Why does the United States need "the biggest jobs program since World War II"?

[AURaptor 1,137]

  That is what Hillary is promoting in her campaign. And yet at the DNC party, we were told that everything is great, and that unemployment is that a fantastically low level. So then how are we going to spend more money to make more jobs from the government? 

 

 How can we have both an outstanding economy thanks to Obama, but yet still need a massive government program or set of programs , to create jobs? 

[TheBlueVue 177]

7 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

  That is what Hillary is promoting in her campaign. And yet at the DNC party, we were told that everything is great, and that unemployment is that a fantastically low level. So then how are we going to spend more money to make more jobs from the government? 

 

 How can we have both an outstanding economy thanks to Obama, but yet still need a massive government program or set of programs , to create jobs? 

Easy, its all about votes not the economy. The left wants to convince the electorate that it's the govt to the resuce even when a rescue contradicts everything they've been saying about what a great job barry has done the last 8 years with jobs and the economy.

[TexasTiger 13,557]

This complex world we live in is truly baffling to simple minds.

[AURaptor 1,137]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

This complex world we live in is truly baffling to simple minds.

So, you have no answer but feel the need to call me stupid. 

 

Got it.

 

Hillary Sycophant. 

[TexasTiger 13,557]

You don't process answers.

[Mims44 1,958]

America Works?

 

Is Hillary secretly Kevin Spacey?

[AURaptor 1,137]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You don't process answers.

You have none. Only insults & leftist talking points.

 

meanwhile -

Democrats continued to defend the law, but Hillary Clinton's campaign said Aetna’s decision to withdraw from 11 of the 15 state exchanges it participated in could open the door for a plan backed by Clinton – including in the exchanges a “public option,” or government-run  plan to compete with those offered by private insurers.

 

called it.

 

[homersapien 11,812]

There's a huge amount of deferred infrastructure repair/upgrade to be done.  Why not invest in the necessary if it stimulates the economy to boot?

[AURaptor 1,137]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There's a huge amount of deferred infrastructure repair/grade to be done.  Why not invest in the necessary if it stimulates the economy to boot?

Remember all those shovel ready jobs , back in '09 ? Then remember how they weren't as ' shovel ready as we had thought  ' ?? After nearly 1 TRILLION $'s in Stimulus spending... and then 7 more great years of ' Recovery Summer ! ', we're left with 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and needing more , more , more, on top of what we're spending already ???? 

[JoeBags7277 759]

Central planners by nature are never allowed to admit failure, lest the body politic catch wind of the notion that the economy can manage just fine on its own. 

[homersapien 11,812]

5 minutes ago, Weagle1787 said:

Central planners by nature are never allowed to admit failure, lest the body politic catch wind of the notion that the economy can manage just fine on its own. 

Is the interstate highway system such a failure that we should just let it degrade and fall apart?

How about the electrical grid?   Water/Sewage systems?  

Are they such failures we'd be better off without them?

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - like the NOLA levee system, most of those things have worked  - so far. But the govt has pissed away billions of $'s over decades, and the chickens are coming home to roost. THEY screwed this up, and now our roads and bridges are failing. And just like SSI, which is headed for a nose dive of Titanic proportions, the same folks who sent us on this course are now asking for another multi trillion dollars to ' fix ' what should have been paid for all along the way. 

[Mims44 1,958]

Passing the buck to the next generation is an American tradition.

[homersapien 11,812]

17 hours ago, AURaptor said:

homer - like the NOLA levee system, most of those things have worked  - so far. But the govt has pissed away billions of $'s over decades, and the chickens are coming home to roost. THEY screwed this up, and now our roads and bridges are failing. And just like SSI, which is headed for a nose dive of Titanic proportions, the same folks who sent us on this course are now asking for another multi trillion dollars to ' fix ' what should have been paid for all along the way. 

This post is a good example of the mindset that views our government as a separate, independent entity over which we have no influence.

THEY didn't screw it up, WE screwed it up.  But that's hardly an argument for not doing what we should be doing.

[AURaptor 1,137]

 How did we screw up anything? the us army corps of engineers built the levees too shallow. They screwed up. And yet the money that should've been used to correct those problems got funneled and siphoned off into the pockets of politicians  and bureaucrats  who looked the other way as corners were cut. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Is the interstate highway system such a failure that we should just let it degrade and fall apart?

How about the electrical grid?   Water/Sewage systems?  

Are they such failures we'd be better off without them?

Another scary moment we agree on something again. LOL. We do need to improve our Infrastructure as businesses need good infrastructure. However we can't go into debt to pay for it as it will come back and bite us in the Buttocks. Because newer cars get better gas mileage the gas tax is not paying enough to keep our roads and bridges in repair. As much as I hate raising taxes we have to raise the gas tax so that it can keep up with Infrastructure repair. We need to find a way to tax electric cars as batteries improve and more electric cars damage the roads they will have to pay their share.  While I am generally against raising taxes I understand the need to raise taxes for things we use and must keep up.  Electrical Grid, Water/Sewage you use it you pay for it.

My problem is Hillary won't generate enough taxes so we will go further into debt and the taxes increases she will impose won't be against the people using it but against all the people the Democrats want to pay for everything the Rich.  Nothing in her plan said anything about cutting unneeded and often redundant government programs.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

33 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Another scary moment we agree on something again. LOL. We do need to improve our Infrastructure as businesses need good infrastructure. However we can't go into debt to pay for it as it will come back and bite us in the Buttocks. Because newer cars get better gas mileage the gas tax is not paying enough to keep our roads and bridges in repair. As much as I hate raising taxes we have to raise the gas tax so that it can keep up with Infrastructure repair. We need to find a way to tax electric cars as batteries improve and more electric cars damage the roads they will have to pay their share.  While I am generally against raising taxes I understand the need to raise taxes for things we use and must keep up.  Electrical Grid, Water/Sewage you use it you pay for it.

My problem is Hillary won't generate enough taxes so we will go further into debt and the taxes increases she will impose won't be against the people using it but against all the people the Democrats want to pay for everything the Rich.  Nothing in her plan said anything about cutting unneeded and often redundant government programs.

 

What are you talking about?  Gas tax?  Wouldn't that tax the very people who drive the most?  Using "it".  What is it?

Perfect example of a partisan thought, not an actual thinking thought.  And yes, we should always capitalize the word "Rich" as a sign of humble respect.  .2% of the population deserves the right to pay only 15% on their passive incomes and, as a bonus, no inheritance tax.  Divine right of kings and all that sort of BS.  Those poor rich people.  We just don't appreciate them enough.  Screw the working class.  We need to develop a class of idle wealthy aristocracy.  You and your imbecilic fellow "conservatives" keep at it and, we will have a class that owns everything including the government.

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

What are you talking about?  Gas tax?  Wouldn't that tax the very people who drive the most?  Using "it".  What is it?

Perfect example of a partisan thought, not an actual thinking thought.  And yes, we should always capitalize the word "Rich" as a sign of humble respect.  .2% of the population deserves the right to pay only 15% on their passive incomes and, as a bonus, no inheritance tax.  Divine right of kings and all that sort of BS.  Those poor rich people.  We just don't appreciate them enough.  Screw the working class.  We need to develop a class of idle wealthy aristocracy.  You and your imbecilic fellow "conservatives" keep at it and, we will have a class that owns everything including the government.

 

Calling somebody an imbecile without knowing the facts shows who is the real imbecile.  The rich do pay a good bit more as we have a progressive tax structure as seen in various reports. Here is one for example  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

I am a working man not one of the Rich the facts speak for them selves. Most conservatives actually would prefer a Progressive flat tax without all the breaks (deductions) that the rich do take advantage of.

You are totally against raising the gas tax so that people who use and damage the infrastructure through that use. So where is the money going to come from. You don't want to raise gas tax because it will hurt the poor. Most of the poor don't have a car and if they do don't drive that far. The real poor in this country don't pay taxes they actually get money back from the government.

We should help the poor but in ways that will allow them to change.  I am disgusted by the poor schools in many of our cities, I am disgusted by the lack chain grocery stores in our poor neighborhoods.  The problem is that since LBJ and the democrats started the "War on Poverty", Poverty has increased and yet billions of dollars has been thrown at it. 

The liberals call people who disagree with them imbeciles and yet the programs they push not only don't work they seem to make things worse. Liberals don't want voucher programs so the poor can go to better schools.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Calling somebody an imbecile without knowing the facts shows who is the real imbecile.  The rich do pay a good bit more as we have a progressive tax structure as seen in various reports. Here is one for example  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Okay.  Is it fair to say that there is a very small percentage of Americans currently enjoying historically favorable tax rates?  Do we have any real evidence?  How about the fact that this small percentage is currently enjoying huge, relative increases in income and wealth?  How about the relative values of capital and labor?  Are they skewed by economic and political power?  Or, is this simply what we call "capitalism"?

I am a working man not one of the Rich the facts speak for them selves. Most conservatives actually would prefer a Progressive flat tax without all the breaks (deductions) that the rich do take advantage of.

Sorry but, I do not know what the hell that means.  Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.  Please explain the "progressive flat tax".  

You are totally against raising the gas tax so that people who use and damage the infrastructure through that use. So where is the money going to come from. You don't want to raise gas tax because it will hurt the poor. Most of the poor don't have a car and if they do don't drive that far. The real poor in this country don't pay taxes they actually get money back from the government.

No.  I never said, or even indicated that.  

 

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

 

We should help the poor but in ways that will allow them to change.  I am disgusted by the poor schools in many of our cities, I am disgusted by the lack chain grocery stores in our poor neighborhoods.  The problem is that since LBJ and the democrats started the "War on Poverty", Poverty has increased and yet billions of dollars has been thrown at it. 

To a great sense, I agree.  Currently, the programs in place may help mitigate the effects of poverty but, they are minimally effective because they are not designed towards the goal of bringing people out of poverty.

The liberals call people who disagree with them imbeciles and yet the programs they push not only don't work they seem to make things worse. Liberals don't want voucher programs so the poor can go to better schools.

Liberals?  Perhaps reality says that anyone who calls you an imbecile is automatically a liberal?  A liberal did not call you an imbecile.  I did.  Your posts reflect someone who is more invested an the ideological, emotional debate rather than, a reasoned, practical discussion.  Congratulations for clinging to the idea of a perfect ideology.  However, there is no such thing.  You perfectly demonstrate the folly of being ideological.  Your posts reflect those who surrendered critical thought in favor of an unconditional belief in anecdotal, inane narratives crafted for those subject to ideological idiocy.  

 

[homersapien 11,812]

On 8/17/2016 at 1:39 PM, AURaptor said:

  That is what Hillary is promoting in her campaign. And yet at the DNC party, we were told that everything is great, and that unemployment is that a fantastically low level. So then how are we going to spend more money to make more jobs from the government? 

 How can we have both an outstanding economy thanks to Obama, but yet still need a massive government program or set of programs , to create jobs? 

You don't even read your own posts.   

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

50 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

 

 

It was not an emotional debate until you referred to people as Imbeciles. As to fitting the perfect ideology you are sadly mistaken. I actually coined the term progressive Flat Tax as a way of showing that a true Flat tax is not the way to go. A Single Flat tax for all does not work for the poor or the middle class as it hurts them more.

What I mean by a Progressive Flat Tax is multi-faceted.

1. No more deductions - Yes that includes home mortgage deductions

2. Below a certain income no tax. Like I said earlier we need to help the poor

3. A couple of lower tax rates at different income levels

4. A highest rate. Since no deductions this rate can and should be lower then current highest rate.

I recognize that poor people should not have a tax burden and I also recognize that people above poverty level but not at certain income levels are hurt by one size rate fits all more than the rich. Sorry but my ideas don't fit your Ideological classification.

I would have something similar for businesses. A large company should not have so many Tax Credits that they can make billions of dollars and pay a very small amount in taxes.

In any system the super rich will not be hurt by taxes as much as others because their disposable income is so great that they can still live the life of the Rich and Famous and pay a higher percentage which they already do. In the system I describe some Rich people even with a lower Rate would pay more as they would not have the loopholes tax returns would be easy for everybody and we could greatly downsize the IRS.

I still think we need an increase in the gas tax as our infrastructure is underfunded and I do believe the fairest way is based on usage. At this time the only way to measure usage is in gallons of gas purchased. As I also mentioned earlier as more electric cars come online we will have to find a way to charge them.

If I was the ideological conservative you seem to think I am I wouldn't ever raise taxes.  I brought up liberals because you are the one who classified me as an Ideological conservative.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

It was not an emotional debate until you referred to people as Imbeciles. As to fitting the perfect ideology you are sadly mistaken. I actually coined the term progressive Flat Tax as a way of showing that a true Flat tax is not the way to go. A Single Flat tax for all does not work for the poor or the middle class as it hurts them more.

What I mean by a Progressive Flat Tax is multi-faceted.

1. No more deductions - Yes that includes home mortgage deductions

2. Below a certain income no tax. Like I said earlier we need to help the poor

3. A couple of lower tax rates at different income levels

4. A highest rate. Since no deductions this rate can and should be lower then current highest rate.

I recognize that poor people should not have a tax burden and I also recognize that people above poverty level but not at certain income levels are hurt by one size rate fits all more than the rich. Sorry but my ideas don't fit your Ideological classification.

I would have something similar for businesses. A large company should not have so many Tax Credits that they can make billions of dollars and pay a very small amount in taxes.

In any system the super rich will not be hurt by taxes as much as others because their disposable income is so great that they can still live the life of the Rich and Famous and pay a higher percentage which they already do. In the system I describe some Rich people even with a lower Rate would pay more as they would not have the loopholes tax returns would be easy for everybody and we could greatly downsize the IRS.

I still think we need an increase in the gas tax as our infrastructure is underfunded and I do believe the fairest way is based on usage. At this time the only way to measure usage is in gallons of gas purchased. As I also mentioned earlier as more electric cars come online we will have to find a way to charge them.

If I was the ideological conservative you seem to think I am I wouldn't ever raise taxes.  I brought up liberals because you are the one who classified me as an Ideological conservative.

 

Interesting how different this sounds from:

" and the taxes increases she will impose won't be against the people using it but against all the people the Democrats want to pay for everything the Rich."

Interesting how specifics seem less like the generalized ideological narratives.

 

No.  The fact is, most of the super wealthy do not.  They enjoy the capital gains rate.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"No.  The fact is, most of the super wealthy do not.  They enjoy the capital gains rate.

I have a question....at what income threshold does one become classified as the "super rich"? Is it $5 million a year or what? Assuming its only $1 million a year and that you're correct about them only paying the 20% capital gains rate; I would ask are you implying that paying $200, 000 a year tax bill is not enough?

"

[AURaptor 1,137]

On 8/19/2016 at 3:25 PM, homersapien said:

You don't even read your own posts.   

Your lack BASIC comprehension skills. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

27 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

"No.  The fact is, most of the super wealthy do not.  They enjoy the capital gains rate.

I have a question....at what income threshold does one become classified as the "super rich"? Is it $5 million a year or what? Assuming its only $1 million a year and that you're correct about them only paying the 20% capital gains rate; I would ask are you implying that paying $200, 000 a year tax bill is not enough?

"

Income is not how "wealth" is measured.  The capital gains rate is 15%.  $200,000.00?  Who said it wasn't enough?  How much income are we talking about?

Any more inane questions?  Feel free.