obama ad, building from the bottom up (1 Viewer)

[Billy the Kid]

Obama states in his latest tv ad that we need to build from the bottom up? How do you do that?

Did he give any details on how this could be accomplished.

Or is this another "sound bite" for the uninformed who believe the "you didn't build that" and "the rich should pay their fair share" crowd?

 

[American]

Incorrect. Food stamps, unemployment and welfare drive the economy more than tax breaks for high earners. This is because food stamps, welfare and unemployment money gets spent on goods and services, which generates demand, which causes hiring. Economics 101. Tax breaks for millionaires don't get spent in the same way, rather get saved or invested in the market (which doesn't generate demand or make companies grow).

The best way to get people off of entitlement programs is by rebuilding the US manufacturing base to make jobs for blue collar citizens. Not by cutting the entitlement programs and throwing people out on their butts to work at McDonalds for a wage that can't even rent an apartment with full-time hours.

Marvel ye at the mantra of the Left.


:allhail

 

[disneydude]

Obama states in his latest tv ad that we need to build from the bottom up? How do you do that?

Easy....opposite of "trickle down". See....the Republicans believe that if you give a dollar to the wealthiest Americans, some of the pennies will trickle down to the masses. The failed assumption with that theory is that very little of the tax cuts for the wealthy are ever reinvested, so the wealthy get billions in tax cuts and the masses remain hungry and willing to work for peanuts. (Perhaps that is exactly what the Republicans intended).

On the otherhand...building from the bottom up, means that you give tax cuts to the middle and working classes. In turn, this money is reinvested into the marketplace, because the middle/working class tend to spend the money, not hoarde it.

Ever hear of a building that is structurally sound without having a strong base at the bottom? Nah....I haven't either.

 

[theseki]

Marvel ye at the mantra of the Left.

Point <-------
--------> You

People having money to spend drives the economy. When people who would not otherwise have money to spend have even a tiny pittance to spend they begin taking part in the economy which drives demand which drives production which drives employment. This is not hard.

 

[Born Free]

Easy....opposite of "trickle down". See....the Republicans believe that if you give a dollar to the wealthiest Americans, some of the pennies will trickle down to the masses. The failed assumption with that theory is that very little of the tax cuts for the wealthy are ever reinvested, so the wealthy get billions in tax cuts and the masses remain hungry and willing to work for peanuts. (Perhaps that is exactly what the Republicans intended).

On the otherhand...building from the bottom up, means that you give tax cuts to the middle and working classes. In turn, this money is reinvested into the marketplace, because the middle/working class tend to spend the money, not hoarde it.

Ever hear of a building that is structurally sound without having a strong base at the bottom? Nah....I haven't either.

Yes your a liberal, OK, so here are some facts, 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. And who would that 50% be, the poor and middle class.

Now who pays the taxes, the other 50% who you say above that have all these tax breaks.

So building from the bottom up is by giving tax cuts to the middle and working classes, of which they already don't pay any taxes. How can it get any lower than that. And the ones that do pay, pay so little it's not worth mentioning.

 

[Born Free]

Point <-------
--------> You

People having money to spend drives the economy. When people who would not otherwise have money to spend have even a tiny pittance to spend they begin taking part in the economy which drives demand which drives production which drives employment. This is not hard.

And how do people get money to spend?

 

[Billy the Kid]

Marvel ye at the mantra of the Left.


:allhail

That's funny!

 

[Billy the Kid]

And how do people get money to spend?

Don't bring reality into this discussion. :mrgreen:

We all know that our elected Reps provide the money they spend out of their very own pockets. The idea that the taxpayer is footing the bill for all the spending is totally wrong. :lamo

 

[disneydude]

Yes your a liberal, OK, so here are some facts, 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. And who would that 50% be, the poor and middle class.

Now who pays the taxes, the other 50% who you say above that have all these tax breaks.

So building from the bottom up is by giving tax cuts to the middle and working classes, of which they already don't pay any taxes. How can it get any lower than that. And the ones that do pay, pay so little it's not worth mentioning.

I think that you would be surprized about how much of the wealthy actually pay what they should in taxes. Let me give you a clue....there is a reason why Romney doesn't want Americans to see his tax returns.

 

[Fletch]

I think that you would be surprized about how much of the wealthy actually pay what they should in taxes. Let me give you a clue....there is a reason why Romney doesn't want Americans to see his tax returns.

He paid $3,000,000 in taxes last year. I would be willing to bet that that is about $3,000,000 more than you paid--give or take a thousand or two.

 

[theseki]

And how do people get money to spend?

In an ideal situation by working; the idea of such programs as unemployment insurance, food assistance, and the like is that when people are unable to work they do not drop out of the economy. ROI is much higher than the pittance most developed nations devote to such programs.

 

[disneydude]

He paid $3,000,000 in taxes last year. I would be willing to bet that that is about $3,000,000 more than you paid--give or take a thousand or two.

I can guarantee that I paid a greater percentage of my income....and I wasn't hiding any in offshore accounts in the cayman islands either.

Just sayin'.....there are two sets of rules in this country.....those that the top 1% play by and the other than the rest of the 99% play by.

 

[Born Free]

I think that you would be surprized about how much of the wealthy actually pay what they should in taxes. Let me give you a clue....there is a reason why Romney doesn't want Americans to see his tax returns.

Let me put it this way again, 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. Thus that leaves the other 50% that pay all the taxes. And the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes paid.

As for you suggesting Romney does not pay all his taxes, is yet another example of an inept arm of government not doing it's job. You telling me IRS let Romney not pay all his taxes is a government arm that should be shut down. And its further reason because we have such and incompetent IRS which would be eliminated using a flat tax.

 

[theseki]

Let me put it this way again, 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. Thus that leaves the other 50% that pay all the taxes. And the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes paid.

No; it leaves 50% who pay all the federal income taxes. This is different from paying all the taxes. The United States has a fascinating and often regressive tax code heavy with state sales taxes, payroll taxes, and commodity taxes. I do not believe its possible to avoid paying taxes in the US without avoiding taking part in the economy at all.

 

[Born Free]

In an ideal situation by working; the idea of such programs as unemployment insurance, food assistance, and the like is that when people are unable to work they do not drop out of the economy. ROI is much higher than the pittance most developed nations devote to such programs.

So people working is the ideal situation. Meaning "Jobs" being that is the ideal situation, why do we have over 8% unemployment for over 42 straight months. You would think that would be the number one priority of any White House. Yet this White House has failed the unemployed by not creating economic growth policies. If jobs is the ideal situation them I sure would think that would be the highest of all priorities of any White House. Would you not think so.

 

[Born Free]

No; it leaves 50% who pay all the federal income taxes. This is different from paying all the taxes. The United States has a fascinating and often regressive tax code heavy with state sales taxes, payroll taxes, and commodity taxes. I do not believe its possible to avoid paying taxes in the US without avoiding taking part in the economy at all.

That is exactly what I'm talking about, federal income taxes, that is which funds our federal government, of which funds entitlement programs, of which funds bailouts for unions. 50% of the American people do not pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Giving a tax break to the poor and middle class is as stupid as it gets, they already don't pay anything and the ones that do are paying so little it meaningless.

 

[theseki]

So people working is the ideal situation. Meaning "Jobs" being that is the ideal situation, why do we have over 8% unemployment for over 42 straight months. You would think that would be the number one priority of any White House. Yet this White House has failed the unemployed by not creating economic growth policies. If jobs is the ideal situation them I sure would think that would be the highest of all priorities of any White House. Would you not think so.

While I am not an American and could be wrong; dont bills have to come from the Senate and the House of Representatives? I dont believe a President has the power to enact policies unilaterally.

I do agree however; the American government has failed to effectively respond to the economic trouble. I lived through a similar period of slow growth, inactive government, and very conservative policies that failed to address our troubles. I sympathize deeply

Iceland is looking pretty good though.

 

[a351]

That is exactly what I'm talking about, federal income taxes, that is which funds our federal government

of which funds entitlement programs,

A large chunk yes, but it is hardly the sole or overwhelmingly dominant source of revenue, here's a quick glance at the 2010 figures.. What are the federal government's sources of revenue?


That would be FICA taxes, which every working individual happens to pay, regardless of said individuals income tax bracket.

 

[Fletch]

I can guarantee that I paid a greater percentage of my income....and I wasn't hiding any in offshore accounts in the cayman islands either.

Just sayin'.....there are two sets of rules in this country.....those that the top 1% play by and the other than the rest of the 99% play by.

What percentage you paid is irrelevant. As for the two sets of rules, you are right. Some people want the state to protect their property while confiscting the property of others. The reason you want the rich to pay more is because you understand that the primary function of the federal government is to transfer wealth. Kind of hard to rob from the rich and give to the poor if you dont first rob from the rich.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Obama states in his latest tv ad that we need to build from the bottom up? How do you do that?

You do that by supporting the poor and middle class so they can afford to buy things, which is what drives the economy.

Oh, you mean spread the wealth...

 

[apdst]

Incorrect. Food stamps, unemployment and welfare drive the economy more than tax breaks for high earners. This is because food stamps, welfare and unemployment money gets spent on goods and services, which generates demand, which causes hiring. Economics 101. Tax breaks for millionaires don't get spent in the same way, rather get saved or invested in the market (which doesn't generate demand or make companies grow).

The best way to get people off of entitlement programs is by rebuilding the US manufacturing base to make jobs for blue collar citizens. Not by cutting the entitlement programs and throwing people out on their butts to work at McDonalds for a wage that can't even rent an apartment with full-time hours.

Taking money out of the private sector, then injecting it back into the private sector doesn't drive the economy.

We currently have 100,000,000 American on some kind of government assistance. If it worked that way, we would have a booming economy.

 

[apdst]

I can guarantee that I paid a greater percentage of my income....and I wasn't hiding any in offshore accounts in the cayman islands either.

Just sayin'.....there are two sets of rules in this country.....those that the top 1% play by and the other than the rest of the 99% play by.

What percentage would that be?

 

[a351]

Taking money out of the private sector, then injecting it back into the private sector doesn't drive the economy.

We currently have 100,000,000 American on some kind of government assistance. If it worked that way, we would have a booming economy.

The transfer of funds from one hand to another is in fact the driving force behind the economy as we know it, just ask a local business owner for confirmation of said phenomenon.

We have a large number of individuals on assistance because of an anemic economy, said assistance programs aid in offsetting potential losses in both living conditions and consumer activity. Simply put, without these supplementary programs, the economy would be weakened substantially.

 

[Born Free]

A large chunk yes, but it is hardly the sole or overwhelmingly dominant source of revenue, here's a quick glance at the 2010 figures.. What are the federal government's sources of revenue?


That would be FICA taxes, which every working individual happens to pay, regardless of said individuals income tax bracket.

FICA is what is paid by the employer and employee that goes into SS and Medicare. It does not go into the federal general fund. In principle FICA taxes is to pay the employee back in the form of SS and Medicare however we all know Medicare is broke by not being funded enough. Obama gave a tax holiday for employees to not pay their FICA making matters worse for underfunding SS and Medicare.

So the fact remains 50% of the American people do not pay federal income taxes. That is left to the other 50% to fund our federal governments.

 

[apdst]

The transfer of funds from one hand to another is in fact the driving force behind the economy as we know it, just ask a local business owner for confirmation of said phenomenon.

We have a large number of individuals on assistance because of an anemic economy, said assistance programs aid in offsetting potential losses in both living conditions and consumer activity. Simply put, without these supplementary programs, the economy would be weakened substantially.

But, not when the second hand is the government. If it worked, the Soviet Union wouldn't wouldn't have collapsed.