Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[rigney]

The amount of money spent on untested supplements and sham cures like copper or magnetic bracelets, homeopathic remedies, Reiki and the volumes of people running away from vaccines these days runs contrary to this claim. People seek out sources that tell them what they want to hear to reinforce their biases and/or to give them the path of least resistance, much like in politics. They are too credulous and easily fooled. Why listen to a doctor when it's easier to believe that vaccinations cause your kid's autism or that wearing a special bracelet will cure you of arthritis or cancer? Why bother with the facts when the politician you like spouts lies that fit with your views and make it easy to hate his opponent?

Dog gone it Tman, sometimes you ring clear as a bell. But heck, there has always been fads, adds and gimmicks around since I can remember. I even had a couple hand held clicker buttons and a soda vinegar powered boat made in Japan, prior to 1941. But you're right, people get sucker punched over and over again and haven't a clue as to what's happening. It is a funny, puzzling and exasperating world, isn't it?

 

Padren:

A rich person can be good and believe in a regressive tax system - as long as they believe in it for a good reason. If you're a job creator and actually care about the careers and lives people have been good enough to invest in your company more than squeezing out every dollar you can - you might be good.If you don't care how many lives are destroyed as long as it improves your portfolio - you might just be bad.

Yes, there are some greedy folks out there who make piles of money and care less about those who gets hurt in the process. But a majority of powerful and rich people like Buffett and Gates are much wiser, more humble and caring. Face it, who; other than an absolute 'idiot" would cut the ass from a golden goose to see where the golden eggs are coming from? So, when and where did this sinful tax inequality begin? The when? Presumably as long as there have been people in power. But the where always seems to come from "GOVERNMENT", and at all levels. This disaster we are facing at the moment is not due to the scheming of an Obama, Bush, Clinton or any other president, but the failure of those we have elected to protect us from such evils. Our Congress! Obama may have had good intentions, but the wrong approach. You simply can't quickly clean a shiny porcelain pot with sand paper and expect it to stay shiny. A president is a single person trying to make the best of a bad situation. Unless this nations people understand that they must regain control of these self-serving asses in our congress, we will continue this hellatious spin. "ONE TERM" is the only way. Tenure has a way of breeding contempt and self-aggrandizement in both academia and politics. At some point, either of these powerful entities can be destructive.

Edited August 16, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Dog gone it Tman, sometimes you ring clear as a bell. But heck, there has always been fads, adds and gimmicks around since I can remember. I even had a couple hand held clicker buttons and a soda vinegar powered boat made in Japan, prior to 1941. But you're right, people get sucker punched over and over again and haven't a clue as to what's happening. It is a funny, puzzling and exasperating world, isn't it?

 

 

Yes, there are some greedy folks out there who make piles of money and care less about those who gets hurt in the process. But a majority of powerful and rich people like Buffett and Gates are much wiser, more humble and caring. Face it, who; other than an absolute 'idiot" would cut the ass from a golden goose to see where the golden eggs are coming from? So, when and where did this sinful tax inequality begin? The when? Presumably as long as there have been people in power. But the where always seems to come from "GOVERNMENT", and at all levels. This disaster we are facing at the moment is not due to the scheming of an Obama, Bush, Clinton or any other president, but the failure of those we have elected to protect us from such evils. Our Congress! Obama may have had good intentions, but the wrong approach. You simply can't quickly clean a shiny porcelain pot with sand paper and expect it to stay shiny. A president is a single person trying to make the best of a bad situation. Unless this nations people understand that they must regain control of these self-serving asses in our congress, we will continue this hellatious spin. "ONE TERM" is the only way. Tenure has a way of breeding contempt and self-aggrandizement in both academia and politics. At some point, either of these powerful entities can be destructive.

 

Damn rigney, you almost sound like you are going to vote Democratic this time... I'm not sure that one term will help "fix it" but the problem does indeed lay at the feet of our legislators. We pay them only a tiny fraction of what the special interests pay them. Doesn't really matter if you like the way they vote or you do not, Democrat or Republican, they vote on most issues the way the people who own them want them to vote. Sadly their constituents are seldom the real owners...

 

I wish I could say that my honor is worth more than that but if someone wanted to raise my pay by an order of magnitude for voting on an issue the way they wanted i might be tempted. Money is what makes our society move, grease if you will, somehow we need to make sure the grease is used to lube the machinery of our society instead of our representatives...

[rigney]

Damn rigney, you almost sound like you are going to vote Democratic this time... I'm not sure that one term will help "fix it" but the problem does indeed lay at the feet of our legislators. We pay them only a tiny fraction of what the special interests pay them. Doesn't really matter if you like the way they vote or you do not, Democrat or Republican, they vote on most issues the way the people who own them want them to vote. Sadly their constituents are seldom the real owners...

 

I wish I could say that my honor is worth more than that but if someone wanted to raise my pay by an order of magnitude for voting on an issue the way they wanted i might be tempted. Money is what makes our society move, grease if you will, somehow we need to make sure the grease is used to lube the machinery of our society instead of our representatives...

Sorry, but I can't accomodate your wish for me to vote Dem. right now. But we had better find a way of controlling these self centered congressional free loading asses. One battle in war and most men have had enough. Bu one battle in politics only breeds a thirst for more encounters. Ain't nobody getting hurt but the people, rich or poor; so let er' fly and (we may) eventually get it solved at someones expense. Edited August 16, 2012 by rigney

[ecoli]

The amount of money spent on untested supplements and sham cures like copper or magnetic bracelets, homeopathic remedies, Reiki and the volumes of people running away from vaccines these days runs contrary to this claim. People seek out sources that tell them what they want to hear to reinforce their biases and/or to give them the path of least resistance, much like in politics. They are too credulous and easily fooled. Why listen to a doctor when it's easier to believe that vaccinations cause your kid's autism or that wearing a special bracelet will cure you of arthritis or cancer? Why bother with the facts when the politician you like spouts lies that fit with your views and make it easy to hate his opponent?

 

Interesting you should bring that up, since belief in "alternative" medicine is stereotypically associated with liberal ideology, though I can't find any data on it but along those lines:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/the-republican-fluency-with-science/

 

I will say that Dem politicians are not nearly as proudly outspoken being anti-science, but I'd put that down to the hyper-religious consensus among republicans.

 

However, Black americans are the group most likely to take the Bible as the literal word of God, and are more entrenched in the Dem camp: http://evostudies.org/2010/06/how-does-creationism-harm-african-americans/

 

How political ideology informs scientific belief is strange indeed.

[Moontanman]

Sorry, but I can't accomodate your wish for me to vote Dem. right now. But we had better find a way of controlling these self centered congressional free loading asses. One battle in war and most men have had enough. Bu one battle in politics only breeds a thirst for more encounters. Ain't nobody getting hurt but the people, rich or poor; so let er' fly and (we may) eventually get it solved at someones expense.

 

 

Voting a split ticket instead of just going for one side or the other might help a little bit...

[rigney]

Voting a split ticket instead of just going for one side or the other might help a little bit...

As I've said before Moon, only on one occassions have I ever voted a straight ticket, and that was for Kennedy. But with Kucinich out of the running, I may just vote a straight ticket this time. Edited August 16, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

So, when and where did this sinful tax inequality begin? The when? Presumably as long as there have been people in power. But the where always seems to come from "GOVERNMENT", and at all levels. This disaster we are facing at the moment is not due to the scheming of an Obama, Bush, Clinton or any other president, but the failure of those we have elected to protect us from such evils. Our Congress!

The government is a tool. Don't blame the hammer for smashing your finger. Make sure you mean the people who are wielding the tool badly, because there are an awful lot of people out there who want to distrust "the government" no matter who is swinging the hammer. We don't want that, in case we actually do find some trustworthy carpenters who want to build something better.

 

I still say our current corporate models are forcing very savvy people to do harmful things to satisfy their stockholders. When there's more return on investing in lobbying that robs the public trust through subsidies, contracts that bypass fair market practices, legislation that favors only the American mega-corporations that aren't interested in creating American jobs, and re-writing corporate charters to defeat the spirit of prosperity for the US as a whole, then it's clear we've let them go too far.

 

We're letting the mega-corporations take the safety bars and the speed governors off the roller coaster, and we've put them in charge of informing the people of how dangerous the ride has become. And I think Romney/Ryan are more like silicone lubricant on the tracks, and while I wish there was someone to vote for who would at least demand that they uninstall the middle-class ejector seats, at least Obama is trying to make it easier to see the doctor when we hit the pavement.

 

As I've said before Moon, only on one occassions have I ever voted a straight ticket, and that was for Kennedy. But with Kucinich out of the running, I may just vote a straight ticket this time.

I think the world of Dennis Kucinich for his stand against the Cleveland utilities privatization, his unswerving stance against the war in Iraq and his smart defense of environmental policy. He's actually the farthest left candidate I've ever supported, and I was very disheartened to learn he'd lost his seat through cowardly gerrymandering by the Republican-held Ohio state legislature.

[Moontanman]

I think it's note worthy to say that being elected to public office is often seen as and used as a route to making money, from kick backs and bribes to legal insider trading and not the least outrageous job offers once you are out of office if you voted the right way the idea that anyone runs for public office to serve the people is a joke...

[rigney]

I think it's note worthy to say that being elected to public office is often seen as and used as a route to making money, from kick backs and bribes to legal insider trading and not the least outrageous job offers once you are out of office if you voted the right way the idea that anyone runs for public office to serve the people is a joke...

A simple solution is to allow politicians only one consecutive term in office. And that a period not to exceed more than a four year term. If a person is so dedicated to serving the people, they won't mind waiting another four years until they can run again. It's hard to steal something if you don't have time to find out where it's hidden. Edited August 16, 2012 by rigney

[rigney]

I would like to add a final thought to this mess we are in. Yes! Many greedy folks out there make piles of money and care less about those who gets hurt in the process. These are the thousands of owners who do business under the table or over the back fence out of necessity or the greed that keeps them in business. But the majority of powerful and rich business owners like Buffett and Gates are wiser, more humble and much more compassionate than we can ever imagine. These businesses are scrupulously audited and they pay their taxes accordingly. The fact they pay as they do is laid out by the government, not the owners. And this has been the policy for decades. Face it, who; other than an absolute 'idiot" would cut the ass from a goose laying golden eggs just to find out from where they are coming? So, when where and how did this sinful tax inequality begin? When? Presumably as long as there have been people in powerful positions who demand tribute for services rendered. But today, the where and how always comes from government. And this; from all levels of government. Politicians aren’t crooked by nature, but there are enough dishonest ones scheming to make that extra buck while in office, it give a bad name to all of them. The tax disaster we face today is not an arrogant, irrational Obama, a Bush, Clinton or any other president, but the culmination of political misdeeds of a few underhanded politicians, bringing this tax structure to loggerheads with the common people. These misdeeds are the failure of those we chose to protect us from such evils, Our Congress! Obama may have had good intentions, but his approach was wrong. You simply can't quick clean a shiny porcelain pot with sand paper and expect it to stay shiny. A president is only one person trying to make the best of a bad situation. But until people in this nation begins to understand that they alone are the ones responsible that must regain control of these self-serving asses in our congress, we will continue this hellatious spin. A "ONE TERM" policy for politicians is the only answer. Tenure breeds contempt from those on top for those who oppose their structured reasoning, and this along with a large dose of self-aggrandizement for those either in academia or politics who do so. At some point, both of these powerful entities can, and usually do become very destructive unless severely monitored. Good people awaiting and wanting to serve our nation in politics will hopefully do so eventually. And when their term in office has ended, they will not mind waiting another four years to serve again. If you really want to spread the wealth, this is the way to do it.

Edited August 17, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

A "ONE TERM" policy for politicians is the only answer.

Something like this might be part of the solution, but what's to stop them from working those cushy jobs supplied by special interest groups in the four years they're waiting to get back into office?

 

Unfortunately, people fear big changes but right now we're equally afraid of NOT making the big changes we know we need. The solution will not be something simple like only term limits. It's going to have to be several major changes to the way we do everything.

 

I keep wondering why we don't look at what is working elsewhere (yes, foreign countries! *gasp*) and tweak it to work here. That seems like such a rational thing to do. Copy the methodology of the country with the best education, and the one with the lowest crime rates, and the other one that has the most fair voting system. If we want to be the best, shouldn't we actually be walking instead of talking?

[rigney]

Something like this might be part of the solution, but what's to stop them from working those cushy jobs supplied by special interest groups in the four years they're waiting to get back into office?

 

Unfortunately, people fear big changes but right now we're equally afraid of NOT making the big changes we know we need. The solution will not be something simple like only term limits. It's going to have to be several major changes to the way we do everything.

 

I keep wondering why we don't look at what is working elsewhere (yes, foreign countries! *gasp*) and tweak it to work here. That seems like such a rational thing to do. Copy the methodology of the country with the best education, and the one with the lowest crime rates, and the other one that has the most fair voting system. If we want to be the best, shouldn't we actually be walking instead of talking?

Getting back to a single term for politicians would be a miracle in itself. People in those jobs will not give up this perk without a fight. But how do you fight an established practice that has been going progressivly further into decay for hundreds of years? This is something that will have to be figuered out by people much smarter than me. The thing is, such a reconstructive process must begin some place and somehow. But how? As long as politicians keep us ripping at each others throats even in a two party system, this will never happen. Edited August 17, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

Getting back to a single term for politicians would be a miracle in itself.

Virginia's governor cannot serve consecutive terms. More than half of states have two-term limits or are limited to 8 years served out of 12 or 16. Some limits are absolutely two terms, but most allow more service after a four-year break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Gubernatorial_term_limits

[Phi for All]

Getting back to a single term for politicians would be a miracle in itself. People in those jobs will not give up this perk without a fight. But how do you fight an established practice that has been going progressivly further into decay for hundreds of years? This is something that will have to be figuered out by people much smarter than me. The thing is, such a reconstructive process must begin some place and somehow. But how? As long as politicians keep us ripping at each others throats even in a two party system, this will never happen.

First, we need to change the way we vote. The winner-take-all system of voting practically guarantees there will eventually become two dominant parties that are nearly the same. We desperately need the representational power to vote for our favorite candidates instead of trying to keep our least favorite out of office, since that's a really stupid way to run a democracy.

[rigney]

Virginia's governor cannot serve consecutive terms. More than half of states have two-term limits or are limited to 8 years served out of 12 or 16. Some limits are absolutely two terms, but most allow more service after a four-year break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Gubernatorial_term_limits

How many states only allow term limits for congressmen? Presidents or Governors are single individuals trying to control a situation, where as a house or senate controlled by a party can feel free to do as they please. I can understand why Reid and Pelosi pushed through the Obamacare bill. Simply because they could. Republicans are just as guilty of such actions when they control either the house/senate or both. As I said, we didn't get into this morass because of one party or anothers actions, these playground antics have been going on for at least a 150 years, if not longer. Question is, how can it be corrected? The crazies from both parties in Washington are destroying the very fabric this nation was founded on and it's a damned shame and outright travesty. Most of them are only looking out for their own asses. This short video pretty much says it all.

http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/64495507.html?viewAll=1&blog=y&action=editcomment&cid=30676138&page=1

Edited August 17, 2012 by rigney

[Dynamic]

I've taken quite a bit of flack because of my inability to answer questions asked of me for statements or questions I myself have made or asked. But in almost all instances questions as such are much more easily asked than answered. This topic alone should get the ground shaking. Being little more than borderline lower middle class citizen myself you might question my reasoning for a leaning to the right. It's simple, I just don't sympathize with socialism bordering on communism. Not to say that a true "ism" in any respect is wrong, it's only that none of them have seemed to turn out right. So, if this Romney-Ryan is a winning ticket, will it bring us a better future or more heartache?

 

 

No a Romney-Ryan ticket is not a guarantee.

 

If you actually wanted an anwser to your question instead of a bunch of "beliefs" regarding what will improve the future for Americans, you would look up, studies that tried to examine if there is a correlation(with a causation, which will be hard to determine. Assuming a correlation is found does the amount of resources per capita effect who is elected? Or does who is elected effect the amount of material resources per capita? And are there are any lurking variables that might influence such a study!) And if no studies existed you would try to complete one yourself.

 

An example:

Does the election of a republican candidate correlate with an increase in energy, and material resources?

[in this study you would go off of the assumption that all republican candidates are the same, or you would have to devise a way to measure how "republican" a candidate is]

 

I'm going off the assumption a better future is one with more energy, and materials per capita. But if you want to include various environmental variables, or happiness indexes based of sample polling, it gets even more complicated.

 

Cheers,

Dynamic

Edited August 18, 2012 by Dynamic

[rigney]

No a Romney-Ryan ticket is not a guarantee.

 

If you actually wanted an anwser to your question instead of a bunch of "beliefs" regarding what will improve the future for Americans, you would look up, studies that tried to examine if there is a correlation(with a causation, which will be hard to determine. Assuming a correlation is found does the amount of resources per capita effect who is elected? Or does who is elected effect the amount of material resources per capita? And are there are any lurking variables that might influence such a study!) And if no studies existed you would try to complete one yourself.

 

An example:

Does the election of a republican candidate correlate with an increase in energy, and material resources?

[in this study you would go off of the assumption that all republican candidates are the same, or you would have to devise a way to measure how "republican" a candidate is]

 

I'm going off the assumption a better future is one with more energy, and materials per capita. But if you want to include various environmental variables, or happiness indexes based of sample polling, it gets even more complicated.

 

Cheers,

Dynamic

I don't believe anyone is smart enough to weigh and fully assess each of these variables you mention. That to include Dems, Reps and Inds. Yet each of them will argue they have that intellect and will do a great job. Then with some snake oil and little skull duggary, eventually they find their way into congress or some other powerful office. Well, we both know this is hog wash; but what can be done about it? Edited August 18, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I would like to further discuss Ryan's budget. From what I've seen of it, it seems destined to further undercut the middle class, and remove much of the support the lower class has for healthcare and welfare. It doesn't seem so much like an answer to entitlement spending as a godsend to the wealthy (no capital gains tax?!) and a reason to hire more police and build more prisons (since the US has hardly any of those).

 

Would we be facing epic poverty under Ryan's budget? His Medicare vouchers only increase at a rate of about .5% per year in a healthcare system whose costs are increasing at a rate a whole order of magnitude higher. How can we justify even more tax breaks for the wealthy after seeing what they've been doing to the economy for the last 12 years? Can anyone defend this budget, or help me see why anyone who doesn't make $500,000+ per year would approve of it?

[iNow]

From Martin Wolf, over at the Financial Times:

 

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d45818a-e608-11e1-bece-00144feab49a.html#axzz23uZFTnhg

 

Representative Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s new vice-presidential running mate, is, we are told, the man with the deficit-cutting plan. Not for this conservative policy wonk are the phoney figures and evasions of cowardly politicians. He is a man whose integrity his opponents have to respect. Yet this story has one drawback: it is false. Do not take just my word for it. This is what David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and a true conservative, wrote in the New York Times on August 13: “Mr Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.” This is right, with one exception: Medicare. On that, Mr Ryan does offer a hard choice. But the maths are incredible.

 

The Ryan plan is the latest example of a consistent line of Republican fiscal policy since movement conservatism displaced traditional balanced-budget Republicanism some three decades ago. The priorities have been clear: first, tax cuts benefiting rich “wealth-creators”; second, cuts in spending, predominantly on the poor; and, last and least, reducing deficits….

 

The [financial] crisis, which occurred on George W. Bush’s watch, is far and away the most important explanation for today’s huge deficits. But it came after unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars and the unfunded prescription drug benefit (Medicare D). The fiscal mess the Republicans bequeathed made it difficult – indeed, given Republican opposition, impossible – for the Obama administration to implement a stimulus plan on the scale needed…. Not that Republicans have anything against stimulus, provided it takes the form of unfunded tax cuts.

 

In all, the idea that Republicans care about the deficit does not pass the laugh test. Mr Ryan, however, is supposed to be different: he is a conservative, but an honest one.

 

Really? As Heidi Przybyla notes in a report for Bloomberg, Mr Ryan was pivotal in killing the Bowles-Simpson agreement, which, for all its faults, was (and is) the only politically realistic long-term fiscal solution. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office’s meticulous analysis of the initial Ryan plan demonstrated that it is smoke and mirrors. He is what the economist Paul Krugman calls a “chicken hawk”.

 

As usual in any contemporary Republican plan, Mr Ryan’s offers upfront unfunded tax cuts, with the top marginal tax rate slashed from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. These cuts are to be offset by deliberately unspecified reductions in “tax expenditures”….

 

Would this plan improve the deficit picture over the next decade? No, not really. The CBO projects that, under current law, which includes expiration of the unfunded and unaffordable Bush tax cuts, the deficit would be 2¾ per cent of GDP in 2022 and the debt held by the public would be 67 per cent of GDP. Under the Ryan plan, if implemented (which is close to inconceivable), the deficit would be – wait for it – 1¾ per cent of GDP, while debt held by the public would be higher, at 70 per cent of GDP….

 

Over the next decade, the Ryan plan is inadequate and incomplete. Over the long run, it is incredible. It may be good politics. It is bad policy.

[Phi for All]

It seems like part of his plan is to kill off the oldest and most dependent US citizens in order to save the money not spent on them for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate handouts. He's counting on less welfare forcing low-income citizens to work in jobs that don't currently exist.

 

And didn't the Bush tax cuts prove that the "wealth-creators" aren't interested in employing Americans? The wealthiest are already getting unprecedented breaks and Ryan's plan gives them even more. How is giving them even more going to solve our unemployment problems? And how will we call ourselves the greatest country when Ryan's plan practically guarantees an increase in hunger, HUNGER IN THE US, reducing food stamps for poor families by 17 percent ($135 billion) over the coming decade?

[ecoli]

First, we need to change the way we vote. The winner-take-all system of voting practically guarantees there will eventually become two dominant parties that are nearly the same. We desperately need the representational power to vote for our favorite candidates instead of trying to keep our least favorite out of office, since that's a really stupid way to run a democracy.

 

However, the tradeoff of coalition type gov'ts is that smaller, fringe parties often have much more power, since a majority party needs to woo extremists to keep power. Imagine, for example, if a mainstream republican party needed to keep a separate tea party happy to retain majority coalition. Things are bad enough with tea parties candidates winning a few local elections and congressional seats, imagine a whole separate coordinated entity?

 

And didn't the Bush tax cuts prove that the "wealth-creators" aren't interested in employing Americans?

 

How do you figure this?

[Phi for All]

How do you figure this?

"If one is interested in job creation in the private sector, it is important to recognize that lower taxes enable the job creators, i.e., small businesses, to have more money with which to expand their work force. And I would, yeah, I think they ought to be extended."

And Obama extended those tax cuts, but "the job creators" used them to create three overseas jobs for every domestic job.

 

http://economywatch....s-overseas?lite

A Wall Street Journal analysis of 35 companies based in the United States that employ more than 50,000 people found that they collectively added 446,000 jobs between 2009 and 2011, around three quarters of which were overseas. During that period, 60 percent of their revenue growth came from overseas.

 

Essentially, it looks like Bush was counting on small businesses to hire domestically, while the wealthiest companies could not only reduce the public revenue through tax cuts, but also hire offshore workers who don't contribute as much to our economy, a double-tap to the back of the head for US employment.

[ecoli]

Attributing lack of job creation or overseas job creation to the Bush tax cuts seem a bit heavy-handed to me. Especially when there are other factors to consider; such as Americans can't do many modern manufacturing jobs and the general shittiness of the economy which obviously has slowed down hiring despite the cuts.

 

Additionally, I also don't necessarily buy the assertion that foreign workers don't contribute as much to the economy. This is still an area which economist debate. If hiring foreign workers allows Apple to drop the price of an iPhone, Americans have more discretionary income. Note that I'm only saying that outsourcing/offshoring is often Pareto optimal, not that all players directly benefit.

[Phi for All]

Attributing lack of job creation or overseas job creation to the Bush tax cuts seem a bit heavy-handed to me. Especially when there are other factors to consider; such as Americans can't do many modern manufacturing jobs and the general shittiness of the economy which obviously has slowed down hiring.

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers.

 

I would say the general shittiness of the economy is also partly to do with high unemployment. It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers. Maybe Ryan's plan to give the wealthy even more tax breaks will make them hire US workers THIS time, since that's not in any way insane or ludicrous.

[ecoli]

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers.

 

Call it an irrevocable philosophical difference, but I can't convince myself to frame a tax cut as a loss of our tax revenue. The loss of tax revenue is detrimental to the treasury's coffers, I understand, but that money didn't belong 'to the people' until the IRS took that money under threat of force (regardless of the potential benefits of gov't infrastructure).

 

I would say the general shittiness of the economy is also partly to do with high unemployment. It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers. Maybe Ryan's plan to give the wealthy even more tax breaks will make them hire US workers THIS time, since that's not in any way insane or ludicrous.

Now I believe you're conflating cause and effect... is the economy really better off if people are spending 20% more on iPhones (those of us who have jobs, anyway)? I don't know, but connection between tax & stimulus, job creation and economic health is not as clear [to me] as you seem to be implying.