Can Obama Cut Deficit?

[asur]

Will the US stocks tank further? Let's watch Obama work
his magic. So far he's been the greatest negative force
the US stock market has ever seen. Check the charts, numbers
never lie.

Will more companies layoff employess? Yes
due to Obama policies. The layoffs don't always
make the news, but they are happening everyday now that
Obama spreads the wealth, and companies see his rhetoric
is simply talk.

Anti-business, tax the rich policies make Obama the reason
so many people are looking at less prosperity in the coming years.
Thank You not Mr Obama, for ruining the US economy.

More layoffs are coming. These are
real jobs being lost and most may never come back.
The question now is where do the taxes come from, with a dwindling
tax base. Obama says he wants to cut deficit by 50%, yet we all know
tax revenue will dry up in US. How can he cut deficit, yet he spends more
money on pork than any president in US history. Already Porkulous 2
is in the works, because Porkulous 1 wasn't enough. Do you see the
problem? Is he trying to ruin America?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Will the US stocks tank further? Let's watch Obama work
his magic. So far he's been the greatest negative force
the US stock market has ever seen. Check the charts, numbers
never lie.

Will more companies layoff employess? Yes
due to Obama policies. The layoffs don't always
make the news, but they are happening everyday now that
Obama spreads the wealth, and companies see his rhetoric
is simply talk.

Anti-business, tax the rich policies make Obama the reason
so many people are looking at less prosperity in the coming years.
Thank You not Mr Obama, for ruining the US economy.

More layoffs are coming. These are
real jobs being lost and most may never come back.
The question now is where do the taxes come from, with a dwindling
tax base. Obama says he wants to cut deficit by 50%, yet we all know
tax revenue will dry up in US. How can he cut deficit, yet he spends more
money on pork than any president in US history. Already Porkulous 2
is in the works, because Porkulous 1 wasn't enough. Do you see the
problem? Is he trying to ruin America?

<Yaaaaawwwwwnnnnn....>

BEEN there.​

"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." — Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)

​

 

[Dr.Who]

I wonder...

Just how much money to how many billionaires and millionaires have that can be taxed? If we extract 500 billion from them how much will we be taking from each of them?

These are some pretty powerful people. Do we think they are going to sit back and let it happen? Or do we think that they know how to win no matter what happens.

I think the most likely scenario is that if there is an extraction of money from them there will be a gift of a number of laws that end up giving them far more in return and at some little guy's expense.

 

[Depeche Toad]

You can run the government for 19 days if you confiscate all that wealth.

Everything I read says his numbers are pie in the sky when it comes to what it will take.

Democrats refuse to freeze Federal spending. Nuff said.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wonder...

Just how much money to how many billionaires and millionaires have that can be taxed? If we extract 500 billion from them how much will we be taking from each of them?

These are some pretty powerful people. Do we think they are going to sit back and let it happen? Or do we think that they know how to win no matter what happens.

I think the most likely scenario is that if there is an extraction of money from them there will be a gift of a number of laws that end up giving them far more in return and at some little guy's expense.

Hell....we've already gotten that....with tax-cuts.

It's called Homeland Security.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You can run the government for 19 days if you confiscate all that wealth.

Lemme guess.....Porky Limbaugh said so, right?

​

 

[Dr.Who]

Hell....we've already gotten that....with tax-cuts.

It's called Homeland Security.

​

If you stop taking money from some people that in no way hurts other people. The tax cuts are not an example of the little guy getting hurt.

The special under the table gifts and back room deals that take place when fat cats agree to get taxed more do hurt the little guy.

When a stupid bridge that few people need gets built and the contractor is a friend of the congressmen who approved the project gets the job while a better contractor does not - that hurts the guy and his employees who did not get the job.

When banks get propped up so that those who know what is happening can buy the right stock that hurts the guys who paid for the banks to get propped up and it hurts the other banks that did not get the special treatment.

When green industries get special funding at taxpayer expense and the price of oil skyrockets as a result that hurts the little guy.

When food gets more expensive because the corn is being used to make ethanol that hurts the little guy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wonder...

Just how much money to how many billionaires and millionaires have that can be taxed? If we extract 500 billion from them how much will we be taking from each of them?

Yeah....I'm sure their hearts are breakin', every time they make an offshore/tax-free deposit, as well.

You folks've gotta quite listening to Porky Limbaugh.​

 

[Dr.Who]

Yeah....I'm sure their hearts are breakin', every time they make an offshore/tax-free deposit, as well.

You folks've gotta quite listening to Porky Limbaugh.​

Whether or not they want to be taxed and whether or not the evade those taxes is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they have enough money to squeeze significantly more out of them. It is also irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is right to take a larger percent of money from some people than from others - because that is wrong.

But since you brought it up, those who evade the law should be prosecuted. That is what governments are suppose to do; prosecute law breakers.

What governments are not suppose to do is to legislate the social life of the people who live in a country. It is not suppose to know or care what happens in the bedroom when private parties engage in a sexual agreement (because that is between person A and person B) or when private parties engage in a private contractual agreement (because that is between person A and person B) or on a person's paycheck (because that is between person A and person B).

 

[Pidgey]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02242009.html

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...es-for-dummies-by-the-other-katherine-harris/

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whether or not they want to be taxed and whether or not the evade those taxes is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they have enough money to squeeze significantly more out of them. It is also irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is right to take a larger percent of money from some people than from others - because that is wrong.

Fine. Let's return (instead) to a tax-system that (actually) worked.....for everyone.​

 

[Andy]

Fine. Let's return (instead) to a tax-system that (actually) worked.....for everyone.​

So you are in favor of a tax hike, in the middle of a recession. Please explain by what economic law you think this will work? Do you know any economic laws?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So you are in favor of a tax hike, in the middle of a recession. Please explain by what economic law you think this will work? Do you know any economic laws?

I'm fairly-certain it's still called Clintonomics.

You wanna give it a more-"conservative"-friendly tag? Knock yourself out.​

 

[Andy]

I'm fairly-certain it's still called Clintonomics.

You wanna give it a more-"conservative"-friendly tag? Knock yourself out.​

That's a great label maker approach. I was really asking what macro economic law you would cite supports the idea of tax-hikes in the middle of a recession.

But apparently in liberal-hack land, "clintonomics" is an actually economic law. Perhaps if Obama gets a fat intern to suck on him, we can have world peace too?

 

[Hobo1]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02242009.html

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...es-for-dummies-by-the-other-katherine-harris/

Good links, Pidgey.

My definition of capitalism is a free-market were the government is the referee and Congress is makes the necessary rule changes to the game to keep the economy from turning into a blood bath. We have seen in the past how monopolies can (and do) destroy a free market. A free market without rules is called laissez faire economics, and it practice it is like a football game without a referee.

From the turn of the 20th century, as America grew into in economic power, Congress has passed laws (usually after the fact) that certain business practices were unsafe and unfair to competition. That is how we got anti-monopoly regulations, and bank regulations. Unfortunately, the Congress has not kept up with these regulations as the markets and technology have changed.

Now, anyone with the ability to read and think can see that things like derivatives and credit default swaps have been invented by big business and Wall Street as get rich quick schemes. An objective look at the World Trade Organization will tell you that it is a way for poor countries to see cheap products to rich countries that must abide by lot of environmental laws, etc.

This is simply unfair competition and get rich quick scams developed by a group of unscrupulous businessmen. The problem is compounded by the fact that our elected officials - and especially our bureaucrats - are not smart enough (or brave enough) to put the necessary rules in place to stop this practice.

In my mind, solving these current problems do not require the brains of a rocket scientist. For example:
1. A corporation is allowed to engage in one type of business. You're either a bank or an insurance company, but not both. You can't have a corporate umbrella that is so large that you are not a business, you are a "holding company for businesses"

2. If you are in the business of investing other people's money, then you must a minimum of 10% reserves. That is you cannot be leveraged higher than 10 to 1.

3. If a product is imported into the United States, the importing company must sign a document, under penalty of law, that the products have been made under conditions that meet a specified level of human rights and environmental regulations.

The list goes on, but my point is we do not have to micromanage each company. We do not have to regulate businesses to death. We simply need to insert that acupuncture needle at the right location. Businesses should not be able to move out of the world of ethical and legal business practices over into the world of extralegal business practices.

We can't destroy capitalism and free competition, but we can outlaw scams and deceptive business practices.