Gator Country

corpgator · 01-14-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QGator2414

If one wanted to stimulate or create jobs for the economy as was the reason for lowering the payroll tax they should have lowered the employer portion.

Now we need to address the real problem "benefits" so we can get our future generations having similar liabilities to those receiving SS benefits now and create a "safety net" instead of a burden on our kids...

We're a demand driven economy. Giving more money to businesses has not helped. There have been record profits and cash hoards every year since the crash and they still aren't hiring. Obviously it needs to be on the employee side.

**QGator2414** · 01-14-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corpgator

We're a demand driven economy. Giving more money to businesses has not helped. There have been record profits and cash hoards every year since the crash and they still aren't hiring. Obviously it needs to be on the employee side.

No. Obviously it does not...

As said though. The real fix for our problems is on the benefit/promises/spending side of the equation...

corpgator · 01-14-2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QGator2414

No. Obviously it does not...

As said though. The real fix for our problems is on the benefit/promises/spending side of the equation...

Ok, why does it obviously not since I'm obviously missing it?

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-14-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

so that's it...anytime a temporary tax cut is needed, don't raise it back?

You mean like the Bush tax cuts. Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

I have said before, and I will say it again; any liberal that is intellectually honest will rally for an end to ALL the Bush tax cuts. That will expand the tax base, which means more people will be on the tax roles.

Another thing to do will be to insist that government spending go back to that when the Bush tax cuts were first implemented. Including military spending.

Problem solved, just that simple.

**QGator2414** · 01-14-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corpgator

Ok, why does it obviously not since I'm obviously missing it?

While there is a benefit to employees keeping more of their money espeically the younger people since they are having their FICA taxes redistributed more than the older generations one of the points was to create jobs.

Who has a better chance of creating a job? An employee keeping an extra $800 or a business with 50 employees keeping $40K...

But again the real issue is the part of the equation that was not addressed...Benefits/Promises/Spending

neisgator · 01-14-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredsanford

No, the place that told lemmings that Romney was winning in a landslide--the alternative reality that pubs prefer.

Keep mixing up reality. It amuses me, and Im sure many others.

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QGator2414

If one wanted to stimulate or create jobs for the economy as was the reason for lowering the payroll tax they should have lowered the employer portion.

Just more failed supply side thinking. A temporary lowering of the payroll tax on the employer portion would have done little or nothing, except increase the record levels of corporate profits even more. Employers, knowing that the cut was only temporary, would not have hired more workers only to see the cost of hiring more employees go up as soon as the tax was restored to its normal rate.

**Gatoragman** · 01-14-2013, 03:00 PM

So 108 why are you ok with the fact that the bush tax cuts have remained for 98% of tax payers? Is it now being paid for?

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 03:05 PM

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see taxes rise for everyone. As the economy strengthens, hopefully we will see some additional increases.

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-14-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to see taxes rise for everyone. As the economy strengthens, hopefully we will see some additional increases.

How about spending cuts? How do you feel about them?

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

How about spending cuts? How do you feel about them?

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense -- lets cut 100 billion from defense.

**QGator2414** · 01-14-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense -- lets cut 100 billion from defense.

Why not start with the two largest expenditures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Why not start with the two largest expenditures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png

Sure. Lets cut Medicare -- stop spending so much to keep old folks alive for a few more months. I'm all for that. I am not in favor of cutting SS.

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-14-2013, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Just more failed supply side thinking.

You are of the opinion that money left in the pocket of the person(s) who earned it is worse for the economy than putting it in the pocket of the government?

If so, please explain.

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-14-2013, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

We need spending cuts too. Start with defense --

No argument from me. I have a great idea. Roll back ALL the Bush tax cuts and roll back ALL government spending to the spending at the time the Bush tax cuts were implemented.

How about that?

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You are of the opinion that money left in the pocket of the person(s) who earned it is worse for the economy than putting it in the pocket of the government?

If so, please explain.

So you think it would be a good thing to just eliminate government all together then? That would be the best thing for the economy, with no government to take the money you earned out of your pocket?

**Gatoragman** · 01-14-2013, 03:44 PM

You know the more I read THFSG and see how the arguments are being made by the left, if that is any indication of what it is like trying to negotiate a deal in Congress and with Obama, the more I understand why nothing is getting done. Some on the right have the same problem, but the left leads the way with idiotic statements

**QGator2414** · 01-14-2013, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Sure. Lets cut Medicare -- stop spending so much to keep old folks alive for a few more months. I'm all for that. I am not in favor of cutting SS.

Why not SS?

Why should we continue to force the younger generations to subsidize the older ones?

Why not reform it so it is a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement?

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-14-2013, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

So you think it would be a good thing to just eliminate government all together then?

Straw man, thy name is dangolegators.

Why is it than when substantive discussion is offered, those that are back themselves into a intellectual cul-de-sac are so prone to hyperbole? Could it be that they are incapable of furthering their own arguments?

Quote:

That would be the best thing for the economy, with no government to take the money you earned out of your pocket?

Even a small government type such as myself sees a strong need for limited government. As our forefathers intended.

dangolegators · 01-14-2013, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Why not SS?

Why should we continue to force the younger generations to subsidize the older ones?

Why not reform it so it is a true "safety net" instead of an entitlement?

It is a true safety net. It's a successful program that has done a great deal of good for this country. Sure, it can be tweaked here and there, but there's no need for wholesale changes to something that works well as is.