Obama: Congress has no reason to wait on jobs bill
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
67 Comments
Login to comment
1
Jeffrey Duelley
How many times do us followers of Austrian economic theory have to say it: The government can NOT create jobs. They can only reduce and streamline regulations to make hiring easier for the private sector. Somebody tell Obama to start surrounding himself with real economists instead of political hacks.
-1
just-a-guy
Like Lenin siad: Fortress shall be overwhelmed from it's interior! Keep infighting, both the republicans and democrats! Your liberty views will destroy your nation!
0
Laguna
How many times do us followers of Keynesian economic theory have to say it: The will NOT invest in the face of collapsed demand. They will only hoard capital. Somebody tell the Tea Party: In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
0
Laguna
How many times do us followers of Keynesian economic theory have to say it: The capitalists will NOT invest in the face of collapsed demand. They will only hoard capital. Somebody tell the Tea Party: In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
(Sorry - dropped subject above)
-2
hworta269
Because Obama does not have a jobs bill, he has a keep union employees funded and donating to the democrats bill.
-1
Serrano
Sure, raise taxes on the job creators, that'll fix everything, lol.
0
hworta269
Whats even more is the American government classifies almost all small business owners as rich and business owners. Double tax wammy!
0
Laguna
Oh, yes, hedge fund managers create SO many jobs. Better be careful: taxing their income as income, not as capital gains, could mean hedge fund managers may no longer wish to trade. Bet all hell would break loose then.
1
RossBardJapan
Obama is right.If you overlook what a failure the first stimulus bill was,the deleterious effect it had on the US and world economy,and you were not angry but instead amused by his admission that there never were any 'shovel-ready' jobs as it turned out,there is no reason why another half a trillion dollars shouldn't be added to the record four trillion in debt that the Obama adminsitration has racked up in two years and nine months.
-1
Serrano
Ross - a good chunk of the new half trillion dollars will be "paid for" by raising taxes on the rich!
Obama is an economic genius!
0
Laguna
Ending special deductions for the depreciation of corporate jets would certainly hit small- and middle-size business owners hard, I'm sure.
1
Laguna
Terrible idea! The Pentagon is already the largest socialist institution in America, and on top of that, Obama proposes taxpayers subsidize their transit to the private sector? It's not like the previous president didn't take care of these people well enough, is it?
0
Alphaape
When will the Dems put up a viable option to Obama. I can understand wanting to keep the White House, but at least with the GOP, they are acting as if the candidates have a chance, and we get to hear where they stand whether we like them or not.
The best thing for Obama's re-electioin bid is for a good challenger from the Dem party to go against him in the primaries. Sure the DNC will annoint him, but to the rest of the undecided voters, at least they will have a chance to see Obama have to campaign for the office, and not feel like they will not vote for him because the game is rigged and decide to vote GOP, since at least they had the guts to put up different people with different ideas and opinions trying for the office.
-1
Lieberman2012
unfortunately for this president the news today that staunchly Democratic stronghold of NY-9 - - formerly Anthony Weiner's seat -- - has been won by a freaking repub, will eclipse all news about Obama and his demands that the COngress pass his super big jobs bill.
0
Laguna
I see no reason why we should cap the mortgage interest deduction; even if middle-class taxpayers are though their bracket only able to deduct 12% of their home purchase, that doesn't mean the wealthy shouldn't be able to deduct their full 32% - especially as the wealthy tend to buy houses worth millions of dollars. Obama proposes a blanket cap of 12% on such deductions; this will inevitably lead to fewer docks and smaller car collections!
1
yabits
There are some people who can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that it just will not happen.
The second dumbest comment I've read in quite awhile.
1
Taka313
It's a real shame that mitch mcconnell had rejected the president's job proposal before he had even heard it.
That's how seriously republicans take jobs in America. Other serious republicans were Sen. david vitter who couldn't be bothered to appear because he had a football party to attend to (bring your own diaper).
I saw an ad for a bumper sticker this morning that was so true that I violated my no bumper sticker rule (you can't sum up political policy in a bumper sticker).
republicans 2012 - Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job
Truer words never printed.
Taka
0
Laguna
Tax credits which fund oil exploration don't just benefit US oil companies - they benefit the world! Oil is globally fungible, which means that whatever higher or lower costs are encountered by US companies are offset by prevailing global costs - but still, more oil means cheaper gasoline in Japan, too. Thus, I see no reason why American tax payers should not continue to subsidize oil exploration in the name of cheaper overall global oil prices, even here in Japan. Obama's plan to eliminate oil tax loopholes will have an imperceptible impact on global gasoline prices at a time when even imperceptible price increases are outrageous! And for what - improving schools?!
-1
sailwind
No offense, but duh "fungible" is the markets prevailing rate.
-2
sailwind
Agreed.....How is "Hope and Change" working out for you?
0
Laguna
That's right, Sailwind! That means that American taxpayer subsidies to US oil exploration firms benefit the entire world equally - and is why the effect at the pump is so imperceptible! It's like a kind of foreign aid, except that it mostly benefits American multimillionaires who would be doing what they're doing regardless, just earning a bit less at it.
-2
sailwind
Got it, explains why we are not drilling for exploration in the U.S, we would rather our use tax dollars to help out the Saudis.
-2
Serrano
A million people attended Obama's inauguration and only 14 missed work.
0
Alphaape
@yabits: If you can't bring anything to the discussion without resorting to name calling, then don't participate. You were the one who was telling me in a previous post that Obama has a solid lock on the Black vote. A newly released Gallup poll (8 Sep 2011) reveals historic lows in President Obama’s job approval rating across three key demographic groups. Among the nation’s largest such group, whites, his approval is at 33%—25 points off his post-election high of 58%. Among the second largest ethnicity, Hispanics, his numbers have dropped even more precipitously, from 75% in January, 2009, to 48% in August of this year.
So far has Obama’s star fallen since he rode to electoral victory on the twin promises of hope and change that his approval among his most loyal constituency, blacks, has tied its all-time low. Having once enjoyed a supernal job approval rating of 92%, Obama now gets the nod from a merely unprecedented 84% of blacks.
@yabits: So you are saying that the Dems are just going to ride Obama all the way to the finish, with dropping poll numbers and just "hope" that it will all work itself out. If they want to remain a viable party, and at least pretend to the American people that they are listening, they had better run a viable alternative candidate to make it look like they are going to change things if he gets a second chance, or people who are undecided will probably choose the other option and vote GOP. Remember, that is what happend to H.W. Bush in 1992 when Perot got in the race and took the votes away from him and Clinton won.
0
TigermothII
That's how seriously republicans take jobs in America. Other serious republicans were Sen. david vitter who couldn't be bothered to appear because he had a football party to attend to (bring your own diaper).
Yes those darned Republicans....did you happen to read the fact that most of your uber-intelligensia and hyper-caring liberals in office failed to actually read the President's healthcare bill before they jammed it through (and several admitted to this on tape)? I dare say passing legislation without reading it is certainly as irresponsible as failing to do so without reading it. At least the Republican senators have the excuse that from his other legislation force-fed to the American public they already knew this one would be garbage.
1
yabits
I never said anything of the kind. Whether it may be true or not, I never said such a thing.
Nevertheless, you were predicting that the Democrats would put up a challenger to President Obama. That hasn't happened, and there's not the slightest indication that it will happen. So despite all your irrelevant citing of polling statistics, the Democrats are not going to challenge their incumbent president. This is a Tea Party wacko fantasy.
That's exactly right. That's what I've been saying all along. It is foolish and shows complete ignorance of political history to think the Democratic Party would mount a challenge to someone who is liked and respected by Democrats as their current president.
1
yabits
LOL!!! What do you mean "remain a viable party?" The Democrats can lose a presidential election and will still remain a viable party. They've been viable since the time of Andrew Jackson with no signs of going away.
The example of Perot only demonstrates the clear contradiction and sheer political and historical ignorance of your position on the Democrats. Perot was a conservative. He was the conservative alternative to Bush. For the Democrats to run someone to counter Obama would signal that they were divided and truly want to lose the election. The Republicans would have a field day with that course of events. As long as President Obama is alive and well -- God willing -- your prediction will remain as utterly wrong as it was when you first brought it up.
The people who are currently undecided are only biding their time to see who the Republicans nominate, and what their plan is to turn things around. If it's a far-right lunatic like Perry, plenty will come over to the Democrats complaining, as they always do, about the lesser of two evils.
0
yabits
I guess so. After all, it was chock full of Republican ideas.
0
TigermothII
Sorry yabits I don't get your last. Are you saying that the current President's legislation is 'chock full' of Republican ideas? That would indicate of course that then that your support for Obama is a vote of confidence in Republican ideals. Sorry as I'm certain that I am misinterpreting.
The polls do not seem to really reflect that sentiment.
0
TigermothII
'that then' - sorry, you know what I'm sayin (bloody thing needs an editing tool)
0
yabits
I am and it is.
There's a large difference between "ideals" and ideas. A Republican can have a decent idea once in awhile. Interesting in that Ronald Reagan's own daughter, Patti Davis, was commenting on the recent Republican "debates," saying her father would have been horrified and sickened to see the current low state of his party. Cheering for executions was something far beneath Mr. Reagan -- but apparently not so for this current crop of low-life Tea Party-ers.
All decent Americans what their president to succeed and not do dumb, evil things like attacking countries on false pretenses, etc. etc.
0
TigermothII
As a fan of Reagan (for the most part - no one is perfect) I completely agree with you on this one. The current crop of candidates for the Republican and Tea Party are nothing short of a freak show, and not a one of them electable. And yes, all decent Americans want their president to succeed, regardless of party. But the left has well shown that vitriol and outright hatred can result from a disagreement in principles and practices, so I think those of us who do not feel President Obama is doing an adequate job are within our rights to express this sentiment as well. While you might not want a president that attacks other nations (I might agree on Iraq, not so much on Afghanistan) I might not want one who promotes ineffective legislation that will do far more harm than good.
-1
Taka313
A hell of a lot better than "You bet'cha" is working for you.
Taka
0
yabits
This is why it is extremely foolish for some -- not you, but others -- to suggest that the Democrats start to fight among themselves by finding another candidate to challenge their incumbent president.
I believe a line can be drawn when vitriol is justified. Sending American troops to fight and die -- and spending over a trillion dollars -- to attack a country that had been tightly contained for over a decade and didn't represent any threat is crossing that line. People were hanged after WWII for doing precisely what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did.
As for Obama, legislation has very little to do with the Republicans not wanting him to succeed.
-2
Jeffrey Duelley
If Keynes was correct, then why has deficit spending not improved Japan's economy? If they had let companies and banks deleverage after the 1989 crash instead of doing pointless public works projects and creating zombie corporations Japan would have been out of its financial crises in ten years. Instead the Japanese economy didn't pick up until 2008, at least until the financial crises hit. Keynes was a moron and a fraud, and so is Obama and his "jobs" bill.
-1
Alphaape
In a radio interview today, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) claimed that Americans aren’t entitled to all of their own money. After some initial back-and-forth, she replied, “I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together.”
Her views are sadly typical of a liberal worldview that sees a person’s earnings as belonging first to the state. In fact, the left is now doubling down on this misguided belief, with the President pushing for more stimulus spending despite the failures of earlier “stimulus.”
0
yabits
"Repeal the 21st Century -- Vote Republican"
(We all heard the Tea Party cheers of "Yeah! ... Yeah!" when the candidate was asked if a young man should be allowed to die if he didn't have health care benefits.)
0
yabits
Since you are not a liberal, when you attempt to tell people what the "liberal worldview" is, you end up looking extremely foolish.
No liberal believes that 100% of a person's earnings belongs first to the state. ZERO. Glad to get that cleared up.
The real issue in the United States are the lost wages due to employers not paying employees the genuine value of their labor. The presumption is made by right-wingers that employers always are paying the full amount of what an employee is worth. The truth is radically different.
That is why we have greater numbers of working Americans falling below the poverty line while the top 5% are seeing fantastic gains in wealth. That is a FAR greater "tax" against employees than what the government levies against them.
0
yabits
LOL!!!
I am a small business owner. I get terrific tax write-offs on my business -- which pay for my travel, meals, and much else.
I am not alone.
-1
Alphaape
Since you are not a conservative, your attempt to tell people what the "conservative worldview" is you end up looking extremely foolish.
I did not say 100%. But giveing up to almost 40%-50% (adding up federal, state and local taxes) is a bit too excessive don't you think?
-1
Alphaape
You were the one who was telling me in a previous post that Obama has a solid lock on the Black vote
@yabits: Back from another post you made on April 7, 2011 you posted:
Alphape Comments: last election he had 90% of the black vote. Now, he will have to work for it like every other candidate.
yabits comments: The problem with the logic is this: On the Democratic side, there will be no other candidates who will try to unseat their incumbent president. I understand that you've made the prediction that Hillary, or Webb, or some other candidate not yet identified will run against him, but I don't believe that is dealing with reality. Especially with 70-80% of Democrats wanting him to be re-elected.
Which leaves the national election. I seriously doubt that the Democratic candidate will "have to work" for the African-American vote "like every" Republican candidate.
So I guess declining poll numbers for Obama among his base should not be seen as a threat to his reelection, and I guess that GOP win in NY 9 isn't anything to worry about either.
0
yabits
That's a far cry from saying President Obama, or any candidate, has a "lock" on the African-American vote. It is clearly a comparative statement: "not working as hard AS a Republican candidate. It is sad that these kinds of things have to be explained to you as you make one misstatement after another.
I don't think anyone can understand the conservative worldview who wasn't born in the 17th century.
40% to 50% of what? It's a meaningless statement. 40% of $25,000 is way too much. 40% of $25 million isn't enough. During the greatest expansion of the US economy in its history, the top marginal rate was above 90%. Didn't hold things back a bit and led to the massive growth of the middle class.
-1
Alphaape
@yabits: Then I guess you need to talk to Warren Buffet. He says he only paid $7 million in taxes yet his secretary paid more in proportion to him. What he is not saying that his income is from captial gains, and he gets a very small (if any) salary since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. So, if his secretary is paying more than he, that is becuase her income is counted as that and not capital gains.
So, if 40% of 25 million is not enought, then you need to let Buffet to start claiming his income not as capital gains but as a salary, then he would be paying more in taxes (his fair share as they say). Yet, he uses the same rules to pay less.
40% is too much for anyone, and that's not being greedy.
1
HumanTarget
So uh... where's this Republican jobs bill that we've been waiting for since they won the House on a "jobs" platform and then promptly forgot about it?
-2
RossBardJapan
Less than presidential.Obama,addressing university students in the state of North Carolina: "If you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill!"
0
yabits
No. I don't need to talk to him. Folks like yourself need to listen to him when he says that folks with his kind of income should be getting taxed much more than they are.
40% of a dollar earned after the first $250,000 is not too much for the people earning it. The USA had a marginal tax rate above 90% for most of the years when it saw its highest economic growth. So much for tax rates holding things back.
0
yabits
What a laugh. It's only been like never since the last time a Republican president ever heard someone in a crowd shout out that they loved them. (President Obama was just responding to that call.)
By contrast, conservative Tea Party types like to shout out "Yeah [let him die]" for folks without medical insurance or cheer for executions. Sure they hate the thought of a president being loved because he wasn't like them.
0
sailwind
Ummm...... A little context that you failed to mention.
Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent.
After WW2 Europe and Asia were on their knees and the only country that they turn to to rebuild their economies was the USA. We had a buyers market for everything we could possibly produce and they could buy. That is why we saw our highest economic growth, tax rate at the time had nothing to do with it.
0
yabits
Since the 90% marginal tax rate was put in place well before the growth rate attained >4%, it proves that a high tax rate may not hinder growth like the richest 5% and their wannabe lackeys keep whining about.
Yes, but they had no markets to speak of and wouldn't for years. They had no money to be "buyers" for much of anything, unless we lent them the money first. You conveniently ignore that reality.
The buyers market was primarily domestic. With a 90% top marginal rate and strong, collective bargaining for workers, the wealth in the United States was distributed in such a way that many millions could genuinely feel prosperous, and also feel that the prosperity would continue. The "buying" that came from other countries was due to money we loaned them out of the high revenues collected by our government at home.
While US worker productivity has steadily increased over the past three decades, worker income has remained flat, while those at the top have seen what was once a 35:1 ratio in income shoot up to 500:1 or greater. The number of working Americans falling below the poverty line is increasing. The poverty rate in the US now is the highest it has been since measurements were started, and the wealthy have never been wealthier.
The Republicans have no plan whatsoever to increase the prosperity of Americans on the scale needed to maintain belief in the current system for many more years. They exist to serve the interests of the top 5%, and feed the suckers below that with the illusion that everyone in the country can make it into the top 5%, as if it was the United States of Amway. The most stupid Republican belief is the one where they think that Americans will just sit and take it while they continue to destroy the institutions of our country.
0
sailwind
That's why President Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% so the prosperity would continue in the early 60's. Wouldn't want that rate to become actually become now a drag on the economy after Europe and Asia got back on their feet and started selling us Volkswagen's again.
-1
Serrano
"The Republicans have no plan whatsoever to increase the prosperity of Americans... They exist to serve the interests of the top 5%"
yabits - I have news for you. The Democrats' plan is to make everyone dependent on the government so they can stay in power. And everyone who pays taxes got a Bush tax cut. Check it out!
1
sailwind
Yabits,
Just a silly question. The U.S saw household wealth lose 16.4 trillion dollars from the great recession. We have since gained back about 8.7 trillion and are still 7.7 trillion poorer now then we were in 2007. Do you think the wealthy also did not take the same hit? You claim they have never been wealthier, they lost just as much value in their portfolios as anyone else and are still in the hole today. A recession doesn't discriminate who it hurts when the entire economy goes bust. The wealthy and ones who do have more cash in the bank because they prudently saved instead of going on a credit spree during good economic times can weather the recession storm better, but to say they are now wealthier is just not true or factual.
1
yabits
Messing with a tax rate is always an experiment. Did prosperity actually continue as a result of the cut? I would argue that, for an ever-increasing number of Americans, it most certainly did not. It only started a trend that started to skew the distribution of wealth curve to where we see it today -- with each successive cut in the marginal rate skewing it further.
Prosperity can't continue with vastly increasing numbers of people finding themselves working harder and barely making ends meet. Most of the cause is the extremely high tax placed on the productive work of employees by their employers. It was many of these same employers who wanted to drive their employees into deeper financial poverty through "free trade" which made them compete with workers in other countries who made even less. A real race to the bottom.
Will people sit and take that forever, while Republicans cheer on the prospect of allowing people to die who don't have medical coverage? (revealing their true nature.)
0
yabits
Excuse me Serrano, but I am waiting for you to write something that demonstrates more than the 3rd-rate intelligence that the Republican-Tea Party so depends upon. I suspect you are ex-military and therefore someone who has depended upon the government for years.
It is very clear how Republicans have wanted Americans to despise our government. In the end, it will simply enable intelligent people of goodwill to hold righteous contempt for the Republicans.
-1
Serrano
yabits - So, you're saying that not everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under the Bush tax cuts. And yet you put down people who post facts, saying their intelligence is 3rd-rate. Typical condescending liberal attitude.
0
Taka313
Human Target,
According to Orrin Hatch, the republicans won't do anything to create jobs unless it's tied to a repeal of the Health Care Reform Act.
Class act, those republicans. You want a job, you better be willing to die for it, because you just may.
Taka
0
TigermothII
Ah Yabits in some small way I'd like to see your wish fulfilled and the wealthy taxed proportionally to their income. I know of course that you mean that directed at rich corporate American and the 'evil wealthy Republicans'. But there are a great many wealthy liberals as well, and I do wonder how they doth protest if this came to pass. Liberal Hollywood comes to mind - people like one of Obama's biggest fans (no pun intended) Oprah who has a gajillion dollars suddenly being taxed at a higher rate for all that wealth. Given that these types seem to have just as much 'endless greed' as the average wealthy conservative counterpart, it would be interesting to see how they might support such a proposition. I suspect they would become strangely silent. It's human nature to ask for sacrifice and commitment to cause - when it affects someone else. Not saying that in any way against you as a small business owner, but there are tons of fat-cat rich liberals out there I'm quite certain. And I'm quite certain they would be no more keen to give up said wealth. I often wonder why if those wealthy folks are so passionate about helping those less fortunate, there are only a small handful that actually put their money where there mouths are.
It's always quite simple to say something like 'yeah, tax the rich more (higher rate)! - they deserve it' when you are one of the less fortunate masses. Then when you've worked your arse off to amass your fortune it seems far less appealing and fair to be forced - or even asked - to give it away, even for the supposed benefit of your fellow man.
1
Taka313
TigermothII,
It becomes a lot easier when that person remembers how many times they were helped along the way by others. I don't know of a single person other than lottery winners who have made it successful without the help of someone along the way.
But you're right, people by nature want to keep what they work for. I know I do. But at the same time, I acknowledge that I am part of a society and as part of that society, I have to be an active part of it, and that includes paying my fair share.
Taka
0
TigermothII
I would have no problem at all with the 'paying one's fair share' part if our government - be it Democrat or Republican controlled - did not see fit to waste far too much on things that are useless/pointless and (yes I dare say it) give it to those who refuse to do for themselves (and no I don't mean anyone getting public assistance, just those who abuse the system).
We spend trillions on things like weapons systems that never get to production or prove useless deployed. We give money to arts programs so some weirdo can glue tampons and pipe cleaners on a piece of steel and call it art. We will not pay to give our kids the equipment they need in schools to properly learn, but pay for a myriad of other projects that either benefit a small portion of society or simply involve 'studies' that in the end do nothing. What I'm getting at is your average middle class citizen in the US can watch their taxes increase without seeing much of the benefit, except the usual road repairs.
When they (the ubiquitous government 'they') start taking our money and using it to really improve the quality of ALL of our lives then that would be something. Otherwise it's akin to robbery. I am far from alone in that thought.
0
Taka313
TigermothII,
I agree with you that there is a whole lot of wasted spending, especially on defense but what's pork barrel spending to you and me is job creation to the Congressman whose district the spending occurs in. So what to do? Put more people out of work to cut spending?
As for financing for the arts, that is such a small amount, it's hardly worth mentioning. As far as our schools not getting the funding they need, that's all coming from one side of the aisle. Democrats have always been big on education. republicans are the ones looking to cut funding and eliminate the Dept. of Education.
That's a big reason I won't vote republican. Their view on education is so short-sighted. They don't believe in investing in their own futures. Never a wise move.
Taka
-3
sfjp330
One big group of people that always seem to escape criticism are the workers and small business owners who take cash from their customers. Not grocery stores, etc., I'm talking about your average barber, hair salon, restaurant, carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, landscapers, flooring contractors, etc. Most cash transation businesses report less than half of what they actually take in. But the big fact is that if everyone just paid their fair share as the tax rates are currently set, U.S. be doing much better. But the government won't go after the folks agressively in the middle class who cheat the system because they are traditionally Democratic voters.
2
yabits
The same hit? In a word, "No." The name of the game is "Heads we win; tails you lose."
Some very wealthy people, like Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers, took a significant hit. But, to a person whose net worth is over a half-billion or more, taking even a $100 million hit is far more "bearable" than the average worker whose pension was completely wiped out. (Even Fuld is still a multi-millionaire.)
Secondly, no rich person takes a hit on their portfolio until they actually sell their shares. Until then, it's still a loss on paper. Any ordinary schmuck who was forced to sell of their depressed shares or cash in a 401k in attempt to forestall foreclosure or bankruptcy was forced to realize the their losses. When stocks recovered, so did the portfolios of the rich who were not forced to sell off.
Third -- all those shares that were sold off at tremendous losses to investors: Who bought them at fire sale prices? (Some rich folks -- who will double or triple their money when a $1 dollar stock moves up to two or three dollars.)
Fourth -- the entire fiasco was created through the rules formed by very rich and powerful people. Folks who bought off politicians in both parties, and who've got to be laughing at the complete naivete of the Tea Party circus clowns.
0
yabits
I don't like the term "evil wealthy Republicans."
But the fact is that great economic wealth constitutes a type of power. I believe, as Lord Acton said, that power tends to corrupt. And the greater the power, the more certain is the tendency towards corruption. It has to be why Christ said it would be next to impossible for a rich person to enter his kingdom. (They're just too tied to Lucifer.)
I don't know what Oprah would say about being taxed more, but I believe she'd be more inclined to agree with Warren Buffet.
Lastly, I don't trust the term "liberal" as applied by non-liberals to those they don't happen to like. There are a whole lot of Hollywood types who are very rich and politically ignorant to various degrees. Some are indeed, extremely intelligent liberals like the late Paul Newman and his widow.
0
yabits
Wow. I have to tell you that, throughout most of my life, the small, independent business owners I've met or worked for have not been liberal voters like myself.
I think the move to the cashless society has put the above point in the category of the urban myth.
0
sfjp330
yabitsSep. 16, 2011 - 07:40AM JST. I think the move to the cashless society has put the above point in the category of the urban myth.
What myth? In recent years, IRS has demanded small business owners to separate the cash and credit card sales total for audits. This is a drastic change by IRS to generate more tax revenue and enforcing the problem.
0
HumanTarget
The conservatives here seem to be ignoring the fact that even people who don't pay income tax on paper still pay their "fair share". It's called sales tax. And all the other taxes that aren't income tax.
0
RossBardJapan
The president's speech brought no bounce in the polls. It was another flop.The Solyndra scandal is the bigger story.But I wish him luck all the same.
Back to top