American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416893]Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. [/QUOTE]Really. And you know this how? Do you work for Doppel? Are you his accountant?

Why don't you be honest and admit you really don't know, and therefore what you posted is baloney.

[QUOTE]Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. [/QUOTE]That's a broad statement that requires closer inspection. Reinvestment is highly variable. Businesses can keep profits in the bank, pay off debt, increase compensation, make acquisitions, increase dividends or buy back shares, donate, invest in R&D, increase headcount, etc etc.

Your apparent implication that business profits are good for the country, for average Americans, is only in part true. A great deal of profit, especially as businesses become larger, is put to use in a variety of ways that merely end up helping wealthy people to become wealthier.

This reminds me of Jamie Dimon's defense for passing costs onto bank customers: 'If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger. '

A restaurant analogy coming from a large bank CEO is amusing, though clever.

We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.

We need policies that reverse this trend, not support it. Tax breaks for the wealthy and well-off are most definately not part of the solution, and have to go. If we are to support small businesses, do it through policies that address small business directly (which we already do) , not by lowering personal income tax brackets.

Well since the liberals here have pretty much lost the tax and spend debate on AP they want to change the subject.

Matt, I guess the next thing we will hear from you is to bring Harry Truman up on war crimes charges for dropping the bomb on Japan. Your source, Mohammed El Baradei, also said Iran was not enriching uranium either. The consensus since his ouster from the IAEA was he was a shill for Iran.

As far as touting his Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel is not what it use to be. After all they gave one to Obama before he did dick and since then he has been fu*king up by the numbers.

Esten, why are you chastising Stan, you are not my accountant and you don't work for me either. Stan is stating the obvious to those who actually run companies. From my posts you know I have absorbed some cost increases and passed others along in the form of higher prices for services to my clients, but these increases are limited by my competition's prices.

You seem to believe business owners can cavalierly pass along any price increase they see fit, which is complete BS as we all have to compete in the market place. If your prices are higher for the same or similar product your customers will go to the lower cost provider. Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

As far as reinvestment, most companies do reinvest in capital goods. I have to retool every 3 years to keep up with changes in computer technology and program development. Not to mention sending employees to CE courses to stay current with the ever changing environment. You want companies to start hiring, then get the government out of business and stop paying 2 years of unemployment. You can not spend your way out of a recession as Obama is finding out now with near stagnant growth and higher fuel costs we are entering a double dip recession.

It is not my BS. It is scholars' BS!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416913]Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

[/QUOTE]

Esten, you're right, I don't know anything about Doppelgangers business. But I've looked at a lot of financial statements of a lot of companies, and I'm very confident in my general conclusion, that business pays a lot more to governments than what goes into the owners' pockets. I think my estimate below, that total taxes paid to federal, state and local governments is around 100% of net income before income tax, is in the ballpark for businesses that have low-to-medium profit margins and medium-to-high labor costs (and employment taxes) relative to sales. This would put the total tax burden as a % of net profit (after income tax) at over 150%.

The average dividend payout ratio for the S&P 500 is 30% of net profits. That means, in the long term. 70% is reinvested in the businesses. Yes, in the short term, you're right, what's left over for a particular business after paying dividends may go to pay down debt or increase cash. In the long term, though, about 70% of the net profits of S&P 500 companies are re-invested. The percentage is higher than 70% for smaller companies.

So if the total tax burden is 150% of net profit, and the amount going into the owners' pockets is less than 30% of net profit, government's making a LOT more from business than the owners are. The business owners have no choice except to pass higher taxes onto consumers, if they're going to stay in business.

Continuing to jack up taxes on business is a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, the majority of Republicans, and I think Democrats too, agree.

[QUOTE=Esten;416910]We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.[/QUOTE]Funny, I think you're probably one of the few here who doesn't understand that businesses exist to make a profit. Just because you can mouth the words doesn't mean you understand it. Please provide some support for your assertions that "wealth" is increasingly "accumulating in a small subset of the population" resulting in "unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."

On a different subject, I see that Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector and self-appointed critic-in-chief of the Iraq war, has been arrested for propositioning a minor. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42537481/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/[/url] His defense? He fuc*ed up. He didn't believe she was underage. Hmmmmm. How ironic that this guy in particular would invoke the honest mistake defense. So, we've demonstrated that El Baradei and Ritter are less than credible. At least the left still has Elliot Spitzer.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416895]First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.

Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.

In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to [B][U]give[/U][/B] "the poor" as much [U][B]free[/B][/U] [U][B]money[/B][/U] As before. [/QUOTE]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the [U][B]social safety net[/B][/U].

Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both. As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system. Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.

But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy. Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poor and middle class, to help the rich get even richer. Amazing, but true.

Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416956]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the [U][B]social safety net[/B][/U]. [/quote]What language is it that you speak, there in fantasy land? That's a $1. 6T safety net (or more than $15K / household).

[quote=]Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both.[/quote]False! When liberals speak about the poor and middle class, they are trying to create the illusion that the US is a class-based society, which it is not. Further, the only reason why poor and middle class are in the liberal vocabulary is to be used as tools to solidify power, confiscate wealth and propagate the liberal, socialist agenda.

[quote=]As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system.[/quote]If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's. So much for intellectual honesty.

[quote=]Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.[/quote]Wait a minute, Esten is showing a little more than he thinks. Cuts to Medicare can't hurt 90% of the middle class (those with jobs) , it's for the poor. What Esten is saying is that he wants everyone to be on Medicare.

[quote=]But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy.[/quote]Based upon indisputable, historic facts, lowering marginal tax rates increases aggregate revenue. Check it out.

[quote=]Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poor[/quote]False. There is no burden on the poor, they pay no taxes.

[quote=]and middle class,[/quote]How so? Most middle class homeowners pay almost nothing in income taxes.

[quote=]to help the rich get even richer.[/quote]How?

[quote=]Amazing, but true. [/quote]Agreed you are truly astonishing. However, we shouldn't be surprised. Abject ignorance and intellectual dishonesty have a long history together.

[quote=]Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".[/quote]Might want to consider the source.

[quote=]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]No. He didn't 'park' it. He risked it. And if he put in a million and only got a $30k return, he's a shitty stock picker and he will still owe income taxes on the divs that he received (about $4. 5K, I think) which lowers his return to approximately 2. 6, which sucks, unless you compare it to the performance of the $106K he was forced to put into Social Security for the same period (which when you account for inflation is negative).

Have a nice day.

Esten,"government money" is not "free money" its our money the governement has taken from us in the form of taxes. But of course you want to take more and more and more, why not just take it all, after all that is the end goal. In liberal speak "social safety net" = "nanny state". Yes folks surrender you freedom and your money, in exchange Uncle Sugar will take care of all your needs. What a crock.

Do we need a safety net for the helpless, yes. Do we need a nanny state that makes everyone helpless, no.

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?[/QUOTE]Esten,

You are correct in pointing out that my statement could be misinterpreted.

When I was describing the money that the government takes from the producers and gives to the parasites as "free money", I meant that it was free to the parasites as they do not have to do anything to earn it, and they are not expected to repay it.

Of course this money in not "free" to those who actually earned it in the 1st place.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]Your question is moot: It's his money and he is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

In other words, it's not your money, and thus it's none of your business what he may or may not do with [u]his[/u] [u]money[/u].

Remember, this [strike]is[/strike] once was a free country.

And no, these dividends are not "free money", because he previously earned and paid taxes on the original capital, and then he subsequently risked his accumulated capital by essentially lending it to the company behind the "dividend paying stock".

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416959]If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's.[/QUOTE]Which Obama plan?

- Do you mean the one his deficit reduction commission came up with in November and December, which he failed to endorse, and which is still the best plan of all of them because it is the only one with a snowball's chance of passing?

- Do you mean the budget he announced in January, that increased the deficit by trillions more?

- Or, do you mean the one that he shat out a few weeks ago, which blames the country's problems on all the "millionaires and billionaires" and suggests we can tax our way out of our spending mess?

Is it any wonder why no one takes this guy seriously any more?

The truth, though, is that neither of the plans proposed by Ryan or Obama are serious. Unless you have automatic provisions that kick in to reduce spending, etc, like Simpson-Boles, then there's nothing to force Future Congress and Future President to be constrained by a plan. Even automatic provisions are frequently ignored or overridden by Future Congresses, with little fanfare when this happens.

I'm not suggesting that there's no value in planning. If you're going to raise the retirement age or change eligibility for medicare, then it's good to signal these things now. But, in looking at these plans, the focus ought to be on what happens [u]now[/u] While Current Congress and Current President are still in office. What happens ten years from now on someone else's watch is mostly pie in the sky.

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]Do you believe that owners of a business should receive no part of the profits from the business? If they do, it's free money? I don't think you really believe that -- it sounds like something that Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro would say.

A shareholder is an owner of a business. The business pays federal income tax, state income tax, sales taxes, employment taxes and property taxes. Then the corporation re-invests most or the majority of what's left over, in the business. When the business distributes some small part of what it makes before taxes to the owners, then the owners pay tax again on the dividend.

If you jack up the tax on dividends, you encourage corporations to raise capital via debt instead of equity. Some will become heavily indebted. This is a bad thing. You also encourage management to retain earnings instead of distributing them. A company with, say, a 5% return on equity should distribute most of its earnings to shareholders, who then re-invest the proceeds in businesses with higher returns. That improves productivity and the economy. If there's a large tax on dividends, this is less likely to happen.

Tiny, Stan don't confuse Esten with Facts and real life Economics it hurts his little head and only confuses him.

Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.