[shooz]

It seems they sometimes forget that it's a consumer based economy.
Billionaires will never buy enough Lear jets, cocaine, whores, French wines, BMWs, condos, or anything else at a level to keep things running.
It takes a middle class with lots of spendable income.
That's the REAL American dream.

[jeffkrol]

IF ONE ACCEPTS that the gov. can and should incur "debt" ie "money printing" and IF this "money printing" is put in the hands of people who actually spend it locally, one need not to raise taxes on the rich (personally it's more a social statement than economic anyways)..........

The argument becomes mute.

As to raising taxes destroys jobs, the HISTORIC FACT points to this as a major urban legend for 2 reasons:

One, taxes are just a cost of doing business and is treated that way, minimally successful companies (borderline on creative destruction of capitalism) may fold, rest will muddle on. this is pretty much a fact. Opportunity for profit overrides any tax issues........
Currently many "successful" companies fold due to the psychological, and part practical idea that they don't make ENOUGH money.
A personal issue that I wish the "job creators" would get over.... In other words, if I can create a business and employee x amount of people but only clear 10% it is EASIER (yes business people are also lazy ) to put my investment in a hedge fund clearing 15% so what is the point of starting a business........... Of course looking at it as a social responsibility goes against the grain of human nature apparently.

Two, even if they create jobs there is NO GUARANTEE, nor historical fact that they will be in this country or have enough impact, if here, to justify the loss of social revenue that can be diverted to another segment of the consumer economy.. In other words, and as stated by others, jobs lost here, gained there...........

[stevewig]

I noticed with interest this quotation from a discussion on yesterdays ABC News:

"If the debt deal is reached, Obama will look good.

If no deal is reached and the Country defaults, the Republicans will look bad.

It’s a no win situation for the Republicans and they know it.

That’s why they went from $4 trillion (which they wanted) to $2 trillion. When they saw that the president wasn’t buying, they folded like a cheap suit with McConnell offering power to the President to raise the debt ceiling. You know why? To put them off the hook.

This sounds familiar. Remember the last time that the Republicans folded like a cheap suit?

The tea party demanded $100 billion in budget cuts.

The Tea Party supporters held a rally in the District of Columbia to demand the full $100 billion in cuts, including cuts to fund Obama's health care reform.

Negotiated $64 billion.

Settled on $33 billion.

"Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I've made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” said Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement.

The $33 billion budget deal went through.
----------------------------------------
It’s a no win situation for the Republicans. They made their bed. Now they and some Tea Party members will have to sleep in it."

[GeneV]

I noticed with interest this quotation from a discussion on yesterdays ABC News:

"If the debt deal is reached, Obama will look good.

If no deal is reached and the Country defaults, the Republicans will look bad.

It’s a no win situation for the Republicans and they know it.

That’s why they went from $4 trillion (which they wanted) to $2 trillion. When they saw that the president wasn’t buying, they folded like a cheap suit with McConnell offering power to the President to raise the debt ceiling. You know why? To put them off the hook.

This sounds familiar. Remember the last time that the Republicans folded like a cheap suit?

The tea party demanded $100 billion in budget cuts.

The Tea Party supporters held a rally in the District of Columbia to demand the full $100 billion in cuts, including cuts to fund Obama's health care reform.

Negotiated $64 billion.

Settled on $33 billion.

"Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I've made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” said Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement.

The $33 billion budget deal went through.
----------------------------------------
It’s a no win situation for the Republicans. They made their bed. Now they and some Tea Party members will have to sleep in it."

It is somewhat beyond being in bed with the Tea Party. It is also the tactic of negotiating while a bomb is ticking. This has never set well with most of the American public.

[shooz]

It's not about making one party or the other look good, or bad.
It about making the country look good.
Republicans are refusing to do that.
At the moment, we don't look too good.
Through Mr. Bush, we allowed Wallstreet to make us look VERY bad to the rest of the world.
That situation has not changed.

[Nesster]

So just who are these 'job creators' we must coddle?
Why the GOP's 'Job Creators' Are Hard to Find - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

The trouble is, job creators are an endangered species these days. The biggest problem in the U.S. economy, in fact, is a shortage of job creators to reward and protect. Companies are barely hiring, and there are about 7 million fewer jobs now than there were at the end of 2007, when the Great Recession began. Part of the Republicans' plan is to lower taxes, streamline regulation, open more trade and take other steps that will stimulate job creation. But we've already tried some of that, including several rounds of tax cuts since 2008. Most job creators are still hiding.

Big companies employ a lot of Americans, but over the last few years they've been better at job destruction than job creation. Between 2007 and 2010, companies with more than 1,000 employees shed about 2.6 million jobs, according to the latest data from the Labor Department. Many big companies have rebounded sharply from the recession, with impressive profits and a lot of cash on hand. But even some of the most successful big companies aren't doing much job creation--not in the United States, anyway. Here are a few examples:

General Electric, which is run by the same Jeffrey Immelt who chairs President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, axed 32,000 jobs worldwide between 2007 and 2010, according to information from GE's annual reports. About 22,000 of those lost jobs were in the United States. No job creation there, even though GE earned about $12 billion in profits in 2010.
...
Wal-Mart has added about 40,000 jobs in the United States since 2007, largely because the discount retailer has been a beneficiary of pinched consumers desperate to save money. But it has added about 150,000 jobs overseas during the same time--nearly four times the U.S. tally. Still, Wal-Mart seems to be one company that can legitimately call itself a job creator.
...
Big companies, in fact, aren't considered a big source of new jobs. While they generate a lot of profits, they also tend to be mature enterprises more likely to swallow other companies and consolidate market share, which tends to eliminate jobs, not create them. "It's the job of big firms to shed jobs," says Carl Schramm, CEO of the Kauffmann Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship. "Big firms want to lower costs, which means lowering labor costs."

...

Young firms, Schramm says, account for virtually all net job creation in the U.S. economy over the last 30 years. That's because startups that survive their first couple of years tend to be vibrant, fast-growing companies that create new industries and hire a lot of new workers. Think Microsoft and Oracle in the 1980s, and Amazon, eBay, and Google in the 1990s. Today, new technology-based firms like Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, Zynga, and LinkedIn represent one of the fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy. However, they're the last companies that need any kind of tax relief--and they're not about to ask for special treatment from Washington, either. They became transformative companies without Washington's help, and they'd like to keep it that way.

Politicians routinely extol the virtues of "small business," but that's not really where the job creators are, either. Conventional small businesses--dry cleaners, nail salons, delicatessens, independent professionals like lawyers and doctors--tend to be important pillars of their communities, but they also come and go without generating a lot of new jobs, on balance. During the third quarter of 2010 (the most recent quarter for which there's data), firms with fewer than 20 employees eliminated 34,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department. The biggest gains were among firms with 500 to 999 employees, which created 37,000 jobs.

[shooz]

For some odd reason the right wingers never answer that question.
They just keep quoting FLAKESnews.

[mikemike]

Big companies, in fact, aren't considered a big source of new jobs. While they generate a lot of profits, they also tend to be mature enterprises more likely to swallow other companies and consolidate market share, which tends to eliminate jobs, not create them.

Maybe a moratorium on M&A would pull the economy out of the fire. Double bonus, this would hit wall street in the pocket book.

However, they're the last companies that need any kind of tax relief--and they're not about to ask for special treatment from Washington, either. They became transformative companies without Washington's help, and they'd like to keep it that way.

More and more though, they are finding that they need to go kiss the rings in Washington now that they have reached a certain critical mass and are making too much money.

[shooz]

Still no answer, eh?

[stevewig]

Still no answer, eh?

A reply from Sarah (on Newsmax.com):

“We cannot default, but . . . we cannot afford to retreat right now, either. Now is not the time to retreat,” she said. “This is the time to reload — and we reload with reality by giving facts and numbers to the American public, so that those of us across the U.S. can start chiming in and letting our representatives know that we will not capitulate. We will not hand over more power, which I believe is unconstitutional, to President Obama to further manipulate our economy.”

[shooz]

He,he.......................newsmax.............................even flakier that FLAKESnews.
No wonder Sara is there.

Don't worry..................The trickle down Reagan promised is still on the way!........

Wasn't that manipulation of the economy too?
It's only constitutional when republicans do it.

[jeffkrol]

A reply from Sarah (on Newsmax.com):

“We cannot default, but . . . we cannot afford to retreat right now, either. Now is not the time to retreat,” she said. “This is the time to reload —

Still didn't learn form AZ huh........................ dumb arse.........

A bit O/T but think about it............

Let’s analyze this:

“The U.S.governemtn effectively is bankrupt . . . “ What does that mean? A bankrupt entity cannot pay its bills; the U.S. can. . . endlessly.

“. . . and remains extremely likely to resolve this ultimate sovereign insolvency by printing money to meet its obligations.” If by “printing money” SGS means crediting the bank accounts of its creditors, yes, that’s the way a Monetarily Sovereign government pays its bills. Always has; always will.


If the government didn’t “print” dollars, there would be no dollars.

https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/tag/monetarily-sovereign/
But John Williams, the author of SGS offers no caveat. He just flat-out predicts hyperinflation, which the U.S. never has had, through wars, depressions, recessions, stagflations and every other economic crisis. Hyperinflations always are caused by specific and unique circumstances, and are not merely inflations on steroids. Today, we are worried about deflation, while having the absolute power to prevent even inflation, via interest rate control.

No, hyperinflation is the least of our worries — somewhere at the danger level of being destroyed by a huge meteor. The “most” of our worries: Recession and depression, which either are existent or imminent, depending on how you define them. Oddly, debt hawks continue to fret about the least of our worries, while ignoring the “most” of our worries. Just can’t figure those strange people.
So add Shadow Government Statistics and John Williams to the long list of people and institutions that display zero understanding of Monetary Sovereignty.

[/quote]
[quote]

[stevewig]

A little bit of history repeating itself:

Jake Blumgart: Will Higher Taxes on the Rich Kill Jobs?

Quotation:

"The Heritage Foundation predicted that Clinton's 1993 tax proposal would lead to job loss and economic disaster. According to a May 1993 Heritage backgrounder claimed:

The Clinton tax hikes on income would have a devastating impact on long-term economic growth. In particular, the increase in the tax burden would reduce savings and investment, thus hampering the economy's capacity to generate new jobs and higher wages. Specifically, higher tax rates on income would punish productive economic activity, reduce tax revenues, lead to increased federal spending and higher budget deficits, reduce job creation and penalize small business.

The doomsayers were wrong then as they are wrong now. When Clinton signed the budget bill into law, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 6.9 percent and the deficit was more than $255 billion. Every year thereafter unemployment and by 2000 the jobless rate was at 4.0 percent, the lowest of any year since 1968. The deficit shrank until, in 1998, the federal government was able to boast of a budget surplus for the first time since 1969.

The conservatives that cried wolf about these tax increases also claimed George W. Bush's tax cuts would spur economic growth, job creation and balanced budgets. Instead, they turned surplus into deficit, the first decline in household income since records were kept in 1967, the slowest job growth since WWII, and Gilded Age level income growth for the super-rich.

It isn't just Fox News that cries wolf. Despite all evidence to the contrary, conservative think tanks, Republican politicians, and business lobby groups continue to issue warnings that modest tax hikes on rich Americans will hurt the economy. They are lying now like they lied before."

[Nesster]

Steve, with all due respect: look what happened. Clearly the real estate bubble was Clinton's fault, and it was only the heroic efforts of the Bush economic team (Tax Cuts!) that kept us from experiencing the Obama recession sooner - for it was obviously caused by Clinton policies.

Or So They Say...

[GeneV]

Steve, with all due respect: look what happened. Clearly the real estate bubble was Clinton's fault, and it was only the heroic efforts of the Bush economic team (Tax Cuts!) that kept us from experiencing the Obama recession sooner - for it was obviously caused by Clinton policies.

Or So They Say...

And, as Mitch McConnell says, if the President succeeds with his theatrics, the Republicans may become co-owners of the Bush economy which Obama ruined.