting tidbit from: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/07/437589596/amid-a-shortage-of-welders-some-prisons-offer-training

“The American Welding Society estimates there will be a shortage of nearly 300,000 welding-related positions by 2020.”

Will there be a shortage of philosophers?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 6:04 PM
Comment #400465

RF,
Another source shows philosophy majors start out making about the same as welders, but eventually average salaries of 80k- more than twice what welders make. Why do you think that is?

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #400466

Why do you think that is?
Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2015 6:38 PM

Hmm…because they are overpaid and welders are underpaid? Just kidding.

Since you are researching phx8, I will trust you to find out how what percentage of philosophy majors are working in their field versus trade school welders working in their field. And, how much school debt does a welder incur versus a philosophy major.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 6:50 PM
Comment #400467

Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has it right about the conservative wing of the Republican party.

“While arguing that Democrats “suffered their own delusions, especially on the far left,” the former Princeton economics professor said he had “lost patience with Republicans’ susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right. I didn’t leave the Republican Party. I felt that the party left me,”

“I view myself now as a moderate independent, and I think that’s where I’ll stay.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Ben-Bernanke-Republican-Party-GOP-Federal-Reserve/2015/10/07/id/695078/

Posted by: Rich at November 11, 2015 6:58 PM
Comment #400468

R.F. I did phx a favor and researched the philosophy jobs percentages. 36% Accept jobs in closely related fields and 64% defect to higher paying careers. The breakdown, 30% Clergy, 30% work in private for profit sector as Execs, Admins, and Managerial positions, 5% as writers, editors and public relations. The rest in unrelated fields

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 11, 2015 7:12 PM
Comment #400469

LOL…thanks Rich. I am a conservative and the party leadership of the Republican Party left me as well.

Bernake writes of the “Republicans’ susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right.”

Bernake led the fed from 2006 to 2014. The far right he refers to had little power during his tenure. From 2008 until he stepped down he served during OObama’s administration.

His statement sounds fishy to me. Perhaps he is just peddling his book.

Have you read his book Rich?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 7:13 PM
Comment #400470

The stats came from a Forbes article from 2000 but I don’t think they have changed much.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 11, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #400471

Thanks for the research Rich.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #400472

KAP,
Thanks for the stats. For what it is worth, Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major. Of course, when your father is the Dean of Duke University’s Law School, anything is possible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 11, 2015 8:33 PM
Comment #400473

Royal,

The statement of Ben Bernanke is not “fishy.” He has said for years that the austerity program of the conservatives was counterproductive to our economic recovery from the 2008 collapse.

“Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in September 2011, “the two goals—achieving fiscal sustainability, which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term, and avoiding creation of fiscal headwinds for the recovery—are not incompatible. Acting now to put in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits over the long term, while being attentive to the implications of fiscal choices for the recovery in the near term, can help serve both objectives.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

In 2013: “Bernanke has cited fiscal drag repeatedly in his comments on the economy, and did so again today. “The risks remain that tight federal fiscal policy will restrain economic growth over the next few quarters by more than we currently expect or that the debate concerning other fiscal policy issues, such as the status of the debt ceiling, will evolve in a way that could hamper the recovery,” he said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernanke-fiscal-policy-is-stunting-the-recovery/

In 2014: “Excessively tight near-term fiscal policies have likely been counterproductive,” he said in remarks before the American Economic Association. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/194379-bernanke-washington-fiscal-policy-counterproductive

“fiscal policymakers, far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it.”

“They (conservative politicians) saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard.” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/10/09/ben-bernanke-has-had-it-with-stupid-gop-economics

Bernanke was very consistent about his concerns during his last few years at the Fed: near term government fiscal stimulus (deficits) was needed to support economic recovery and provisions to address the long term fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security.

He was begging Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Posted by: Rich at November 11, 2015 9:01 PM
Comment #400474

Royal,

The statement of Ben Bernanke is not “fishy.” He has said for years that the austerity program of the conservatives was counterproductive to our economic recovery from the 2008 collapse.

“Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in September 2011, “the two goals—achieving fiscal sustainability, which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term, and avoiding creation of fiscal headwinds for the recovery—are not incompatible. Acting now to put in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits over the long term, while being attentive to the implications of fiscal choices for the recovery in the near term, can help serve both objectives.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

In 2013: “Bernanke has cited fiscal drag repeatedly in his comments on the economy, and did so again today. “The risks remain that tight federal fiscal policy will restrain economic growth over the next few quarters by more than we currently expect or that the debate concerning other fiscal policy issues, such as the status of the debt ceiling, will evolve in a way that could hamper the recovery,” he said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernanke-fiscal-policy-is-stunting-the-recovery/

In 2014: “Excessively tight near-term fiscal policies have likely been counterproductive,” he said in remarks before the American Economic Association. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/194379-bernanke-washington-fiscal-policy-counterproductive

“fiscal policymakers, far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it.”

“They (conservative politicians) saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard.” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/10/09/ben-bernanke-has-had-it-with-stupid-gop-economics

Bernanke was very consistent about his concerns during his last few years at the Fed: near term government fiscal stimulus (deficits) was needed to support economic recovery and provisions to address the long term fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security.

He was begging Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Posted by: Rich at November 11, 2015 9:04 PM
Comment #400475

So we need welders and philosophers. What’s the problem? Seems like a wedge issue to me. Those damn elitists? C,mon man, we can do better than that. When do we start trying to raise each other up instead of dwelling on our differences?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 11, 2015 9:58 PM
Comment #400479

“What’s the problem?”

30 year old philosophy majors making $10 an hour at Starbucks preaching about wealth inequality?

“When do we start trying to raise each other up instead of dwelling on our differences?”

When they stop using our differences to pull everybody down to their level.

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 9:51 AM
Comment #400480

So “they” are the imagined Starbucks employees earning a living and paying taxes and then voice their opinions of wealth inequality? Or are “they” the candidates that fuel our differences by referring to nonsensical ideas that we need one group of people more than we need another group? I can name the candidate that did that, can anyone name a Starbucks employee that is “preaching” about wealth inequality? Of course the audiences of those two would be disparate, one gets a national stage the other gets a break room table. Oh those poor put upon wealthy that have to endure the barbs of the working class. I have no sympathy for them or their advocates that claim they are being victimized.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 10:19 AM
Comment #400481

Royal, so you choose to deflect, (not enough detail from a conservative imagine that) instead of answering your own question! I’m not surprised. Your team has been harping on the debt the since Obama came to office yet when the conservative repub candidates put forth a tax plan that cuts taxes continues the war effort and runs a huge deficit you remain silent. The. Now how did Bernake put it, you seem to have doubled down on the know-nothing-ism of the far right.

But I must say when it comes to hypocrisy you have out done yourself. In this thread you mention liberals use magical thinking on steroids and in the same comment you throw in the fairy dust, the Ted Cruz tax plan! What about the debt, the same debt your team has been preaching about for years now, you claim we must reduce the deficit yet the Cruz plan doesn’t do that? You must be dizzy with all the spinning you have to do when it comes to your conservative borrow and spend economic plan.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 12, 2015 10:31 AM
Comment #400482

“They” are the employees who got a worthless degree and who are now demanding they be paid the same as those with an actual skill.

We don’t need even more people sitting around complaining about not being given $15 or $20 an hour, we need more people willing to better themselves so that they do make $15 or $20 an hour.

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #400483

The point is Speaks there are people in our colleges and universities that are getting educated in fields that have a slim to none chance of getting jobs in those fields. IMO it is a waste of 4 or more years of hard work in our colleges and universities if you are going to end up working at Starbucks or some factory.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 12, 2015 10:37 AM
Comment #400484

Your absolution of the wealthy couldn’t be more misguided. But carry on promoting the candidate that advocates a wedge issue to define his ideas. My support will be with the person working, paying taxes and using his first amendment rights in the manner they choose. What is “worthless” are comments denigrating a working person. I denigrate no one in my comment other than to suggest that candidates need to raise us up instead of dwelling on our differences.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 10:39 AM
Comment #400485

I think the people complaining about not being paid $15/hr are mostly without college degrees. Conservatives seem to be arguing with a stereotype rather than with reality.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment #400486

And I advocate for letting the individual make the choice of their educational vocation. This nonsense by conservative and Republicans only incites us to dwell on our differences rather that attempt to raise each other up. To each his own.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 10:43 AM
Comment #400487

I agree Speaks to each his own and I applaud those who are willing to work and pay taxes. The question I have is why go to a college or university and study something that is not going to benefit you pay wise after graduation? All they will have is massive debt from school loans to struggle to pay off, I think Warren can chime in on that. I could care less what a person wants to study while in school, as long as they know the consequence or reward of their choice.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 12, 2015 11:09 AM
Comment #400488

As far as the $15.00 per hr. I think some are finding the folly of their thinking on that issue. On our local news channel they had a story of “Joe’s Crab Shack” banning tipping because they gave their waiters/waitress $12-14 and raised food prices 12-15%. Some are finding out that they made more with the lower wage plus tips and some fast food places are going to computer ordering.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 12, 2015 11:16 AM
Comment #400489
All they will have is massive debt from school loans to struggle to pay off, I think Warren can chime in on that.

I funded my undergraduate degree with a full tuition scholarship.

I have is why go to a college or university and study something that is not going to benefit you pay wise after graduation?

A philosophy degree can pay off if one goes to law school. Or, one can go into business like Carly Fiorina did. Obviously, someone with just a BA in philosophy cannot expect to make as much money as someone with a BS in a STEM field.

Ultimately, this is a silly thing to argue about while Rome burns. Anyone want to comment on Ted Cruz’s disaster of a tax plan?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2015 11:22 AM
Comment #400490
On our local news channel they had a story of “Joe’s Crab Shack” banning tipping because they gave their waiters/waitress $12-14 and raised food prices 12-15%. Some are finding out that they made more with the lower wage plus tips and some fast food places are going to computer ordering.

Personally, I applaud both of those changes. Tipping is such a cumbersome exercise and if a computer can do a job better and cheaper than a person can, we definitely should use the computer and stop wasting the person’s time.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2015 11:24 AM
Comment #400491

You ask a question that I am sure you know I cannot answer. WP seems to have successfully engaged in employment with the studies he has chosen but this other person that you pose the question to is not available to answer that question and if they were, if it were me, I would say because I want to do that. Who are you to tell someone what their educational vocation should be and what makes you think you or any candidate for President should be able to tell them what they should choose to study?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 11:31 AM
Comment #400492

Warren, Rubio was comparing a path that leads to success for only a few, to having an actual skill that offers a much better chance of success.

The correlation this has with taxes is that the ‘philosophers’ are usually the ones who demand more spending on themselves by having higher taxes on others. Where as those with an actual skill are usually more concerned with the pay cuts that come from higher taxes.

“Anyone want to comment on Ted Cruz’s disaster of a tax plan?”

Sure.
If people could figure out how to navigate the ACA boondoggle, why couldn’t they figure out how to pay their taxes? How did they figure it out before the IRS?

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #400494

And Senator Rubio’s comparisons would be welcomed if he were a high school or college guidance counselor however as a presidential candidate I expect a more thoughtful approach to both the “welder” and the “philosopher”. To say we need more of one than another seeks to foment the divisiveness that is brought about by dwelling on our differences. And again, to each his own.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 11:49 AM
Comment #400495

What Rubio and the rest of the anti-intellectual crowd fail to understand is that a person trained for welding can only weld. They know a craft, they can practice it in order to get by, and- well, that’s that. A liberal arts education, whether the major is philosophy, English literature, or something else never stops giving. It lasts for a lifetime. It teaches a person how to THINK critically, to read, to write, to synthesize information, and to learn new subjects. It gives an enriching and lifelong flexibility to that learning a craft simply cannot do.

Studying philosophy and other liberal arts develops an openness and an ability to adapt to new developments. It can lead to career fields in teaching, law, politics, finance, and management.

We need welders, of course. We also need people who know how to think. I’m in favor of vocational training, and perhaps developing two tracks out of high school like the British do: one track for vocational training, and the other for university.

Posted by: phx8 at November 12, 2015 12:20 PM
Comment #400496
The correlation this has with taxes is that the ‘philosophers’ are usually the ones who demand more spending on themselves by having higher taxes on others. Where as those with an actual skill are usually more concerned with the pay cuts that come from higher taxes.

Really? It seems to me that this just a stereotype brewed up by your dogma.

Look, I understand the advice Rubio sought to give. One doesn’t need to be best welder in the world in order to make a decent living as a welder. In order to make a good living as a philosopher, you need to be in the 1% of all philosophers. But, many people with philosophy degrees pursue careers in other fields (law, business, etc). And for those people, it makes sense to get a BA in the humanities rather than learn a trade. It’s a decision Carly Sneed made when she was a young adult and its something that plenty of others make too.

If people could figure out how to navigate the ACA boondoggle, why couldn’t they figure out how to pay their taxes? How did they figure it out before the IRS?
I don’t understand the reference to the ACA, which was in part administered by the IRS. Never in American history has an income tax been levied without the existence of either the IRS or one of its preceding bureaucracies. My point is that Cruz is advertising a fantasy. People don’t like tax collectors, I get it, but they are necessary to a functional government. No tax collectors means no taxes and no taxes means no government and I highly doubt that is the route Cruz advocates. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #400498

“It seems to me that this just a stereotype brewed up by your dogma.”

Then perhaps you should attend some OWS protests, the current racist protests like at MU, or even a Sanders rally. Then go ask a welder, electrician etc… to sign a petition for a 10% pay cut.

“many people with philosophy degrees pursue careers in other fields”

The point is that far fewer people want or need a ‘philosophy’ degree, than do an actual skill, and the country needs those with a trade far greater than they need another ‘philosopher.’ That means helping people acquire a skill, not prevent people from getting a degree.

The reference to the ACA is simple. Government created a new way to handle health insurance and the people had to learn how to navigate it. New requirements to abide by. New forms to fill out. New addresses to send money to etc… They could do the same thing for taxes.

Nobody serious is saying anything about no taxes or no government. That is nothing but left-wing fearmongering propaganda.

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 1:06 PM
Comment #400499

the country needs those with a trade far greater than they need another ‘philosopher.’

Says you. Not everyone would be in agreement with that concept. I had a friend who was a liberal arts major and then after graduation became a welder. He is now a successful artist using metal and welding as his medium.

It seems rather strange that a “strict” constitutionalist has a problem with people exercising their first amendment rights(OWS protests, racism protests, Sanders rallies), but this seems to be a pattern of confusion that you bring with your comments.

No one is advocating for one group’s education or skills over another’s except for you and Senator Rubio and probably several other conservative commenters on WB. To each his own.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #400500
the country needs those with a trade far greater than they need another ‘philosopher.’

This isn’t something for you or me to decide. It is decision best left to the marketplace. If the demand for welders increases, then welders’ wages will rise. If demand for philosophers decreases, then those wages will fall. At the moment, people with philosophy degrees earn (on average) quite a bit more than welders.

Then perhaps you should attend some OWS protests, the current racist protests like at MU, or even a Sanders rally. Then go ask a welder, electrician etc… to sign a petition for a 10% pay cut.
I’m certain there are plenty of tradesmen at OWS given the heavy endorsement from labor unions. At the same time, I am certain there are plenty of philosophy majors who would be disgusted with the idea of taking a hit to their wages in order to support a struggling welder. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment #400501

Speaks,

Royal provided the following information:

- America has nearly 370,000 welders versus just 23,000 philosophy and religion professors.

If that is true, there is a greater need for welders.

“It seems rather strange that a “strict” constitutionalist has a problem with people exercising their first amendment rights”

That is because you misread, did not understand, or were confused about the statement I made.

Acknowledging the fact that “the ‘philosophers’ are usually the ones who demand more spending on themselves by having higher taxes on others,” has absolutely nothing to do with them exercising their first amendment rights. Pointing out the absurdity of their demands does not mean they do not have the right to state them.

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 2:57 PM
Comment #400502

“I funded my undergraduate degree with a full tuition scholarship.”

Warren, who paid the bill?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #400503

Best comment ever by Warren.

“If the demand for welders increases, then welders’ wages will rise.

I wonder why that doesn’t work for fast food employees?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2015 3:37 PM
Comment #400504

Got it. You disapprove of their absurd demands but do not mean they do not have the right to state them. That pretty much describes how I feel about most of your comments coincidentally.

I guess you will need to be more explicit about the ‘philosophers’ that you know that demand more spending on themselves by having higher taxes on others. I don’t know of any.

We need welders and philosophers and many, many more categories of career minded working tax paying Americans but to use some numbers to decide that we need more of one group than another is about the same as saying we need more welders and not philosophers and ignores the right of the individual to make the decision on their career.

We don’t see higher wages for fast food workers because there are too many people willing to work more than one part-time job for lower wages, for need not wont. The supply of low wage workers out gains the demand for their higher wages. Now I suppose you might take the opportunity to blame President Obama with that childish spelling of his name you have been using lately but there are a lot of us here that would blame the “job creators” for not doing their part.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #400505

LOL, poor Speaks…still spinning away.

I will stick with Warren on this one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #400506

Speaks, the ‘philosophers’ and wanna-be ‘philosophers’ I am acquainted with support Clinton or Sanders. Both support ‘paying’ for more spending with higher taxes on others.

Stating the fact that there is a higher demand for one job and less of a demand for another job, is not in any way ignoring that people have the right to choose their own path in life.

Your partisanship has you reaching for an argument that isn’t there, my friend. Perhaps we can honor Warren’s request and return to discussing tax plans?

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2015 4:56 PM
Comment #400507

OK so you know philosophers and wanna-be philosophers and that makes you able to make the statement that since they are supporters of Clinton or Sanders they must be asking people to support them with higher taxes on others. Now that is some partisan BS if I have ever read any.

Back to the spinning nonsense again? You only use that when you are unable to use a comment in support of your contentions and when it helps you to avoid serious discourse.

I know my comments are difficult for both of you two to understand or comprehend but maybe it would help if you have someone read them to you so that you only get what I type and not what you think I mean when I type a comment?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment #400508

Speak wrote: “The supply of low wage (fast food) workers out gains the demand for their higher wages.

What an unusual way of putting the concept of “supply and demand”. Artificial higher wages will attract more workers increasing the supply but not the demand.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #400509

There are many facets to supply and demand. To adhere to only one supposition would be stultifying. Obviously the supply of low wage workers for fast food enterprises helps the bottom line of these “job creators”.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 12, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #400510

OK Speaks…I’ll bite. Explain the “many facets” to supply and demand and how that relates to a higher minimum wage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #400512

The supply of the planet earth’s natural resources versus the demand of a growing earth population.

The supply of fungible energy oil, wind, solar, versus the demand by ever increasing energy consumption.

The supply of low wage unemployed workers versus the demand for higher wages by currently employed workers.

I know you do your own lawn work but let’s say Bob maintains your lawn for $35 each visit. Bob informs you that in order to stop having to use food stamps to supplement his income he needs to increase each visit’s cost to $40. But then you find John who will maintain your lawn for $35 because he really needs the work. Do you go with Bob’s request or do you turn to John’s offer?

Now I am not going to get into some type of comment dialogue with you regarding political persuasion, intelligence level, moral turpitude or any other derogatory comment you can attempt. I believe you are being obtuse but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 9:30 AM
Comment #400513
Anyone want to comment on Ted Cruz’s disaster of a tax plan?

Sure Warren, how come repubs/conservatives think adding another 12 trillion to the debt is a good thing? Why are regressive taxes a good thing? Why should wages in this country be lower when the wages in question are low enough to get food stamps? Why can other countries have first world minimum wages but repubs/conservatives argue we can’t do it here? Ignorance is everywhere in the right wing, any tax plan that wants to cut welfare for the working poor and lower minimum wages at the same time is third world criminal. Hell if those in the lower income brackets earned more they wouldn’t need food stamps etc. to survive. They wouldn’t need EITC and such. Yet repubs/conservatives can only cut taxes and lower wages, what are you thinking ?

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/13/9727132/republicans-economy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #400514

SO Trump and Carson have sealed their fate with those ignorant enough to vote or them, when they told America wages are to high. Cruz and Paul publicly told America they want to go back onto the gold standard as well as Cruz telling us more government debt, war, military expansion and tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to go. Of course Cruz isn’t alone Rubio also told us he favors more debt, war, military expansion and tax cuts for the wealthy.

The gold standard in this day and age. How far right is that? That’s to the right of Hitler, to the right of the the Koch Bros and the JBS. Oh…wait….it is the JBS.

http://www.jbs.org/commentary/the-best-way-back-to-a-gold-standard

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-t-stop-talking-220900071.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2015 11:51 AM
Comment #400515

J2

I don’t think Republicans and Conservatives see adding to the debt as a good thing, they just value individual rights more than the projections. IMO, they vote to protect their rights and hope for at least some spending cuts.

As all were meant to be equal, taxes were meant to be applied equally. Using percentage to label it regressive, in order to justify unequal taxation, is dishonest.

Wages should be based on the value of the labor given, not on providing a lifestyle.

Other countries have higher minimum wages because their governments have more control over its people. Republicans and Conservatives argue against government having that much control over its people.

“Hell if those in the lower income brackets earned more they wouldn’t need food stamps etc. to survive.”

That’s what Republicans and Conservatives have been saying. You start out doing basic work at the bottom and earn more as you work your way up.
The problem is that liberals want the lower income brackets to be given more for doing basic work at the bottom.

“Yet repubs/conservatives can only cut taxes and lower wages, what are you thinking ?”

In all honesty, they are probably thinking that people are too dependent on current spending levels and nothing will change, so they might as well protect their individual rights, and take every tax cut they can get.

Posted by: kctim at November 13, 2015 12:10 PM
Comment #400516

I believe you are being obtuse but I will give you the benefit of doubt.
Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 9:30 AM
sm.
You sure as hell didn’t relate supply and demand to higher wages my friend. You merely proved my point.

j2t2 comments defy logic and economic laws in a democratic republic with capitalism as the engine of growth. What he believes is a tenant of communism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 1:08 PM
Comment #400518

The markets fundamentally undervalue labor and overvalue ownership. Since ownership has the power in the American system to buy the politicians, the outcome is predictable. Furthermore, as technology advances, it becomes possible to offshore business, yet retain ownership rights and enjoy the benefits of American society without paying for it. Despite increasing productivity, longer hours, and fewer benefits, wages have remained flat for decades for almost everyone except the richest of the rich.

That is what conservatives want. That is the program. Cut taxes for the richest of the rich, let them offshore their corporations without penalty, increase defense spending to protect the same 1% and their assets abroad- especially oil-with pointless wars, all while cutting benefits for most Americans.

This is not a mystery. Of course the richest of the rich want to encourage hostility to labor unions and the minimum wage. They lack a sense of social responsibility. They are greedy. The majority of them never even earned their wealth. They inherited it.

Why else do conservatives always want to cut the estate tax? They call it the ‘death tax,’ but that tax only applies to multi-million dollar estates.

But how can the richest of the rich convince poor conservatives to buy into this program. They can buy the politicians, sure, but how can they buy the votes?

This is not a mystery either.

The idea is to convince conservatives of three things: 1) that some Americans are getting ‘free stuff’ and the poor conservatives are the ones who are actually paying for it; 2) encourage resentment, hatred, and bigotry directed towards those same Americans, and 3) pretend a social agenda for those same poor conservatives clinging to their God and guns and primitive religion is doable.

The basic problem for the 2016 election is that those same poor conservatives have noticed that their politicians are bought and paid for, and that most of those politicians could not care less about the social agenda.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2015 1:26 PM
Comment #400519

>blockquote>Wages should be based on the value of the labor given, not on providing a lifestyle.

Kctim, Shouldn’t the value of the labor take into consideration the value of other things as well? You seem to want to say if I can find a desperate person and coerce him into working for such a low wage as one meal a day beats no meals a day then I have found the wage. BTW I have to laugh at your “lifestyle” framing of the issue spoken like a true propagandist kctim, you deserve the Goebbels award for that one.

Other countries have higher minimum wages because their governments have more control over its people. Republicans and Conservatives argue against government having that much control over its people.

I would say you are confusing corporations with people, common in corporatism I hear. I believe these governments have control over business entities. Collectivism at its worst these corporations ganging up on the individual and acting like they are individuals.

I don’t think Republicans and Conservatives see adding to the debt as a good thing,

Unless it benefits their financial interests of course, rights of others be damned.

they just value individual rights more than the projections. IMO, they vote to protect their rights and hope for at least some spending cuts.

When the rights collide it seems to me we have confused rights with privileges of power kctim, which is the case with repubs/conservatives many times.


That’s what Republicans and Conservatives have been saying. You start out doing basic work at the bottom and earn more as you work your way up.

Nice myth kctim, but the “up” you speak of isn’t there for many people. Want proof? Look at the want ads for good paying jobs and see how many apply for every opening. This retro thinking may have worked back in the post war era but those days are gone, conservatism and the job creator myth, globalization, technology ,offshoring, union busting and such!

The problem is that liberals want the lower income brackets to be given more for doing basic work at the bottom.

That is the answer kctim, not the problem. We either fall into second world status with our ‘service economy” or we increase wages for all to keep up with the productivity gains that so far have been siphoned off to the top 1%. and remain a first world country.

Royal how pitiful of a response. Low on detail and devoid of factual input, spoken like a longtime JBSer.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2015 1:40 PM
Comment #400521

“I don’t think Republicans and Conservatives see adding to the debt as a good thing.”

Yet that is precisely what they do every time, as a matter of policy. They cut taxes and increase military spending. When policies of deregulation and privatization go wrong, and the economy tanks, BOOM! There goes the deficit!

“That’s what Republicans and Conservatives have been saying. You start out doing basic work at the bottom and earn more as you work your way up.”

Yet there is actually MORE social mobility in the socialist democracies of Europe, and LESS in the United States.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2015 1:55 PM
Comment #400522

J2

“Shouldn’t the value of the labor take into consideration the value of other things as well?”

No. If the value of pushing a mop is $3 an hour, you get paid $3 an hour. Neither the government or employer is responsible for what you want, wish or need to use that money for.

“You seem to want to say if I can find a desperate person and coerce him into working for such a low wage”

Sigh, no you cannot force or threaten a person to work for you.

“BTW I have to laugh at your “lifestyle” framing of the issue spoken like a true propagandist”

The way a person lives is their ‘lifestyle.’

“I would say you are confusing corporations with people, common in corporatism I hear.”

And you and your 1% conspiracy theory would be wrong, again.

“I believe these governments have control over business entities.”

Their government don’t have control over the business, they have control over the people who run that business.

“Unless it benefits their financial interests of course, rights of others be damned.”

A tax cut that allows a person to keep more of the money they earn does NOT in any way infringe upon anybody elses rights.

“When the rights collide it seems to me we have confused rights with privileges of power”

No, J2, it is you have confused rights with privileges, not me, not Republicans, not Conservatives. Rights have nothing to do with one not being given the money, programs or special treatment they desire.

“Nice myth kctim, but the “up” you speak of isn’t there for many people.”

Your opinion does not make it a myth, J2. Sorry.
Republicans and Conservatives are very consistent with saying that they believe that you better yourself to better your life.

“Want proof? Look at the want ads for good paying jobs and see how many apply for every opening.”

1. That is not proof, that is an excuse.
2. IF there are no ‘good paying jobs’ in your area, it is up to YOU to find where they are. It is NOT up to government to fill in the gap for you.

“That is the answer kctim, not the problem.”

We have been giving people money for decades now, and always with the same negative results. But you think THIS time it will be different? LOL!

“productivity gains that so far have been siphoned off to the top 1%.”

The ONLY way you can prevent private businesses from making a profit is for government to own and control the means of production of business. You may think your conspiracy theories justify that, but I do not.

Posted by: kctim at November 13, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment #400523

You are attempting to refute my contention using the phrase and not the words I use.

Supply
4.to fill or occupy as a substitute, as a vacancy, a pulpit, etc.

and

Demand
3.to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary.

The phrase supply and demand

As I have typed before, you should read what I type and not what you think I mean when I type. Had I meant to refer to the phrase of supply and demand that is used in microeconomics I would have referred to it that way. I used the words supply and demand to explain my contention not the phrase.

“You merely proved my point” and what is that point exactly?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 2:34 PM
Comment #400524

If there is one word that exemplifies liberal political thinking it is CONTROL

Mandated higher minimum wages is control. Wage and price controls have been tried before and they do not work.

Labor is a commodity, subject to the rules of supply and demand. When the price for labor is artificially manipulated it adversely affects the entire economy.

Capital is used to generate wealth through investment. Capital itself does not exist until it is produced. Then, to create wealth, capital must be combined with labor, the work of individuals who exchange their time and skills for money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 2:40 PM
Comment #400525

My original comment was refused because I had to many links in it so I will have to abbreviate my original comment.

You are attempting to refute my contention using the phrase and not the words I use.

Supply
4.to fill or occupy as a substitute, as a vacancy, a pulpit, etc.

Demand
3.to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary.

The phrase supply and demand

As I have typed before, you should read what I type and not what you think I mean when I type. Had I meant to refer to the phrase of supply and demand that is used in microeconomics I would have referred to it that way. I used the words supply and demand to explain my contention not the phrase.

“You merely proved my point” and what is that point exactly?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 2:40 PM
Comment #400526

Phx8

That is what Republican politicians do, not the voters.
Instead of falling for the talking-points you are fed about resentment, God, bigotry, guns etc…, maybe you should ask yourself why people really reject leftist policy?

I’ve got news for you, Obama and Clinton: It’s NOT because we have been brainwashed.

Posted by: kctim at November 13, 2015 2:46 PM
Comment #400527

Speak, you Bob and John lawn service story proves my point. You favor ones labor over another with emotion, not reason. What idiot, spending their own money, chooses higher prices for the same identical service or product.

Emotion is hardly an economic principle except in the liberal squishy mindset.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 2:55 PM
Comment #400528

That would be the one that considers Bob a good friend, neighbor and valued services employee that you know will provide the services you require. Now John might be a criminal just looking for an easy way to break into someone’s house when they are not there.

You replace brains and thoughtful understanding with choosing lower prices for a promise of the identical service or product. Who is using emotion there(greed)?

This is a recurring problem for conservatives and republicans. Always looking for the cheap and easy and not recognizing the costs of making the wrong decision for less money.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 3:06 PM
Comment #400529

OH, Well, Speaks is in his buffoon mode today. Go play with the grandkids Speaks; this is too adult for you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #400530

kctim,
“You should ask yourself why people really reject leftist policy?… It’s NOT because we have been brainwashed.”

Of course not. Pray, do tell me again why Global Warming is a hoax foisted upon America by the world’s scientists.

RF,
Control? That is exactly what conservatism is all about.

For the left, control comes from the people. You know. We the People.

For conservatives, it is all about controlling the people in order to benefit the richest of the rich and their corporations. Youknow it is true. You see it right now in the GOP presidential field. You see it in the House. You see tax plans that offer huge tax cuts for the rich. You see proposals to do away with the estate tax, which would ONLY benefit multi-millionaires.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2015 3:15 PM
Comment #400532

And again rather than refuting a contention with thoughtful comments you turn to your disgusting denigration of someone, anyone, all. I would observe that if anyone should leave it would be you and your nasty attitude and comments. I was right at first, you are being obtuse.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #400533

Sorry phx8. Your concept of government control is not consistent with the Constitution we live under.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #400534

I should surmise that you have no point then?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #400535

phx and Speaks are getting desperate in their writing. Facing the loss of the presidency crushes all their grand liberal plans for socialism in the US.

The Democrat Party will continue to exist after defeats in the next election and rebuild itself with moderate leaders. The liberal wing of the party will be relegated to the fringe dustbin where they belong.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 3:27 PM
Comment #400536

All I can say is in your dreams. If liberals weren’t such a threat why would you spend so much time trying to denigrate them? I smell fear.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #400537

Phx8

“Pray, do tell me again why Global Warming is a hoax foisted upon America by the world’s scientists.”

First, I don’t pray :)

Second, disagreement on global warming? Seriously? Why not discuss something that affects Americans and that they actually care about? Like excessive taxation, freedom of choice, religion, speech, privacy, to bear arms etc…? You know, stuff that swings elections.

Posted by: kctim at November 13, 2015 3:32 PM
Comment #400539

I smell fear.
Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 3:31 PM

Poor Speaks…all he can do is parrot my comments. I should be honored by his imitation but I do wish he could write something original that resembles real world economics.

phx8 remains in denial. j2t2 is funny. He resembles Peter Pan in his juvenile magical thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 4:26 PM
Comment #400541

Now here I had you pegged for telling me that you smell something far worse than fear and I had a response all dialed up for you that pointed out that what you smelled was due to your cranial rectal feedback loop. I gotta use it since I spent the time and effort to research your problem.

a href=”http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Head_up_your_ass.jpg”.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 4:33 PM
Comment #400542

Whoops. This.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 4:35 PM
Comment #400543

Speak…you couldn’t put a hat on a peg. Sorry I ruined your little game.

Face it Speaks…you don’t have the brainpower to out-think anyone. Rumor is…you cheat at Monopoly with your three year old.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 4:59 PM
Comment #400544

No ruining here. You should really see someone about that affliction though.

You have fun this weekend and remember try to be respectful of your brethren here.

Gotta meet with my financial adviser. He’s also my brother and wants to drain a few beers. Adieu.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2015 5:01 PM
Comment #400545

Breaking open the grandkids piggy bank again Speaks?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #400548

The terrorist shooting happening in Paris as I write must surely be a wake up call for every American and every citizen of all civilized countries in the world.

I am appalled at the blood lust of these terrorists. We must increase our vigilance at our border and inform authorities of any suspect activity we observe.

Be assured that every American is a target. These maniacs do not respect your life or your politics.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 7:01 PM
Comment #400549

Every voting American should carefully consider the danger of voting for any candidate that advocates open or porous borders.

Such candidates, and those who would have them win on this policy, are inviting death into our country and into their very homes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #400553
No. If the value of pushing a mop is $3 an hour, you get paid $3 an hour. Neither the government or employer is responsible for what you want, wish or need to use that money for.

The problem we have in this country today is how the “value” of pushing a mop is decided. It is not what the job is worth it is who is most desperate to work for the $3 wage. The rules are distorted because as anyone who has pushed a mop will tell you it is worth much more than the $15 minimum wage many are fighting for.

Sigh, no you cannot force or threaten a person to work for you.

But you can pay low wages because of the lack of jobs kctim. Circumstances does the compelling for the individual wanting to work but unable to find a decent paying job.

The way a person lives is their ‘lifestyle.’

Exactly kctim which is why I think you deserving of the Goebbels award for using it in this context.


A tax cut that allows a person to keep more of the money they earn does NOT in any way infringe upon anybody elses rights.

When that tax cut causes others to pay more in the future it indeed infringes upon their rights. In fact since they didn’t have any say, didn’t elect representatives then your tax cuts isn’t a right at all IMHO.

No, J2, it is you have confused rights with privileges, not me, not Republicans, not Conservatives. Rights have nothing to do with one not being given the money, programs or special treatment they desire.

Yet you complain about your “right” to not pay your fair share. You can’t elect representatives who go to war, demand unfunded mandates, take the costs of the war off the books and charge it on a card and expect others to pay for it. That though is the repub/conservative way.

Republicans and Conservatives are very consistent with saying that they believe that you better yourself to better your life.

Yes kctim they are but the reality for many people is this myth doesn’t work. People with advanced degrees unable to get jobs is proof of this.

1. That is not proof, that is an excuse.

Not an excuse at all kctim it is the current state of affairs for may Americans. Hell conservatives told them if taxes were cut jobs would be created yet poof here we are listening to you try to pass this line off as an answer to the problem.

2. IF there are no ‘good paying jobs’ in your area, it is up to YOU to find where they are. It is NOT up to government to fill in the gap for you.

This myth explains why you spout such conservative nonsense kctim. Moving overseas to China for a job isn’t the answer. Moving to another area of this country only to find the job is now disappearing may work for silver spoons who can live off dad but for many Americans that simply isn’t an option.

We have been giving people money for decades now, and always with the same negative results. But you think THIS time it will be different? LOL!

Seems you have changed from employment to welfare what is this about? Oh you must mean the “job creators” and tax cuts to create jobs… is that it?

“productivity gains that so far have been siphoned off to the top 1%.”

The ONLY way you can prevent private businesses from making a profit is for government to own and control the means of production of business. You may think your conspiracy theories justify that, but I do not.

What!! Up until the Reagan revolution productivity gains were shared kctim. The productivity gains of the last 30 years have went to the top 1 % this isn’t a conspiracy it is a fact. Your response has nothing to do with oh of course only the aristocracy has rights of course.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 14, 2015 1:17 AM
Post a comment