Had this video come in over the weekend over the Twitter feed. If there was one way to most accurately describe the disconnect between the actions of the Obama administration and the tendencies of the private sector, it's in this video. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's funny as shit.
25 comments:
Well, rich people export jobs, not create jobs.
Obama has not raised taxes!!
What is so hard about this??
Ok, if you make 200k per year, more than likely you are not going to leave more than $3 million to your children which is what it takes to be subject to the Estate Tax.
Not only that, it's the local governments which taxes your property, it's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that gives you the write off on your property!
It's very clear here who isn't getting it and it isn't Obama because Obama knows that at the 39% tax rate jobs were created and that at the 35% tax rate fewer jobs were created and even more were lost so that argument is bunk and not only that, only 2% of small businesses earn over $250,000 per year...Certainly not Joe the Plumber.
$250,000 in NY?? Really?? How about the $2.2 trillion in tax cuts from Bush and the $750 Billion Bush spent in Iraq.
"Well, rich people export jobs, not create jobs."
They create jobs with the people who do them best. In the case of the United States, most of the people hired by rich people in jobs happen to be working in the United States. The largest employer in the US, run by some of the richest people, happens to employ more and more Americans, and very few foriegners.
Again, you said something that isn't true in any way.
"Obama has not raised taxes!!"
He has in several ways. One of the worst is a sort of tax that is paid directly to corporations. This is the one where families are forced to buy certain health care plans they don't want or need.
Thanks for mentioning the death tax. A good example of naked greed. The Republicans have always favored eliminating it for everyone.
"How about the $2.2 trillion in tax cuts from Bush and the $750 Billion Bush spent in Iraq."
The tax cuts, which boosted the economy by stealing less from people, resulted in more revenue coming in. Bush's necessary expenditure fighting back against the terrorists in Iraq was a small part of every years' budget, and it less than the amount of ONE of Obama's corporate welfare bills.
Toad: Let me reiterate something I said above:
If there was one way to most accurately describe the disconnect between the actions of the Obama administration and the tendencies of the private sector, it's in this video.
In other words, between those who look at government as the solution (you) and those who look at government as the problem (Me, Dmarks).
Now if you had facts on your side....
Toad keeps insisting that there was a Clinton budget surplus, when the facts shown none. The actual figures I usually rely on involve the variations in the national debt (always increasing).
This link proves what I was saying, and that Toad has no idea what he is talking about:
"So each year's deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,
it's called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt."
And the debt always increased under Clinton.... reflecting constant deficits.
I Guess Toad doesn't Understand either. The Only Reason Rich People Export Jobs is because of High Taxes and Regulations. Just as Costumers will go to the Stores that have the Lowest Prices, so also Business Men will Go to States and Countries that have the Lowest Taxes and Regulations.
It's Simple Economics. If your Prices are too High, Costumers will not Buy and if you Taxes are too High, Businesses will not Set Up Businesses.
Consider a Business Owner Thinking that he could Increase his Profits by Increasing his Prices and yet to his Dismay, he Discovers that People Refuse to Buy his Products and his Profits go Down Instead and someone who has Lower Prices gets more Profits than he does.
What? How can that be, you ask. Well, it's Simple Economics. In a Similar way, the Government Raises Taxes Hoping to Bring in more Revenue, yet Instead, Business Leave and go Else Where. What? I don't Understand. It is Simple Economics. Just as Costumers will go Else Where to Shop when Prices are too High, so also Businesses will go Else Where to do Business when the Taxes and Regulations are too High. Why is this so Hard to Understand?
Obama has so Raised Taxes. Sales Taxes are going to be Sky High in January. There are also Capital Gains Taxes, the Death Tax, the Marriage Tax, an Increase in Insurance Costs, Etc., Etc., Etc.
Small Businesses are not going to have any Incentive to Hire People and become Bigger Businesses if the Taxes of such is too High.
Lista said: "The Only Reason Rich People Export Jobs is because of High Taxes and Regulations."
Exactly: government policies like this encourage outsourcing.
Yes, Obama is raising taxes, His insistence on letting the Bush tax cuts expire will big a big blow to the economy.
Dmarks & Toad,
Actually, it's due to Wages too and this is Largely the Fault of the Unions, which is Something that Liberals also Tend to Support and Unfortunately, the Democrat that California Elected Supports Unions too. Lord Help California.
Hopefully, the Republicans in the House will be Able to Persuade Obama to not Allow these Tax Cuts to Expire.
Oh Brother, Patrick
"Christmas with the Devil"?!! Ok, Fine. You did make me Chuckle, but after about 1 Minute, I also Turned your Music Off. I Guess I'm going to Outsource my Listening Ears to a Different Station.
Why did you Delete you Comment, Dmarks? Something about Overhigh Wages Forcing Companies to Move Overseas and thus Contributing to Deficits, as well as Poor Public Service. The Deficits Force Welfare Agencies to Cut Services to the Poor, which is Usually First, and Cutting Millionaire Wages to Bureaucrats is Generally what they do Last.
I think that's what you said. Did I miss anything?
Lista: I think you must have missed "Christmas time in Hell" from one of the South Park Christmas specials then. That's why there's a skip button.
"Hopefully, the Republicans in the House will be Able to Persuade Obama to not Allow these Tax Cuts to Expire."
...they ran on reducing the debt, to avoid the stigma of passing on huge debt to future generations. But they want to reduce taxes. You can run on it and win...but you can't have it both ways.
Dmarks:
How will Millionaires paying the same taxes as they paid under the Clinton years and Half of what they paid under Nixon be a big blow to the economy? Sources, graphs, charts of course.
Especially since I have heard over and over on this blog about how high deficits hurt the economy.
Patrick,
I Don't Watch South Park. It's Full of Cuss Words and I Find it Rather Discussing. It's just not the Sort of Humor that I Care for. To Each his Own, I Guess.
BB,
I already Explained how the Reducing of Taxes can Contribute to Increased Revenue, just as Decreased Prices can Result in Increased Sales. They also Want to Reduce the Spending. They just have a Different Philosophy in Relation to the Reducing of Debt than the Democrats do. If the Reduction of Taxes Results in Increased Revenue, then Actually, you can have it both Ways.
I'll just let Dmarks Respond to Toad.
Lista,
Yes, sometimes reducing taxes can increase revenue, especially if the taxes on the people who are paying the taxes and spending their money (as opposed to the ones who don't spend all their income) are the ones who get the tax cut. However, raising taxes can also increase revenues, especially if you raise taxes on the ones who aren't really financially affected by this increase.
You make an Interesting Point, Toad, and I Look Forward to Hearing more from Dmarks.
I guess the Point I was Making is that Taxes and Regulations, as well as the Price of Wages, are Like Prices on a Product. The Product is Business and if Business is Profitable, then more People will do it, but if it is Less Profitable, less People will do it.
Just as when Prices go Up and Down, this Effects Sales, so also when the Costs and Risks of Doing Business go Up and the Rewards go Down, this Effects the Numbers of Businesses, the Size of Businesses and also the Number of Workers Employed.
What I'm saying is a Very Basic Principle in Economics.
".. also the Number of Workers Employed." We need consider whether these workers are US (minimum wage service) or
foreign (most of our old
better jobs). Its a global economy now and business
considers labor as the
sole variable in cost these days.
BB said:
"...they ran on reducing the debt"
Exactly, which is why they should not get greedy and kill the economy (and reduce tax revenues) with the tax hikes.
"or
foreign (most of our old
better jobs). Its a global economy now and business
considers labor as the
sole variable in cost these days."
It's one, and often workers in other countries do a better job. There are of course many other factors.
Toad asked: "How will Millionaires paying the same taxes as they paid under the Clinton years and Half of what they paid under Nixon be a big blow to the economy?"
A better way to word it is to ask about an unnecessary tax hike that will discourage investment and encourage people to move money off shore... and how it will hurt matters.
The government is greedy enough already, with record amounts of revenue rolling in. There's simply no need to plunder greater amounts. Just stop wasting what is there.
Lista:
But sometimes simple economics is not simple economics. Has the price of shoes gone down now that they are manufactured in China? What about the price of clothes? Are Levis cheaper now that they are manufactured in Colombia? The answer to those questions is NO.
So just because costs go down, it doesn't necessarily mean that the consumer price will fall (electronics excluded).
I had an artist friend once who couldn't sell her paintings for $100-200, once she added a 0 to the end of all her prices she started selling far more than she did when they were $200. At some point, the people who have the money to buy a $3000 painting, it doesn't matter to them if it's $2500 or $3500 cause they aren't going to miss that money either way. When you have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime, an extra 3% expense isn't going to discourage you from doing anything...especially since these are the same people who have been hoarding the cash under the BUsh tax rates for the last 3 years...decreasing investment.
Dmarks:
Unnecessary? So at $13 trillion dollars in debt and a deficit of $1.4 Trillion, what more does it take to say necessary?? Now you are starting to sound like AZ Governor Jan Brewer whose death panels decide to ration treatment saying bone marrow transplants for cancer patients were "unnecessary".
The Economic Principle that I am Talking about has nothing to do with whether something is Manufactured in One Location or Another or even whether the Price of Wages is High or Low. The Economic Principle that I'm Referring to has to do with the Fact that a Business will Continue to Raise Prices as Long as "the Market will Bear it". That is, as Long as a Significant Number of Consumers are Still Buying the Product and therefore, the Business is Still Making a Prophet.
To Assume that Businesses will Pass on the Savings they make to the Costumer "Out of the Goodness of their Hearts" is a Mistake. Businesses are Motivated by Prophets.
Ok, now on the Other Side of the Story, just as if the Cost of Products are too High, Fewer Consumers will Buy a Produce, so also, if the Cost of Doing Business is too High, there will be Fewer Businesses and the Businesses will not Grow as Much or as Quickly.
If you Take from a Plant and Never Water it, it will Wither and Die. Businesses are the Same Way.
So you see, I Never Said that if Costs go Down, the Consumer Price will Fall. What I said was that if the Costs go Down, Businesses will Grow and Jobs will be Created. Being Angry at and Jealous of the Rich will not Change this Reality.
The Problem with so many Democrats is that they do not Understand this even when it is Explained to them.
As for your Artist Friend, yes, this is an Interesting Phenomena too, for Some Products appeal more to the Rich and the Price has to be Set Accordingly.
As to "Hoarding", rather than Spending Money, this has to do with Confidence in the Future and this is why the Assurance of the Continuation of the Tax Breaks that they are Used to will Cause them to Spend more, yet the Expectation of Higher Taxes will Cause them to Hoard it. And Again, Feeling Angry or Jealous is not Going to Change this Reality.
What you are Failing to Realize, Toad, is that Increasing Taxes will not Necessarily Increase Revenue. What is Required for Increased Revenue may be just the Opposite.
They had a 10 year tax cut at look what has happened over the last 2 years of that tax cut...They were hoarding cash and not only that, needed the government to transfer the wealth of the middle class to the rich bankers in the form of bailouts and instead of investing that money back into the community, they sent their CEOs on lavish vacations and gave themselves ridiculous bonuses...It's one thing to hand out bonuses to profitable companies and CEOs and managers who make good decisions but to do it for the ones who thought it was a good idea to give loans to the homeless during a housing bubble??? That isn't being jealous of the rich, it's being jealous of the stupid and negligent morons who almost ruined our economy.
However, I do feel that an increase in taxes on the rich will generate more revenue. For one, when we lowered taxes on the rich during the Reagan years the debt tripled, when Clinton raised taxes on the rich we created a budget surplus, when Bush lowered taxes we ran yet another deficit and got ourselves into record debt yet again. And like I said, rich people don't care if something is 3% more or not, they will buy it anyway if they decide they want it. In fact, if something such as a Yacht becomes more expensive, they are more likely to buy it as to impress all their rich friends which was exactly the point of my artist example. With your statement, you are basically saying that BMW and Audi should be bankrupt now because even though they are both basically Volkswagens, they cost more and if something cost more no one will buy it. I think I have now provided ample examples where that is not the case for someone who has limitless resources. If we were talking about tax increases for the middle class, I would agree with you.
And none of you conservatives has a right to bitch about the deficit or debt if you are against letting the tax cuts for the rich expire.
Toad asked: "Has the price of shoes gone down now that they are manufactured in China? What about the price of clothes? Are Levis cheaper now that they are manufactured in Colombia? The answer to those questions is NO."
The answer is a resounding yes. Have you seen the low prices on shoes and clothes lately?
-----
"Unnecessary" is a mild word for the tax hike. It's downright greedy and destructive.
-----
"They had a 10 year tax cut at look what has happened over the last 2 years of that tax cut."
Of course. Have you seen the problems caused by Obama's erratic and poorly thought out policies, with threats of more? This kind of environment discourages investment.
"For one, when we lowered taxes on the rich during the Reagan years the debt tripled,"
Are you intentionally misleading us? As a direct result of Reagan's across the board tax cuts (of which the rich were only a small proportion of beneficiaries), revenue sharply increased. It was the overspending that then (as now) was the problem.
"In fact, if something such as a Yacht becomes more expensive, they are more likely to buy it as to impress all their rich friends which was exactly the point of my artist example."
Toad, you really have NO idea what you are talking about, do you? You are so wrong on this. Remember the luxury tax on yachts? The result is it discouraged the rich from buying yachts. The OPPOSITE happened of what you claim. Sales plummeted. The rich did not suffer, but this poorly thought out policy of the Left forced factory workers out of jobs.
"And none of you conservatives has a right to bitch about the deficit or debt if you are against letting the tax cuts for the rich expire"
We have every right, because clobbering the economy with unnecessary and destructive greed like this will result in less money coming into the treasury.
"They had a 10 year tax cut and look what has happened over the last 2 years of that tax cut."
Chuckle, Chuckle. Yes, and who has been in Office for the Past Two Years? And Businesses are Hoarding because they are Afraid that the Tax Cuts are Going to be Removed. Isn't that what I just Said? "This has to do with Confidence in the Future and this is why the Assurance of the Continuation of the Tax Breaks that they are Used to will Cause them to Spend more."
You're not Listening Very Well and it is just Like Dmarks said, "This kind of environment discourages investment."
The Banks Needed to be Bailed Out because they were Forced to Make Risky Loans.
Many Republicans Are Upset at those Bail Outs, BTW.
As to People not Buying Stuff when the Price is too High, this is what is True of Most Products. Sure there are Exceptions and those Exceptions Involve Luxury Items that are Purchased Mostly by the Rich and Yes, also Art. These Exceptions do not Cancel Out the Pattern of the Larger Part of the Economy, which is that when the Cost is too High, Sales Go Down.
I Learned this Stuff in an Economy Class, Toad. I'm not Making it Up.
Also, as Dmarks Pointed Out, Even Luxury Items have a Limit to how much can be Charged before the Sales will Drop, Even on these Luxury Items. Not Only That, but when the Taxes are too High, Luxury is the Area of the Economy that is Hit First.
You Must not have ever Taken a Basic Economy Class, Toad, and maybe that's what is Wrong with a lot of Democrats.
The rich don't suffer from the luxury tax. They have enough ability to shuffle their money around so others suffer.
I meant the last 2 years of the Bush administration.
Wait, name me one bank that was "forced to issue risky loans"... Not one! In fact, with repeal of Glass Steagall by Republicans, investment brokers were encouraged to create and sell high risk investment products which contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis.
But we already know that a 39% top tax rate isn't too much because the last time we had that rate the economy was booming...even more than it was under a 35% top tax rate and not only that, led to a balanced budget. So that argument is clearly not valid.
You know what kind of environment discourages investment?? A deregulated financial market that again, led to the subprime disaster...Well, that and Bush.
And by the way, if you take the "right class", you could also learn that Jesus rode dinosaurs to church and that the Earth is 10k years old and we all came from a guy named Noah 4000 years ago...It doesn't mean what they are teaching is correct.
Post a Comment