# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  The tax plan

## RobertLafollet

Good and bad things in it.  Increases to EIC and doubling the standard deduction are good.  The changes to mortgage interest deductions could well hold down housing prices, particularly in places like New York and California.  The rates for individuals look OK.  There is a massive tax cut for the rich with the repeal of the flawed AMT.  A massive corporate tax cut without closing loopholes will be expensive.  The current real corporate tax rate is 18%.  After this it is going to be a lot less.  The 10% world tax will help with accounting gimmicks that allow hiding profits.  A tax on sending profits out of the US could have the side affect of discouraging foreign companies to building thing in the US which would be bad for jobs.  The bill will increase the deficit, which doesn't bother me but will bother a lot of righties.

History says business and the rich will not use the tax cut to increase jobs or wages.  In fact in the modern world it maybe used to increase automation and cut jobs.

----------


## RMNIXON

> History says business and the rich will not use the tax cut to increase jobs or wages.  In fact in the modern world it maybe used to increase automation and cut jobs.



Care to document this claim?

Note the goal is not necessarily jobs or wage increases. That is a logical market based consequence of business expansion and investment made possible with tax cuts.

----------


## Tessa

I seriously want some tax relief. Maybe I can afford insurance then.

----------

coke (11-13-2017),Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2017),Coolwalker (11-02-2017),East of the Beast (11-02-2017),Montana (11-02-2017),MrogersNhood (11-03-2017),Oskar (11-04-2017),Rickity Plumber (11-02-2017),Swedgin (11-02-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Care to document this claim?
> 
> Note the goal is not necessarily jobs or wage increases. That is a logical market based consequence of business expansion and investment made possible with tax cuts.


Yes, business expansion.  For instance it will give the fast food industry more money to install ordering kiosks.  The new plants that are coming on line in the US have all been highly automated and employed fewer workers then were previously needed at lower wages.  I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  But we will have to address the lower need for workers.  Nor am I saying this will not happen without the tax cut because it will happen.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I seriously want some tax relief. Maybe I can afford insurance then.


What you really want is more money.  Stronger unions and higher wages will do a better job of getting you that.

----------


## Coolwalker

This is like a B-12 shot for all of America.

----------

MrogersNhood (11-03-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Good and bad things in it.  Increases to EIC and doubling the standard deduction are good.  The changes to mortgage interest deductions could well hold down housing prices, particularly in places like New York and California.  The rates for individuals look OK.  There is a massive tax cut for the rich with the repeal of the flawed AMT.  A massive corporate tax cut without closing loopholes will be expensive.  The current real corporate tax rate is 18%.  After this it is going to be a lot less.  The 10% world tax will help with accounting gimmicks that allow hiding profits.  A tax on sending profits out of the US could have the side affect of discouraging foreign companies to building thing in the US which would be bad for jobs.  The bill will increase the deficit, which doesn't bother me but will bother a lot of righties.
> 
> History says business and the rich will not use the tax cut to increase jobs or wages.  In fact in the modern world it maybe used to increase automation and cut jobs.


Your post is less organized than a DNC vote recount.

Last tax reform, all interest deductions but mortgage were eliminated.  The lying wailers like you said sales of everything bought with credit would plummet.  They increased dramatically.

Tax shelters were eliminated, oil depletion partnerships and cattle ownership shelters were eleiminated.  This would hurt the economy.  NOBODY NOTICED.

Today's tax code contains more than $ONE TRILLION in giveaways.  How could one nation get so stupid?

Deductions for state income tax to be eliminated.  They are simply subsidies for state governments anyway.  When you lying liberals claim how much federal money states get, you never mention the state income tax deduction subsidy.

But property tax deductions to remain.

You're trying to protect sacred cows that you either don't understand or are unaware of their existence.

----------

Jim Scott (11-02-2017),NORAD (11-02-2017),RMNIXON (11-02-2017)

----------


## RMNIXON

> Yes, business expansion.  For instance it will give the fast food industry more money to install ordering kiosks.



I have no doubt that Fast Food will try to expand automation just like they keep raising prices for crappy food and poor service. That is a direct consequence of artificial high wage demands for low skilled workers (once occupied by happy teenagers who wanted spending money).

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2017),Hillofbeans (11-02-2017),Jim Scott (11-02-2017)

----------


## RMNIXON

> What you really want is more money.  Stronger unions and higher wages will do a better job of getting you that.



Union labor demands that are not market based will put more people out of work and raise consumer prices that impact low income people the most. It is pure fantasy land to imply you can make demands and they just happen.

----------

Rutabaga (11-02-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I have no doubt that Fast Food will try to expand automation just like they keep raising prices for crappy food and poor service. That is a direct consequence of artificial high wage demands for low skilled workers (once occupied by happy teenagers who wanted spending money).


Once occupied is the key point. Course that was in the days before free trade and automated factories.

----------


## Swedgin

I like cutting the Corporate Rate, but....we really need to get rid of some of these Loopholes.  (Those are the number 1 reason, I consider ANY "tax reform" nothing more than rearranging the smoke machines and mirrors....).  I am all for selective tax deductions, but, most of them need to have a set time limit.  (EXAMPLE:  I would love to see a larger tax credit for the purchase and installation of Solar Panels, but....in the future, if everything goes right, we should let it drop....)

But, I am a weirdo, in that I would prefer to see tax REVENUES remain about the same, albeit with MASSIVE alterations, paired with budgetary cuts.

The Irony is that this nation has almost ALWAYS been "in deficit."  (Even Accountants suggest that this is the 'best' method for anyone.  I believe, the thought is, if done right and responsibly, we basically 'float' some debt for a bigger pay off.)

But, I do not think the goons that run our nation are all that responsible, and, I certainly can't see that they are all that intelligent.  (Give good speeches, though!)

Whatever the case, our deficits are getting TOO high.  Just think of what we (or, a future generation) could do, with a bit more $$$ going into our treasury, instead of paying loan interests......

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Union labor demands that are not market based will put more people out of work and raise consumer prices that impact low income people the most. It is pure fantasy land to imply you can make demands and they just happen.


Union contracts are negotiate contracts.  Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Union contracts are negotiate contracts.  Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?


they don't demand,,an offer is presented, and its up to the one receiving the offer to either accept or decline...

this shouldn't really have to be explained to you bob...at your age it should be common knowledge..

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017),Swedgin (11-02-2017),tiny1 (11-02-2017)

----------


## Swedgin

> Union contracts are negotiate contracts. * Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?*


--Because:

#1.  The Employer (especially  a small business employer), is the one taking the financial risk.  Not many civil suites are filed against the employee, if the business messes something up, or, fails to make payment to a vendor.....

#2.  The Employer holds the CAPITAL (ie, money.)  That is HIS (or her) money.  Not the employees.

Unions USED to serve a purpose, and in some situations, they still do.

But, they have also left entire companies and corporations in the dust.

In turn, that puts people out of work.  And, even when they try to find a new job, there is a larger LABOR market, thus, driving wages DOWN.

There has to be a "balance" between Company profits, and Employee wages.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-03-2017),NORAD (11-03-2017),Rutabaga (11-02-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> they don't demand,,an offer is presented, and its up to the one receiving the offer to either accept or decline...
> 
> this shouldn't really have to be explained to you bob...at your age it should be common knowledge..


True but it works better when a union is involved and it is a negotiation between equals.  Otherwise it requires government intervention.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> --Because:
> 
> #1.  The Employer (especially  a small business employer), is the one taking the financial risk.  Not many civil suites are filed against the employee, if the business messes something up, or, fails to make payment to a vendor.....
> 
> #2.  The Employer holds the CAPITAL (ie, money.)  That is HIS (or her) money.  Not the employees.
> 
> Unions USED to serve a purpose, and in some situations, they still do.
> 
> But, they have also left entire companies and corporations in the dust.
> ...


I agree there has to be a balance between company profits and wages.  Right now there isn't.  The profit side dominates.

----------


## Rutabaga

> True but it works better when a union is involved and it is a negotiation between equals.  Otherwise it requires government intervention.


tell that to the auto makers and steel workers both driven into dust due to unreasonable union demands.

----------

NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I agree there has to be a balance between company profits and wages. * Right now there isn't.  The profit side dominates.*


*
*
as it should, they take all the risk...

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017),Swedgin (11-02-2017)

----------


## Swedgin

> I agree there has to be a balance between company profits and wages.  Right now there isn't.  The profit side dominates.


What business are you in, again?

I would have to say, that if you RUN a business, and, if you feel your profits are too high, while the wages you pay are too low, then, that is all on you.

Otherwise, I would say that you simply do not know what you are talking about.  Sure, you can make such a generalized statement about massive corporations, but....there are businesses that fail DAILY, due to lack of profits.

How do you know HOW MUCH they make, and, then, how is it on you decide what is "too much".....?

That is a pretty arrogant position, Mr. Lafollet.......

----------

NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I seriously want some tax relief. Maybe I can afford insurance then.


I work two days a week at a place I have worked for a decade. They still pay my health ins. My wife works a 4 day a week part time gig because no one wants to hire her for what she did at her age now. She has no health ins and frankly we can not afford 500 a month for her insurance. 

Go figure.

----------

MrogersNhood (11-03-2017),NORAD (11-03-2017),Tessa (11-04-2017)

----------


## tiny1

> True but it works better when a union is involved and it is a negotiation between equals.  Otherwise it requires government intervention.


Unions are crooked.   Do you really think they take money from the workers, and use it for the workers benefit?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
When I was in my 20s, I worked for Roadway Freight on the docks.  Teamsters union.  Went to a union meeting, and listened as they spewed financial mumbo jumbo, irrelevant and pointless.  
SO, I decided to ask.   I asked how much went to administration and how much for training, improving conditions.  The union guys tried a non answer, and I asked for clarification.  I was invited into the lobby, told not to be an agitator, and basically told to trust them.  Never got any benefit except they paid a little more than  Schneider.
Never been in a union, since.

----------

Montana (11-02-2017),MrogersNhood (11-03-2017),NORAD (11-03-2017),Oskar (11-04-2017),Rutabaga (11-02-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> What business are you in, again?
> 
> I would have to say, that if you RUN a business, and, if you feel your profits are too high, while the wages you pay are too low, then, that is all on you.
> 
> Otherwise, I would say that you simply do not know what you are talking about.  Sure, you can make such a generalized statement about massive corporations, but....there are businesses that fail DAILY, due to lack of profits.
> 
> How do you know HOW MUCH they make, and, then, how is it on you decide what is "too much".....?
> 
> That is a pretty arrogant position, Mr. Lafollet.......


When you have a large percentage of the population working at jobs that don't pay enough to keep them off government assistance then wages are to low.  

I do understand that many small business are working on a shoe string.  One of the reasons I would prefer unions setting wages to the government is that then employee who usually know what is going on in a small business have more ability to make decisions about wages.  Two many times I've seen a small business owner driving up in brand new Cadillac claiming that they were flat broke.  To many times they've asked me to prove that. 

Think about this when an employee see the owner driving up in the Cadillac the day after coming home from a cruise and that employer says I can't afford to pay you more I'm barely getting by, how much credibility does that employer has?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Unions are crooked.   Do you really think they take money from the workers, and use it for the workers benefit?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
> When I was in my 20s, I worked for Roadway Freight on the docks.  Teamsters union.  Went to a union meeting, and listened as they spewed financial mumbo jumbo, irrelevant and pointless.  
> SO, I decided to ask.   I asked how much went to administration and how much for training, improving conditions.  The union guys tried a non answer, and I asked for clarification.  I was invited into the lobby, told not to be an agitator, and basically told to trust them.  Never got any benefit except they paid a little more than  Schneider.
> Never been in a union, since.


My experiences with unions is different.  Course I didn't agitate I worked to get into union management.  It's simple you have more power from the inside then outside.

----------


## Montana

LOL please dont lie like that and especially to a pretty young lady.

----------

NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## Taxcutter

Universally, the places with the highest wages are those that are capital and/or energy intensive.    

Wanna see high pay?   Look at container ports.   Those guys make over $150K/yr straight time.   Forty years ago (before containers took over) the US had 5 million longshoremen.   They were paid peanuts to go down into ships' holds and put the loose freight into nets were a crane brought them to the pier and more dudes loaded the freight either into warehouses or onto trucks or trains.   

Every few years the US had longshoremen's strikes where the unions demanded more pay for less work.   After a particularly long strike in the mid-1970s, the port operators began coughing up the big bucks for containerization.   With computers to track the containers, containerization had taken over by the mid-1980s.  

 A LOT of low-paid hold-monkeys hit the bricks and a handful of skilled guys got rich.

Same thing with mining.   Same thing with railroads.   Same thing with steel.   Same thing with autos.   Anything labor-intensive simply cannot compete.   We are even seeing this in China.

Unions can only flourish when there is no competition.   Viz: Unionized government-run schools.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-02-2017),NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Universally, the places with the highest wages are those that are capital and/or energy intensive.    
> 
> Wanna see high pay?   Look at container ports.   Those guys make over $150K/yr straight time.   Forty years ago (before containers took over) the US had 5 million longshoremen.   They were paid peanuts to go down into ships' holds and put the loose freight into nets were a crane brought them to the pier and more dudes loaded the freight either into warehouses or onto trucks or trains.   
> 
> Every few years the US had longshoremen's strikes where the unions demanded more pay for less work.   After a particularly long strike in the mid-1970s, the port operators began coughing up the big bucks for containerization.   With computers to track the containers, containerization had taken over by the mid-1980s.  
> 
>  A LOT of low-paid hold-monkeys hit the bricks and a handful of skilled guys got rich.
> 
> Same thing with mining.   Same thing with railroads.   Same thing with steel.   Same thing with autos.   Anything labor-intensive simply cannot compete.   We are even seeing this in China.
> ...


Guilds which were unions of rich businessmen flourished and still flourish in the medical and legal industries.

I've been saying automation is cutting jobs for years.  It will continue to do so.  That is both inevitable and a good thing.  We have to adopt policies to handle fewer good paying jobs.

----------


## RMNIXON

> Union contracts are negotiate contracts.  Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?



Employers do not set wages. If they don't pay market wages they don't get qualified employees. That is why the private sector is nearly all non-union and look at all those people doing just fine.

Unions inflate wages and protect poor workers.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-02-2017),NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## RMNIXON

Are the Tax Breaks for State Taxes being eliminated in this plan?

I heard some GOP members of Congress object because of high tax districts in places like California and New York? 

Don't like local high taxes? I say pay them or move...........Why should the rest of us give you a break!

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Employers do not set wages. If they don't pay market wages they don't get qualified employees. That is why the private sector is nearly all non-union and look at all those people doing just fine.
> 
> Unions inflate wages and protect poor workers.


Do just fine.  What a joke.  Why do you think Trump won.  People aren't doing just fine.  They are doing a tiny bit better because the babyboomers are retiring and the labor force is declining.  But we still have 75% of the population making under $100,000 and an average wage under $50,000.  Two earner families are still the norm.   Income discrepancy is still the highest it's been since the 1920's which usurered  in the Great Depression.   We need higher wages.  Yes there will be costs to that.  This tax bill will not affect FICA taxes which are the largest single tax for many people and the cuts for the 75% of under $100,000 workers when they aren't offset by removal of deductions will be tiny.  They have to be because the under $100,000 group doesn't pay a lot of taxes.  That isn't to say I don't support those cuts.

----------


## MisterVeritis

In my opinion, this Republican tax cut is a massive tax increase.

Idiot Republicans!

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Once occupied is the key point. Course that was in the days before free trade and automated factories.


How did free trade eliminate burger flipper jobs?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> How did free trade eliminate burger flipper jobs?


It didn't eliminate burger flipper jobs, it forced factory workers into burger flipper jobs at much lower wages then it took them to maintain their standard of living or pay their bills.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Employers do not set wages. If they don't pay market wages they don't get qualified employees. That is why the private sector is nearly all non-union and look at all those people doing just fine.
> 
> Unions inflate wages and protect poor workers.


There is some truth to what you say which is why giving employers a large tax cut will not increase wages.  That will have no affect on demand and will not have an affect on the number of people in the job market.

----------


## Dan40

> I have no doubt that Fast Food will try to expand automation just like they keep raising prices for crappy food and poor service. That is a direct consequence of artificial high wage demands for low skilled workers (once occupied by happy teenagers who wanted spending money).


Baghdad Bob is worried about losing his big job at Burger King.  Just when he was about to get the pickle slicer "position."

----------


## RobertLafollet

> In my opinion, this Republican tax cut is a massive tax increase.
> 
> Idiot Republicans!


Unfortunately for a lot of middle income people it will be a tax increase.  Cutting deductiblity of student loan interest is going to negatively a lot of middle income people.  Caping mortgage deductions will upset a lot of people, too.  The only people who will definitely benefit are rich people like Trump who pay the AMT tax.

----------


## Swedgin

> When you have a large percentage of the population working at jobs that don't pay enough to keep them off government assistance then wages are to low.  
> 
> I do understand that many small business are working on a shoe string.  One of the reasons I would prefer unions setting wages to the government is that then employee who usually know what is going on in a small business have more ability to make decisions about wages.  Two many times I've seen a small business owner driving up in brand new Cadillac claiming that they were flat broke.  To many times they've asked me to prove that. 
> 
> Think about this when an employee see the owner driving up in the Cadillac the day after coming home from a cruise and that employer says I can't afford to pay you more I'm barely getting by, how much credibility does that employer has?


The Employee can quit.

Depending on his skill set, he can get another job, perhaps at higher pay, often doing the same thing.

I know, because I have several Employees who float around, sometimes, working for my competition.  I do not really have a problem with it, as this is typically due to me not having work for them.  If ALL the local companies doing what we do, are busy, then, they "choose" which they prefer.  Until that company gets slow, and, they look to see if I have any work for them.

But, TELLING businesses how much they have to pay in wages, is a socialistic concept that is contrary to everything our nation was built on.

In my opinion, THE most damaging thing to an American business, are the haphazard regulations and instrusions by the Government.....YES, quite often this is well-intentioned, but....central planning by politicians, attorney's and bureaucrats, typically turns in to a mess.

----------


## memesofine

> What you really want is more money.  Stronger unions and higher wages will do a better job of getting you that.


 LOL, really? you must have been the union organizer who told these people the same thing. they should be storming you with pitchforks. 

snip:
*DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize*
*NY Slimes ^* | 11/2/17 | ANDY NEWMAN and JOHN LELAND 
Posted on *‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017‎ ‎8‎:‎57‎:‎49‎ ‎PM* by *markomalley*

A week ago, reporters and editors in the combined newsroom of DNAinfo and Gothamist, two of New York Citys leading digital purveyors of local news, celebrated victory in their vote to join a union. 
On Thursday, they lost their jobs, as Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who owned the sites, shut them down. 
At 5 p.m., a post by Mr. Ricketts went up on the sites announcing the decision. He praised them for reporting tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted and inspired millions of people. But he added, DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure. 
All other articles promptly vanished from the sites; an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online. Mr. Ricketts wrote that he founded DNAinfo in 2009 because I believe people care deeply about the things that happen where they live and work, and he thought he could build a large and loyal audience that advertisers would want to reach. DNAinfo and Gothamist, which Mr. Ricketts bought in the spring, attracted more than 9 million readers a month, in New York and other cities where they operate satellite sites, DNAinfo said.

_(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

from:DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize

And leave it to a liberal/commie/dem to OPPOSE a tax cut for us little worker bees who they steal our blood, sweat and tears for their Guberment jack boots on our necks. 

_

----------

NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## memesofine

Here is this mob run Union and their tool/sheep of that commie/democrat party. THEY SPEW the same old shit day in and day out. this is who Robert wants you to have lead you folks. and where he gets his talking points from. 

snip:
*Republican Tax Bill Nothing But Corporate Giveaways*
*AFL-CIO ^* | November 2, 2017 | AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka 
Posted on *‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017‎ ‎7‎:‎42‎:‎24‎ ‎PM* by *mdittmar*

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued the following statement on the Republican tax bill released today:

This tax bill is a job killer. It gives hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs and profits. No matter how it’s spun by Republican politicians, their tax bill is nothing but giveaways to Wall Street, big corporations and millionaires, paid for on the backs of working families. 
It is astounding that a tax bill that will encourage offshoring is even under consideration. It’s shameless to propose cutting Medicaid, Medicare, education and infrastructure to pay for tax breaks for the 1%. History tells us, commonsense tells us and careful analysis of this tax bill tells us that these tax giveaways for the wealthy and big corporations will never trickle down to the rest of us. Real tax reform actually can put money back in the pockets of working people, but this is not that kind of plan. 

lies and more lies. All of it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3601096/posts

Since when did they have to PAY FOR A TAX CUT to us taxpaying citizens? that right there is the biggest LIE THEY ever came out with. And if they must pay for it:  start with CUTTING down some Government Agencies like the EPA, NEA, and take your pick of any of the alphabet worthless agencies. Also start with one who supplies the jobs for pos like Trumpka. How dare he oppose us citizens have our money given BACK TO US.

----------

NORAD (11-03-2017)

----------


## ruthless terrier

people seem to forget the country is 13 trillion in debt and still paying out ridiculous sums of money for anything and everything. it's always funny how the rich democrats like Nancy Pelosi scream about how the new tax plan benefits the rich. the rest are surviving paycheck to paycheck.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Union contracts are negotiate contracts.  Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?


Because they pay the wage.

Why should an employee be able to demand a HIGH wage, that the payer-of-wages opposes...and use government FORCE to compel it?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I agree there has to be a balance between company profits and wages.  Right now there isn't.  The profit side dominates.


No profit, no product.

No motivation. 

Someone does not put in his time and risk his capital...his saved money, his credit-line...for NO profit.

Some people understand that.  Some do not.  When a liberal finally perceives that, he ceases to be a liberal.

----------

Rita Marley (11-03-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> tell that to the auto makers and steel workers both driven into dust due to unreasonable union demands.


The whole of manufacturing.

The REASON manufacturing is moving to China...where there is no protection of property rights; little ability to control quality; and expensive shipping costs...the REASON is, manufacturing CANNOT be done profitably in our atmosphere of Union extortion, government protection of union extortion, and fantasy environmental laws.

And all the tariffs in the world do not change that.  Bar importation from China, or Indonesia or Trashkanistan...and the product just disappears.  Because it cannot be sold profitably at prices that pay for all the fantasy labor and regulations.  Buyers will resist; and the product disappears.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> My experiences with unions is different.  Course I didn't agitate I worked to get into union management.  It's simple you have more power from the inside then outside.


You're a bookkeeper.  Bookkeepers aren't unionized.

I have seen that the second-biggest enthusiasts for goonion militancy are those not-at-all involved with it; who WISH they could have an outsider come in and make their big, bad bosses pay more.  NOT KNOWING how unions work.

The biggest enthusiasts, of course, are goonion ossifers themselves.  They have made a big, fat gig for themselves - ripping off employers and compelled-members both.

----------


## tiny1

> My experiences with unions is different.  Course I didn't agitate I worked to get into union management.  It's simple you have more power from the inside then outside.


No wonder.  You are a union Shill.  Got it.
AND......why are you liberals always looking for MORE POWER?   Sheesh.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Because they pay the wage.
> 
> Why should an employee be able to demand a HIGH wage, that the payer-of-wages opposes...and use government FORCE to compel it?


Because they provide the labor without which the owner couldn't make any money.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> No profit, no product.
> 
> No motivation. 
> 
> Someone does not put in his time and risk his capital...his saved money, his credit-line...for NO profit.
> 
> Some people understand that.  Some do not.  When a liberal finally perceives that, he ceases to be a liberal.


When you work for a small business you risk all that as well.  When you work for a large business you risk having a CEO destroy your life.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> The whole of manufacturing.
> 
> The REASON manufacturing is moving to China...where there is no protection of property rights; little ability to control quality; and expensive shipping costs...the REASON is, manufacturing CANNOT be done profitably in our atmosphere of Union extortion, government protection of union extortion, and fantasy environmental laws.
> 
> And all the tariffs in the world do not change that.  Bar importation from China, or Indonesia or Trashkanistan...and the product just disappears.  Because it cannot be sold profitably at prices that pay for all the fantasy labor and regulations.  Buyers will resist; and the product disappears.


Cars, refrigerators, and toasters are not going to disappear.  Neither are computers.  But if no one in the US can afford to buy them they might because no one in the Chinese market can afford to buy them.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> You're a bookkeeper.  Bookkeepers aren't unionized.
> 
> I have seen that the second-biggest enthusiasts for goonion militancy are those not-at-all involved with it; who WISH they could have an outsider come in and make their big, bad bosses pay more.  NOT KNOWING how unions work.
> 
> The biggest enthusiasts, of course, are goonion ossifers themselves.  They have made a big, fat gig for themselves - ripping off employers and compelled-members both.


I'm not a CPA but basically the CPA's are a guild which sets requirements for membership to keep people from getting the designation so that the supply can be controlled.  A guild is a union.  

I spent 10 years working my way through college.  A lot of that time I was in union jobs.

----------


## Morning Star

> Because they provide the labor without which the owner couldn't make any money.


Without the owner there is no job. You libtards create the problem then want the government to fix the problem by enforcing more of the problem to get a solution. The free market works best when the government stays out of it. Wages are determined by the market, all wages are a negotiation. Funny that you support illegal immigrants that drive the negotiations against the workers then want the government to enforce higher wages at the same time. Why are libtards always trying to force a square peg into a round hole?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Without the owner there is no job. You libtards create the problem then want the government to fix the problem by enforcing more of the problem to get a solution. The free market works best when the government stays out of it. Wages are determined by the market, all wages are a negotiation. Funny that you support illegal immigrants that drive the negotiations against the workers then want the government to enforce higher wages at the same time. Why are libtards always trying to force a square peg into a round hole?


speaking of free market,,,my electric provider just announced ANOTHER 2% price reduction in 2018,,this comes after 3 previous years of REDUCTIONS of 2-5-3%...

they are a private supplier...since 1939...no govt. involvement, no corporation commission, and this comes after the 2 major suppliers have RAISED  their costs yearly..both are public service entities..

whens the last time a utility you use LOWERED their cost?

----------


## Dan40

Just read where Democrats are complaining that the Republican tax plan will cause a $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt, OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.  The article failed to mention Obama's $10 TRILLION debt increase over 8 years.

Probably just an oversight.

----------


## Morning Star

> speaking of free market,,,my electric provider just announced ANOTHER 2% price reduction in 2018,,this comes after 3 previous years of REDUCTIONS of 2-5-3%...
> 
> they are a private supplier...since 1939...no govt. involvement, no corporation commission, and this comes after the 2 major suppliers have RAISED  their costs yearly..both are public service entities..
> 
> whens the last time a utility you use LOWERED their cost?


This is true case and point, Lasik eye surgery is NOT regulated and the cost has gone down from $4-5K / eye to only about $300 - $400 an eye on average. How does that compare to any government regulated health care?

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Because they provide the labor without which the owner couldn't make any money.


Sure they can.

They can hire others.  They can hire people in Third-World nations.

They can even mechanize.

Or they can just say the hell with it, and find something else to make or sell.

...where, again, can a guy who hangs right fenders on Chevrolets on the line, go and do HIS intricate skill?

----------


## Morning Star

> Just read where Democrats are complaining that the Republican tax plan will cause a $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt, OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.  The article failed to mention Obama's $10 TRILLION debt increase over 8 years.
> 
> Probably just an oversight.


For the last 8 years the Democrats have told us, debt is not an issue, we can print all the $$$ we want and go into debt indefinitely without consequence. If that is the case then I wonder why we need to have taxes at all.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-03-2017),Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Cars, refrigerators, and toasters are not going to disappear.  Neither are computers.  But if no one in the US can afford to buy them they might because no one in the Chinese market can afford to buy them.


We lived for all of millenium with no computers.  Until recently.

And if the price of computers suddenly spiked, we'd find a way to make do with what's out there.  When computers failed, which they rarely do, anymore...just as we did 20 years ago, we'd have small shops with parts of computers, who could fit a secondhand motherboard in.

Toasters, likewise.  Time was, a toaster was an heirloom.  My mother got HER aunt's toaster when she married.  It was a 1920s, thing,  you flopped the toast into and closed, like a lid.  Had to time it with your watch, or else you'd have a fire.

All during WWII, people made do with old clothes, old cars, old toasters, and no computers.  Because they had no choice.

Today, people are making do with old iPhones, because the price of new ones has suddenly become obviously criminal.  That can happen with other devices, also.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Sure they can.
> 
> They can hire others.  They can hire people in Third-World nations.
> 
> They can even mechanize.
> 
> Or they can just say the hell with it, and find something else to make or sell.
> 
> ...where, again, can a guy who hangs right fenders on Chevrolets on the line, go and do HIS intricate skill?


So you admit switching jobs is difficult, good.  That is a reason for unions.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> We lived for all of millenium with no computers.  Until recently.
> 
> And if the price of computers suddenly spiked, we'd find a way to make do with what's out there.  When computers failed, which they rarely do, anymore...just as we did 20 years ago, we'd have small shops with parts of computers, who could fit a secondhand motherboard in.
> 
> Toasters, likewise.  Time was, a toaster was an heirloom.  My mother got HER aunt's toaster when she married.  It was a 1920s, thing,  you flopped the toast into and closed, like a lid.  Had to time it with your watch, or else you'd have a fire.
> 
> All during WWII, people made do with old clothes, old cars, old toasters, and no computers.  Because they had no choice.
> 
> Today, people are making do with old iPhones, because the price of new ones has suddenly become obviously criminal.  That can happen with other devices, also.


Worst argument I've ever seen you make.  Yes, we can let the world devolve into chaos.

----------


## Dan40

> So you admit switching jobs is difficult, good.  That is a reason for unions.


Life is difficult, always has been, always will be.  Difficulty makes us strong, unions make us weak.

Germans have a long time saying:

Das Leben in den Bergen ist hart,
Das Leben im Tal ist hart,
Das Leben ist hart!

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Worst argument I've ever seen you make.  Yes, we can let the world devolve into chaos.


like venezuela is doing as we speak?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> For the last 8 years the Democrats have told us, debt is not an issue, we can print all the $$$ we want and go into debt indefinitely without consequence. If that is the case then I wonder why we need to have taxes at all.


Chris Hayes talking to a Republican Congressman last night summed it up.  The Rep. was saying about the same thing you just posted.  Hays said "I'm not worried about the debt, but you've been complaining about it for years."

----------


## RobertLafollet

> like venezuela is doing as we speak?


What does Venezuela have to do with anything?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Life is difficult, always has been, always will be.  Difficulty makes us strong, unions make us weak.


Strong unions make us strong, weak unions make us weak.  Do you really think the US is as strong and independent as it was in 1980.  I definitely don't.

----------


## Cigar

Same Old Trickle Fantasy

----------


## Rutabaga

> What does Venezuela have to do with anything?


read the post i was replying to, its your post,,you should be able to figure it out...


[heres a hint]

*" Yes, we can let the world devolve into chaos."*

if you still cant see the connection, i pity you..

----------


## Rutabaga

> Strong unions make us strong, weak unions make us weak.  Do you really think the US is as strong and independent as it was in 1980.  I definitely don't.


the late 70's/80s was when the unions collapsed the auto and steel industries...

----------


## Oskar

> Strong unions make us strong, weak unions make us weak.  Do you really think the US is as strong and independent as it was in 1980.  I definitely don't.


Unions contributed to the degradation of America. They ought to all be abolished.

----------


## Dan40

> Strong unions make us strong, weak unions make us weak.  Do you really think the US is as strong and independent as it was in 1980.  I definitely don't.


Take out the sissified Democrats and the fag Democrats and the USA is still the strongest nation on the planet.  2 or 3 times stronger than the USA that won WWII.

Trump won the popular vote in 86% of the polling places while liberal sissies were looking for a safe place.

You don't realize how strong the USA is because you have no concept of what the USA means.  You wander aimlessly in a confused liberal/Socialist/Communist/Democrat/Fantasy world of ignorant and stupid make believe.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## Oskar

Unions are communist.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Same Old Trickle Fantasy


Not exactly, it's a little different. I like the parts about simplifying the tax code.


As for Unions, they are no longer necessary. UAW threw their constituents under the bus a few years back as far as health insurance is concerned.



That must have been before Obamacare was railroaded through Congress.

----------


## Dan40

> Unions are communist.


And the left refuses to see the obvious.

----------


## Oskar

Unions claim to represent the interests of the working man but don't believe there is a right to work.

----------

MrogersNhood (11-03-2017),Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

Unions were necessary in the 20s-30s. Now they are a hindrance to the economy. Couple that with massive regulations and you get stagnation.

Not to mention the crony capitalism. That needs to go away ASAP. Not sure how to make that happen, the Senate is the main problem at this point in time.

They aren't going to unvote themselves the keys to the country now that they have them. Short of stringing them up, and starting anew, or Article V, I can't figure out a 

solution for that problem.

I know the Senate does not function as intended. They represent whoever lines their pockets the most, not their constituents; And there should be penalties for that, but 

they voted into law for there to be no penalties for that.

 :Loco:

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Same Old Trickle Fantasy


And every leftist, Democrat, Communist alternative has failed.

The choices may be too complicated for you.

They are, LET THE PRODUCTIVE BE PRODUCTIVE, and hope for the best.

OR

ENCOURAGE THE NON-PRODUCTIVE TO BE NON-PRODUCTIVE, and expect the best.

----------


## Oskar

Unions place people in bondage with chains called picket lines and then after creating striking wounds have the temerity to pick at the scabs.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So you admit switching jobs is difficult, good.  That is a reason for unions.


It's a better argument for increasing your marketable skills.

If someone wants to form a club; or a lodge; or a union...that's fine.  Free Association is a basic right.

And if the Boss-Man wants to not negotiate with a third-party interloper, that's HIS right.  Economic freedom.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> What does Venezuela have to do with anything?


Socialism and how it always fails.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Worst argument I've ever seen you make.  Yes, we can let the world devolve into chaos.


And that's just what the tyranny of Central Economic Planning gives you.

The prosperity of the USSR; of Cuba; of Venezuela.

----------

Rutabaga (11-03-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> You're a bookkeeper.  Bookkeepers aren't unionized.


I want to be a bookkeeper for a bookmaker.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Strong unions make us strong, weak unions make us weak.  Do you really think the US is as strong and independent as it was in 1980.  I definitely don't.


Strong unions, in THE U.S., made the JAPANESE auto industry great.

It made GM bankrupt; Chrysler an Italian-owned company; AMC a takeover target.  Unions and regulation...EXCATLY...made Studebaker lock up.  The union contract expired, and then, after two weeks with no contract and threats of strikes, Studebaker-Worthington just shut it down.

They continued the small Canadian plant for two years because the Canadian plant had two more years on the contract.  When THAT was done...Studebaker-Worthington became a manufacturer of lawn tractors (Gravely) and industrial power equipment (Onan).

You can keep on spouting the mindless Union Talking Points...or you can face reality.

----------


## Dan40

I grew up in a ridgidly unionized mill town.  40,000 people worked in the various mills.  There were many strikes demanding more pay.

Now the town is well less than half size.  No new construction of A HOME has happened in 10 years.  10 YEARS.  The mills are now empty fields, or rusting piles of junk.  All have collapsed in on themselves, none are restorable.

The last mill told the workers they had to pay $2.00 per month more for their health insurance.  The unionized workers went on strike.  That mill is gone now too.

Changing jobs is hard.  But more than 25,000 former union workers went somewhere, because they are GONE.

----------


## Morning Star

> I grew up in a ridgidly unionized mill town.  40,000 people worked in the various mills.  There were many strikes demanding more pay.
> 
> Now the town is well less than half size.  No new construction of A HOME has happened in 10 years.  10 YEARS.  The mills are now empty fields, or rusting piles of junk.  All have collapsed in on themselves, none are restorable.
> 
> The last mill told the workers they had to pay $2.00 per month more for their health insurance.  The unionized workers went on strike.  That mill is gone now too.
> 
> Changing jobs is hard.  But more than 25,000 former union workers went somewhere, because they are GONE.


It's the same in countries that have free socialist education systems. Students can't find classes because the teacher unions are always on strike for more $$ from the state. How's that great free health care in the UK working .... it's not because now they are looking to deny coverage for people that smoke or are over weight. There is only one thing that actually works and that is the free market, the problem is libtards can't accept that life isn't fair and they keep destroying everything in an attempt to make it so.

----------


## RGV

So, back to the topic.
Do you think it's a good idea to increase taxes on the middle class to give a tax break to business and increase the deficit? That seems like what this plan does.

----------


## Oskar

> So, back to the topic.
> Do you think it's a good idea to increase taxes on the middle class to give a tax break to business and increase the deficit? That seems like what this plan does.


Do you think that it is a good idea to entirely misrepresent the tax plan if you want to be taken seriously?

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Cap

> So, back to the topic.
> Do you think it's a good idea to increase taxes on the middle class to give a tax break to business and increase the deficit? That seems like what this plan does.


That's exactly what I expect the tax plan to do.

Trump is not a conservative or a Republican for that matter, he's going to learn quick from the DNC establishment that the middle class is the revenue whipping boy.  The wealthy is their support and the poor provide enough votes to sustain it.  It's why the ACA will never be fully repealed.  The establishment (both GOP and DNC) hooked a big fish and they're not letting it go.

Adding to the deficit and taxing the middle class is a pretty good prescription for a short-term political agenda.

----------


## memesofine

> Chris Hayes talking to a Republican Congressman last night summed it up.  The Rep. was saying about the same thing you just posted.  Hays said "I'm not worried about the debt, but you've been complaining about it for years."


OMG, that is your problem you listen to these idiots bobble heads. Chris Hayes isn't worried about it because he gets paid for doing nothing but throwing his idiot opinions around. Hayes doesn't care but yet:  someone else pays his SALARY. he doesn't make it without them. he's a freaking idiot

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> That's exactly what I expect the tax plan to do.
> 
> Trump is not a conservative or a Republican for that matter, he's going to learn quick from the DNC establishment that the middle class is the revenue whipping boy.  The wealthy is their support and the poor provide enough votes to sustain it.  It's why the ACA will never be fully repealed.  The establishment (both GOP and DNC) hooked a big fish and they're not letting it go.
> 
> Adding to the deficit and taxing the middle class is a pretty good prescription for a short-term political agenda.


The rich pay the taxes the low and middle classes don't.

There is NO business on the planet worth ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, or in debt even half that, probably not a quarter of that.  A few businesses are worth more than half a trillion, but none over a trillion.

And a government 20 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and with no actual worth , claims to be able to fix problems.

Can't happen.

The ACA, Republicans can't replace it because no government anywhere on the planet can do either health care or health insurance.  The reason the ACA was passed is because regulations have health care and health insurance so screwed up.

Without government interference, both Democrat and Republican, health care and insurance would be much cheaper.  The outrageous cost of education can also be laid at the feet of government interference.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Cap

> The rich pay the taxes the low and middle classes don't.
> 
> There is NO business on the planet worth ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, or in debt even half that, probably not a quarter of that.  A few businesses are worth more than half a trillion, but none over a trillion.
> 
> And a government 20 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and with no actual worth , claims to be able to fix problems.
> 
> Can't happen.
> 
> The ACA, Republicans can't replace it because no government anywhere on the planet can do either health care or health insurance.  The reason the ACA was passed is because regulations have health care and health insurance so screwed up.
> ...


So all of those wealthy cronies who supported Trump (who Trump refilled the swamps with) supported him because they are happy paying more taxes?

I'm going to ask but I already know the answer, you'll point to earned income tax rates for proof, so be my guest and explain to me how the wealthy pay the most tax and the middle class doesn't.

The ACA is basically a shift in subsidization to the middle class and while it technically isn't considered a tax, I include it because I'm allowed to.

----------


## Cap

> The rich pay the taxes the low and middle classes don't.
> 
> There is NO business on the planet worth ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, or in debt even half that, probably not a quarter of that.  A few businesses are worth more than half a trillion, but none over a trillion.
> 
> And a government 20 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and with no actual worth , claims to be able to fix problems.
> 
> Can't happen.
> 
> The ACA, Republicans can't replace it because no government anywhere on the planet can do either health care or health insurance.  The reason the ACA was passed is because regulations have health care and health insurance so screwed up.
> ...


There's a lot of... stuff in here.

So pass the ACA because the industry is bogged down by regulation, so add more regs to it?  That doesn't make sense.

You realize that the ACA isn't insurance or healthcare, right?  It's just the regulation of the insurance industry, or further regulation of it.  It also shifts costs to the patient and (attempts, the success of that is questionable) shifts risk to those who may not need the coverage they're paying for.

----------


## Dan40

> There's a lot of... stuff in here.
> 
> So pass the ACA because the industry is bogged down by regulation, so add more regs to it?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> You realize that the ACA isn't insurance or healthcare, right?  It's just the regulation of the insurance industry, or further regulation of it.  It also shifts costs to the patient and (attempts, the success of that is questionable) shifts risk to those who may not need the coverage they're paying for.


Actually the only slightly, almost, successful part of the ACA IS INSURANCE. It is called Expanded Medicaid, and that is government insurance.  That the best doctors will NOT accept Medicaid patients, and even the marginally capable doctors limit the percentage of Medicaid patients they will allow on their practice, does tend to depress the benefits of the only section of the ACA that has a chance.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Cap

> Actually the only slightly, almost, successful part of the ACA IS INSURANCE. It is called Expanded Medicaid, and that is government insurance.  That the best doctors will NOT accept Medicaid patients, and even the marginally capable doctors limit the percentage of Medicaid patients they will allow on their practice, does tend to depress the benefits of the only section of the ACA that has a chance.


I understand how the expanded Medicaid programs work.  I'm not going to argue the social responsibility aspect of it, it's tangent to the point.  Ever since federal funding for expanded Medicaid programs began tapering off what, last year, states are scrambling to find funding sources for these programs.  In a bad way, and either way - federally funded or state funded, who do you think is footing the bill for these expanded programs - which by the way amounts for a very large if not most of the "newly covered" people in the program?

Who is ultimately paying for these expanded programs?  The wealthy?  The poor?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> read the post i was replying to, its your post,,you should be able to figure it out...
> 
> 
> [heres a hint]
> 
> *" Yes, we can let the world devolve into chaos."*
> 
> if you still cant see the connection, i pity you..


Venezuela is a foreign country.  Not talking about foreign policy on this thread.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Unions contributed to the degradation of America. They ought to all be abolished.


The US has gone down hill since unions started weakening.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Unions are communist.


Don't agree but is they were that would be a good thing about communism.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Unions claim to represent the interests of the working man but don't believe there is a right to work.


There is a right to work, there isn't a right to leach off the union.

----------


## Dan40

> I understand how the expanded Medicaid programs work.  I'm not going to argue the social responsibility aspect of it, it's tangent to the point.  Ever since federal funding for expanded Medicaid programs began tapering off what, last year, states are scrambling to find funding sources for these programs.  In a bad way, and either way - federally funded or state funded, who do you think is footing the bill for these expanded programs - which by the way amounts for a very large if not most of the "newly covered" people in the program?
> 
> Who is ultimately paying for these expanded programs?  The wealthy?  The poor?


The top 50% of income earners pay for everything.  Not complicated.  There is no government program, law or regulation that is not paid for by the top 50% of income earners.  Neither the local, state, or federal governments earns any money, so they must take money from those that have money, THE TOP 50% OF INCOME EARNERS.  Can't take it from the poor and those that earn little or no money, they have nothing to take.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Unions place people in bondage with chains called picket lines and then after creating striking wounds have the temerity to pick at the scabs.


Scabs are the lowest thing on the planet.  Even though I'm not in a union I will not cross a picket line.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Do you think that it is a good idea to entirely misrepresent the tax plan if you want to be taken seriously?


 I don't think the tax plan will pass as it is currently describe.  It doesn't raise taxes for all the middle class but it appears to do so for a number of people.

----------


## Cap

> The top 50% of income earners pay for everything.  Not complicated.  There is no government program, law or regulation that is not paid for by the top 50% of income earners.  Neither the local, state, or federal governments earns any money, so they must take money from those that have money, THE TOP 50% OF INCOME EARNERS.  Can't take it from the poor and those that earn little or no money, they have nothing to take.


And as I predicted, "earned income" right on cue.

Some data would at least make your point look valid, but do you understand what "earned income" is?  And do you also understand that the super wealthy have very little proportional earned income to total income?

Give you an example, Billionaire A had total earnings of $100 million.  How much of that do you think came from earned income, payroll?  All of it?  Most of it?

If you take Billionaire A's total tax liability compared to his total earnings - total earnings being both earned and unearned income, what do you think that rate would be?

I'll wait.

----------


## Dan40

> And as I predicted, "earned income" right on cue.
> 
> Some data would at least make your point look valid, but do you understand what "earned income" is?  And do you also understand that the super wealthy have very little proportional earned income to total income?
> 
> Give you an example, Billionaire A had total earnings of $100 million.  How much of that do you think came from earned income, payroll?  All of it?  Most of it?
> 
> If you take Billionaire A's total tax liability compared to his total earnings - total earnings being both earned and unearned income, what do you think that rate would be?
> 
> I'll wait.


You are responding to the voices in your head.  Perhaps you need a few more layers of foil?

I said earned income pays for everything, I did not say anything about "THE WEALTHY" paying for anything.  And I understand earned income much better than you evidently do.  I have zero earned income and have had no earned income for more than 20 years.  I do pay capital gains taxes and that is part of the money govt gets to waste on idiotic programs.

A funny thing about that, Rachael Madcow claimed to have somehow, ILLEGALLY, got Trump's tax return, and gleefully announced that he paid $ 35 million in income taxes.  See the overwhelming bulk of Trump's income comes from earned income and not investments.

We do not tax WEALTH, not that liberals would not love to tax wealth, except their own of course.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Cap

> You are responding to the voices in your head.  Perhaps you need a few more layers of foil?
> 
> I said earned income pays for everything, I did not say anything about "THE WEALTHY" paying for anything.  And I understand earned income much better than you evidently do.  I have zero earned income and have had no earned income for more than 20 years.  I do pay capital gains taxes and that is part of the money govt gets to waste on idiotic programs.
> 
> A funny thing about that, Rachael Madcow claimed to have somehow, ILLEGALLY, got Trump's tax return, and gleefully announced that he paid $ 35 million in income taxes.  See the overwhelming bulk of Trump's income comes from earned income and not investments.
> 
> We do not tax WEALTH, not that liberals would not love to tax wealth, except their own of course.


Well, throwing the first low blow says a lot also.

You made the claim that the wealthy pay all of the taxes and the middle class and poor pay none of it, or something to that effect.  I can go back and quote it if you forgot.

Yet you haven't managed to back that claim up or even refute my point that yes, if you simply look at earned income tax brackets it's easy but incorrect to assume that the wealthy pay the most taxes but, as I'm suggesting you do a little research, look at the wealthy's overall tax burden compared to total earnings and if you do you'll see how total tax liability works.

Or you can bake up some more insults and continue to ignore the point, that's fine, your choice.

And I'm not even adding the shifting of costs for coverage for expanded Medicaid programs and who's really paying for that.  I doubt I'll get to that point with you.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> You are responding to the voices in your head.  Perhaps you need a few more layers of foil?
> 
> I said earned income pays for everything, I did not say anything about "THE WEALTHY" paying for anything.  And I understand earned income much better than you evidently do.  I have zero earned income and have had no earned income for more than 20 years.  I do pay capital gains taxes and that is part of the money govt gets to waste on idiotic programs.
> 
> A funny thing about that, Rachael Madcow claimed to have somehow, ILLEGALLY, got Trump's tax return, and gleefully announced that he paid $ 35 million in income taxes.  See the overwhelming bulk of Trump's income comes from earned income and not investments.
> 
> We do not tax WEALTH, not that liberals would not love to tax wealth, except their own of course.


You're forgetting FICA taxes which the poor pay and the wealthy don't.  I'd say small business usually pay a higher percentage of income then large business.

----------


## Cap

> You're forgetting FICA taxes which the poor pay and the wealthy don't.  I'd say small business usually pay a higher percentage of income then large business.


Well I was going to go there at some point with Dan but he just wants to thump his chest and show everyone what a smart conservative he is without actually making any substantive points.

The middle class is getting buried - by both parties.  Corporate taxes are just a pass-through cost to the middle class.  The ACA expansion is a direct cost to the middle class with the shift of coverage costs (out-of-pocket, premiums - both have skyrocketed while healthcare delivery costs have not gone down as promised (except for the utilization aspect, lowering utilization is NOT cost control, it's withholding services)) but have gone up at the same or similar rate as they have for a while now.  The concept of overall tax liability will seemingly always be a mystery to some and the low information folks will simply point to earned income tax rates as proof which is a mistake.

And the wealthy simply aren't being burdened by these costs at the same rate the middle class is.

Trump was in large part elected by a frustrated middle class and I am highly skeptical that they will be rewarded.

----------


## Dan40

> Well, throwing the first low blow says a lot also.
> 
> You made the claim that the wealthy pay all of the taxes and the middle class and poor pay none of it, or something to that effect.  I can go back and quote it if you forgot.
> 
> Yet you haven't managed to back that claim up or even refute my point that yes, if you simply look at earned income tax brackets it's easy but incorrect to assume that the wealthy pay the most taxes but, as I'm suggesting you do a little research, look at the wealthy's overall tax burden compared to total earnings and if you do you'll see how total tax liability works.
> 
> Or you can bake up some more insults and continue to ignore the point, that's fine, your choice.
> 
> And I'm not even adding the shifting of costs for coverage for expanded Medicaid programs and who's really paying for that.  I doubt I'll get to that point with you.


Now you have exposed yourself as just a despicable liberal liar.

NOWHERE did I say the WEALTHY pay anything.  Did you fail ENGLISH?

I posted, the top 50% of income earners pay for everything.  That is a simple fact.

Post #95:

*"The top 50% of income earners pay for everything."

*Not a word in there about "the wealthy."

Perhaps when you get some reading comprehension assistance, you could engage in an intelligent debate.

But you are not now prepared.

And the source of my statement is, THE US INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

They, not me, say the top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of personal federal income tax.  The bottom 50% of income earners, PEOPLE WITH JOBS AND EARN WAGES, pay less than 2.7% of federal personal income taxes.  And they also get more than $60 billion in Earned Income Tax Credit checks for taxes they did NOT pay.

What % of their personal income they pay is not the argument, they pay 97% of every income tax dollar the government takes.

If $10. in taxes hurts some ignorant schlump more than $100,000. hurts the successful.  THAT is the schlump's fault, not the successful person's fault.  And the schlump gets a $3000. EITC check and blows it on a 60 inch flat screen.

You may post all the liberal lies and bullshit propaganda you wish, and the FACT will remain that the top 50% of income earners pay the bills.  The poor TAKE and pay nothing, and the middle class pay very little.

FACTS, the things that make liberal skin crawl and sluff off.

And if my posting style hurts your little feelings, find a safe place to hide.

----------


## Cap

> *Now you have exposed yourself as just a despicable liberal liar.*
> 
> NOWHERE did I say the WEALTHY pay anything.  Did you fail ENGLISH?
> 
> I posted, the top 50% of income earners pay for everything.  That is a simple fact.
> 
> Post #95:
> 
> *"The top 50% of income earners pay for everything."
> ...





> *The rich pay the taxes the low and middle classes don't.*
> 
> There is NO business on the planet worth ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, or in  debt even half that, probably not a quarter of that.  A few businesses  are worth more than half a trillion, but none over a trillion.
> 
> And a government 20 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt and with no actual worth , claims to be able to fix problems.
> 
> Can't happen.
> 
> The ACA, Republicans can't replace it because no government anywhere on  the planet can do either health care or health insurance.  The reason  the ACA was passed is because regulations have health care and health  insurance so screwed up.
> ...

----------


## Cap

Sorry Dan - the above is strike two for you.

----------


## Cap

> Now you have exposed yourself as just a despicable liberal liar.
> 
> NOWHERE did I say the WEALTHY pay anything.  Did you fail ENGLISH?
> 
> I posted, the top 50% of income earners pay for everything.  That is a simple fact.
> 
> Post #95:
> 
> *"The top 50% of income earners pay for everything."
> ...


That's nice, Dan but you're repeating yourself.

Saying it over and over again with all of the pomp isn't going to convince me that you're actually trying to make a point.

However you are ramping up the insults and that is a pretty clear act of desperation.

Whenever you're ready to address the points I made without insults and the need to inflate yourself with baseless rhetoric let me know, otherwise I'll save my time for someone who can actually engage a productive discussion, thanks.

----------


## Dan40

> Sorry Dan - the above is strike two for you.


Your imagine yourself an umpire?  No bozo, you are nothing but an unprepared, liberal liar, and have no say in my posts.

You post what you want, I'll destroy you with FACTS.  Twist and deflected and whine and hide all you need to your delicate feelings.  I'll destroy you with FACTS.

Have you noticed that you have yet to post a FACT?

----------


## Cap

> Your imagine yourself an umpire?  No bozo, you are nothing but an unprepared, liberal liar, and have no say in my posts.
> 
> You post what you want, I'll destroy you with FACTS.  Twist and deflected and whine and hide all you need to your delicate feelings.  I'll destroy you with FACTS.
> 
> Have you noticed that you have yet to post a FACT?


That's nice, Dan - more insults will make you feel smarter.

Let's go back a number of posts, at least address this question that you failed to with all of your chest pounding and hoof scraping - do you understand the difference between earned income and total income.

Let's see if you can manage that, ok Dan?

----------


## Cap

This guy's a hoot

 :Biglaugh:

----------


## Cap

Oh, btw - these smileys, many maybe most of them came from me.

 :Biglaugh: 

Isn't that right @Trinnity ?

----------


## RobertLafollet

Some parts of the Republican tax plan

Other parts of the plan would limit or eliminate some tax breaks corporations currently employ. It limits the deductibility of interest for most companies, for example, with an exception for smaller firms. It would also take away businesses’ ability to deduct some types of executive compensation above $1 million a year — including performance-based pay.

One of the biggest flash points will be how the bill treats the state and local tax deduction, which lawmakers are proposing to limit to property taxes and cap at $10,000. That will not be enough for Republicans in some high-tax states, where middle-class families make heavy use of the deduction, which currently applies to state and local income taxes and general sales taxes as well as property taxes.
Republican Plan Delivers Permanent Corporate Tax Cut - The New York Times

This is something the real estate industry hates and is actively fighting.  With states cracking down on sales and use taxes (sales tax paid by the buyer)  the point about sales tax could be expensive for some people.  For instance if you buy a new car you can easily generate several thousand dollars in tax.  Likewise it likely would hurt the multilevel marketing industry.


Doubling the estate tax excemption to 11 million would likely help farming.  

Ending the medical expense deduction will likely hurt some middle class people.

Those over 65 will be hurt by removing the 15% credit for seniors. 

If you are moving or have your tax professionally prepared you’ll lose that deduction.

The revised bill changes the way future updates to key individual tax parameters, such as bracket thresholds and the amount of the standard deduction, would be calculated — by using a measure of inflation known as “chained CPI” that tends to grow more slowly than the “unchained” alternative.

The aggregate effect of the change, according to revenue estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, would be to reduce the amount of tax cuts for individuals over the next 10 years by $81 billion.

Changes to GOP tax bill reduce individual benefits by tens of billions of dollars - The Washington Post

Basically the idea behind chained CPI is that if the price of milk goes up people will by powder milk so the price of powdered milk is used in computing inflation instead of the price of milk.  It basically is the idea that people will be continuing to cut their standard of living.

----------



----------


## Oskar

> There is a massive tax cut for the rich


Define "rich" Bob.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> History says business and the rich will not use the tax cut to increase jobs or wages.


Wrong , Bob. History says that cutting tax rates always results in a bolstered economy and more jobs. Calvin Coolidge lowered taxes, as did JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush - and the result was low unemployment and MORE federal tax revenue. 

Isn't that what you want Bob - more money for the government? That only happens when you lower tax rates. 

When you raise tax rates, government revenue decreases and the people get to keep less of their hard earned money.

Is that what you want? Or do socialists only like tax hikes because they get to play class warfare and "soak the rich" while pretending to "care about the poor" who they just robbed?

----------


## Oskar

> Why should an employer be able to demand an employee take low wages?


They can't demand that, Bob.

If an employer is offering too little pay for the market then he will find that no one is knocking on the door and applying for jobs.

A contract is made when a buyer (in this case the employer) and a seller (in this case an employee) agree to an exchange of labor and money. The wage is the equilibrium point at which each is willing to deal.

This is ECON 101, Bob. I thought that you had a finance background.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> True but it works better when a union is involved and it is a negotiation between equals.  Otherwise it requires government intervention.


What are you talking about? A non-union labor contract is between equals and government should never intervene in private dealings that don't concern it - the courts being used by either party to enforce the contract notwithstanding.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> When you have a large percentage of the population working at jobs that don't pay enough to keep them off government assistance then wages are to low.


LOL! I guess that you haven't heard about the black workers in Seattle on welfare who asked their employer to _cut hours_ because they are making too much to qualify for continued benefits.

----------


## Oskar

> Think about this when an employee see the owner driving up in the Cadillac the day after coming home from a cruise and that employer says I can't afford to pay you more I'm barely getting by, how much credibility does that employer has?


It is none of your business what a small business owner does with his money, Bob. The business owner in your example would probably love to pay his employee more and would - if the employee would add enough value to the company that generates more revenue. That is what it is about Bob - the employer needs a service and the employee needs a check. if the employee can prove that he is worth it (by generating the revenue needed to grant that raise) then he will be paid pursuant to that worth and by prudent saving will be able to drive a Cadillac themselves.

Its called the American Dream - something I guess you don't know about. It is how millions of immigrants who came here_ legally_ made their way from nothing off a boat and living in a tenement to something in a reasonably nice house with enough cash to contribute to their children's college education.

Want to take that away too Bob? Shouldn't people who have worked hard to earn something be able to give it to who they wish?

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> Why do you think Trump won.


He won because Hillary wanted to destroy America and Trump wants to and is making America great again.

----------

NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Define "rich" Bob.


My personal definition would be having over a million dollars in liquid assets

----------


## RobertLafollet

> He won because Hillary wanted to destroy America and Trump wants to and is making America great again.


I disagree.  I think Trump won because particularly in the Midwest people wanted more high paying jobs and cheaper insurance.  As Bill Clinton said it's the economy stupid.  I think 2018 will be about the same issues.

----------


## Oskar

> My personal definition would be having over a million dollars in liquid assets


A good chuck of that could easily be liquidated real quick by buying a "middle class" house.

----------


## Oskar

> I disagree.  I think Trump won because particularly in the Midwest people wanted more high paying jobs and cheaper insurance.  As Bill Clinton said it's the economy stupid.  I think 2018 will be about the same issues.


Lets say that is true. What does that tell you? Republicans in office result in higher paying jobs and better insurance than do Democrats. 

That is making America great again!

Why should anyone ever vote for a Democrat again?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It is none of your business what a small business owner does with his money, Bob. The business owner in your example would probably love to pay his employee more and would - if the employee would add enough value to the company that generates more revenue. That is what it is about Bob - the employer needs a service and the employee needs a check. if the employee can prove that he is worth it (by generating the revenue needed to grant that raise) then he will be paid pursuant to that worth and by prudent saving will be able to drive a Cadillac themselves.
> 
> Its called the American Dream - something I guess you don't know about. It is how millions of immigrants who came here_ legally_ made their way from nothing off a boat and living in a tenement to something in a reasonably nice house with enough cash to contribute to their children's college education.
> 
> Want to take that away too Bob? Shouldn't people who have worked hard to earn something be able to give it to who they wish?


I'll start with your last question.  The answer is yes, but not if it tends to create an economic royalty.  So there needs to be a limit.  I actually the Republican plan 11 million limit makes sense.  

I've seen to many people who have no respect for how hard their employees work and are only interested in using people to get as much as they can for themselves.  Those kind of people normally regard their employees as worthless and would pay them less if they thought they could get away with it.  I think there are more of them then the ones you describe.  So I'll disagree with you on the first part.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Lets say that is true. What does that tell you? Republicans in office result in higher paying jobs and better insurance than do Democrats. 
> 
> My experience and the history I've read says the opposite.  Republicans normally result in lower wages and higher profits.  As to insurance.  Since I've started following it in the 60's with the exception of LBJ and Medicare not a single President has presided over less costly insurance that provided better coverage.  I.E.  Insurance has been going down hill for the last 55 years.  Insurance has been getting more and more expensive for the last 55 years.   
> 
> There is an exception to this and that is Ronald Reagan who is the last President to apply Keynesian economics.  He is very much misunderstood.  He was a lot more of a new dealer then he admitted.  He was also the only former Union President who ever became President of the United States.   
> 
> That is making America great again!
> 
> Why should anyone ever vote for a Democrat again?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> A good chuck of that could easily be liquidated real quick by buying a "middle class" house.


OK.  So what?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> LOL! I guess that you haven't heard about the black workers in Seattle on welfare who asked their employer to _cut hours_ because they are making too much to qualify for continued benefits.


I've know white people who did that.  When an employer doesn't provide health insurance it can be very costly to make enough to get kicked off Medicaid.  I've know people who managed their hours carefully is important as well.  Don't know any blacks who had to do that but have know Asians and whites who did.  Heck, I did it myself.  It's just smart business.  Remember selling your labor is a business.  Before somebody gets excited about me saying I didn't know any blacks did that I'm not saying they don't.  I certainly hope they do.  I just never knew of any who did.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> What are you talking about? A non-union labor contract is between equals and government should never intervene in private dealings that don't concern it - the courts being used by either party to enforce the contract notwithstanding.


A contract between someone with a lot more money then the other party is not a contract between equals.

----------


## Oskar

> OK.  So what?


$1,000.000 is not a whole lot of money.

Someone earning $40,000/year will reach that number in 30 years - about the time it takes them to pay off their mortgage.

----------


## Oskar

> A contract between someone with a lot more money then the other party is not a contract between equals.


Why would someone who wanted money look for it from someone with less money?

----------


## Oskar

> Remember selling your labor is a business.


Of course it is, and you want to destroy that business by getting unions and government involved.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Wrong , Bob. History says that cutting tax rates always results in a bolstered economy and more jobs. Calvin Coolidge lowered taxes, as did JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush - and the result was low unemployment and MORE federal tax revenue. 
> 
> Isn't that what you want Bob - more money for the government? That only happens when you lower tax rates. 
> 
> When you raise tax rates, government revenue decreases and the people get to keep less of their hard earned money.
> 
> Is that what you want? Or do socialists only like tax hikes because they get to play class warfare and "soak the rich" while pretending to "care about the poor" who they just robbed?


Calvin Coolidge set up the Great Depression.  Look at the Midwest.  In 1924 fighting Bob the Progressive party candidate took a number of Midwest states.  That was because farmers never got out of the 1920 recession.  He ignored a real estate bubble bust that drained a lot of the liquidity in the economy.  The only time there was as much income disparity in the economy as now in modern times was the 1920's.  Coolidge looks good at first glance because he held off the recession he appears to have know was coming just long enough to have it hit on Herbert Hoovers watch.  By the way Coolidge didn't like Hoover.

JFK dropped Eisenhower's 90% rate.  But he closed a lot of loopholes at the same time so a lot of people actually paid a higher percentage of income in taxes.

Reagan as I mentioned before followed a very Keynesian economic approach.  He did cut the income before he increased it.  He also just about doubled the FICA tax.  

G.W. Bush didn't even do as good a job as Coolidge.  He presided over stagnant wages and ushered in the 2008 Great Recession.  

Looking at history your examples fall apart.  That said I do not support a 70 or 90% tax bracket.  I would say taxes should be kept at 50% and below.  By taxes I mean a combination of state, Federal income and FICA taxes.  That is right about where they are now.  I do favor a cut in corporate taxes to about the world average of 25% with a massive increase in the number of auditors to prevent cheating.    

At this point everyone complains about things like the DMV.  When ever I go there it appears understaffed.  We obviously need more government workers and that costs money.

----------


## Oskar

The funny thing is @RobertLafollet, I guarantee that I have less money than you and probably qualify as "poor".

I support free markets because it is the best system to allow everyone to have a fair shake.

Why do you support unfree markets (socialism)?

Care to give some of your wealth to me?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Why would someone who wanted money look for it from someone with less money?


It has nothing to do with looking for money it has to do with keeping money and respect.

----------


## Oskar

> G.W. Bush didn't even do as good a job as Coolidge.  He presided over stagnant wages and ushered in the 2008 Great Recession.   .


George W, Bush presided over 6 consecutive years of unprecedented economic growth that only came to a halt after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. 

Democrats gave us the Great Obama Recession.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> The funny thing is @RobertLafollet, I guarantee that I have less money than you and probably qualify as "poor".
> 
> I support free markets because it is the best system to allow everyone to have a fair shake.
> 
> Why do you support unfree markets (socialism)?
> 
> Care to give some of your wealth to me?


I support a mixed economy.  Some things like utilities and other natural monopolies are best government owned.  Others like plumbing companies are best run in the free market.  I support strong regulation.  Good umpires make a good game.  

Then there are things like the big banks.  We should either break them up - really break them up  so that we again have thousands of banks - or they should be government run.  Government run is probably the better idea because banks now have to compete in the global economy with other monopoly banks.  For the average bank employee it will not change a thing.    

I support a strong safety net.

Remember I call my self an American Socialist.  After all that is what you have defined FDR as and even a moderate rightie like Obama you call a socialist.  Why should I fight your definition.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> George W, Bush presided over 6 consecutive years of unprecedented economic growth that only came to a halt after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. 
> 
> Democrats gave us the Great Obama Recession.


Never saw it.  I think you are going to have to prove how he helped  average people if you don't want me laughing about you believing that  myth.

----------


## Oskar

> It has nothing to do with looking for money it has to do with keeping money and respect.


You can't keep money that you don't have, and so you seek money from people who have it.

----------


## Oskar

> Never saw it.


Then you were asleep from 2002-2008, Bob.

----------


## Oskar

> Remember I call my self an American Socialist.


There is no such thing. What you are is a communist.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> There is no such thing. What you are is a communist.


Call me what you want it will not interfere with my supper.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> There is no such thing. What you are is a communist.


You still haven't proved your allegation.

----------


## NORAD

> You're forgetting FICA taxes which the poor pay and the wealthy don't.  I'd say small business usually pay a higher percentage of income then large business.


One more time bobby .........

Everyone pays FICA on earned income up to $127,200 in calendar  year 2017.

BUTTTTTTT
Here's a small factoid


During working years, *the low wage worker is eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (FICA refunds) and federal child credits and may pay little or no FICA tax or Income tax. By Congressional Budget Office* (CBO) calculations the lowest income quintile (020%) and second quintile (2140%) of households in the U.S. pay an average income tax of -9.3% and -2.6% and Social Security taxes of 8.3% and 7.9% respectively. By CBO calculations the household incomes in the first quintile and second quintile have an average Total Federal Tax rate of 1.0% and 3.8% respectively




The theory is higher wage earners are intelligent enough to save/invest over the cap.

----------

DeadEye (11-04-2017)

----------


## memesofine

> I understand how the expanded Medicaid programs work.  I'm not going to argue the social responsibility aspect of it, it's tangent to the point.  Ever since federal funding for expanded Medicaid programs began tapering off what, last year, states are scrambling to find funding sources for these programs.  In a bad way, and either way - federally funded or state funded, who do you think is footing the bill for these expanded programs - which by the way amounts for a very large if not most of the "newly covered" people in the program?
> 
>   Who is ultimately paying for these expanded programs?  The wealthy?  The poor?


 

 And then Obambam wanted our young adults just starting out in life to pay for you and everyone who isn't subsidized which they couldn't AFFORD to do.

----------

DeadEye (11-04-2017),NORAD (11-04-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The US has gone down hill since unions started weakening.


Since the RINOs and Dumbo Cruds have joined forces to form the new political party - the Government Elites' Party.

When the unions got what they wanted, the industries they leached off, died.  Parasites do that.  From the railroads (over a dozen bankrupted in the 1960s) to automotive 

(Studebaker closed its auto division with heavy losses and threats of strikes; Kaiser sold out; AMC sold itself to Renault and then Chrysler; GM bankrupted; Chrysler, ten times the size of AMC, bankrupted.  FCA, multinational, soon to be bankrupted)

...on to steel (Bethlehem and Republic/LTV) and plenty of lesser industries.  Union parasitism, coupled with government hyperregulation, has and is bringing the country down.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> One more time bobby .........
> 
> Everyone pays FICA on earned income up to $127,200 in calendar  year 2017.
> 
> BUTTTTTTT
> Here's a small factoid
> 
> 
> During working years, *the low wage worker is eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (FICA refunds) and federal child credits and may pay little or no FICA tax or Income tax. By Congressional Budget Office* (CBO) calculations the lowest income quintile (0–20%) and second quintile (21–40%) of households in the U.S. pay an average income tax of -9.3% and -2.6% and Social Security taxes of 8.3% and 7.9% respectively. By CBO calculations the household incomes in the first quintile and second quintile have an average Total Federal Tax rate of 1.0% and 3.8% respectively
> ...


I do not dispute that.  The point is that People making less then $127.000 pay FICA on 100% of their income.  People making a million pay it on about 12% of their income.  

Your point is that the stated rates are not the actual rates.  That is very true.  If you are in the 25% bracket you definitely pay less then 25%, if you are in the 39% bracket you definitely pay less then 39%.  The more money you make the more you can reduce that rate.  The same is true of business.

----------


## Dan40

We have more than 100 million people that take more money from the govt than they pay in.  Many of them have jobs.  Not what some would call good jobs, but jobs with earned income.

And they get EITC, EBT, obamaphones, Medicaid, housing, and food.  To call them TAXPAYERS is stupid.  They are tax takers.

Some working people that do have jobs and do actually pay some taxes have a tendency to use IRS as a no interest savings acct.  $5,000. is taken out of their paychecks throughout the year, and when they file their return they get $4,400. back.

Liberals would have us believe he/she paid $5,000. in taxes, but he/she paid $600.  Now is that $600, more of a burden on them than $35 million is on Trump?  Yes, sure it is harder for them.  But the issue is the taxes and who actually pays the taxes, NOT who has a hard time.  That is a different issue and IS the fault of the low paid worker.

There is NO REPORT on degree of difficulty.  Perhaps the lying liberals are confused with Olympic diving?

*The top 50% of income earners pay more than 97% of US personal income tax according to the IRS.  FACT.*

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Since the RINOs and Dumbo Cruds have joined forces to form the new political party - the Government Elites' Party.
> 
> When the unions got what they wanted, the industries they leached off, died.  Parasites do that.  From the railroads (over a dozen bankrupted in the 1960s) to automotive 
> 
> (Studebaker closed its auto division with heavy losses and threats of strikes; Kaiser sold out; AMC sold itself to Renault and then Chrysler; GM bankrupted; Chrysler, ten times the size of AMC, bankrupted.  FCA, multinational, soon to be bankrupted)
> 
> ...on to steel (Bethlehem and Republic/LTV) and plenty of lesser industries.  Union parasitism, coupled with government hyperregulation, has and is bringing the country down.


You're forgetting that management at the auto companies made the mistake of going to big cars.  The Japanese made small cars with better gas mileage.  Because of Saudi Arabia the price of gas skyrocketed.  As to steel they were faced with a lot of competition from foreign producers that hadn't existed before because of tariffs dropping.  We were still using a lot of steel in cars then so Japanese cars also hurt that industry.

Company management made a lot of mistakes in that period.  Yes, the unions also made a lot of mistakes.  Free trade and globalism the US wasn't ready for when we went into it.  

That said this isn't 1970.  Management has adapted mostly by moving to low wage countries and holding down US wages.  However, the US remains the largest market in the world.  That can't last when consumers are tapped out.  With 20 trillion in consumer debt I'd say consumers are darn close to being tapped out.  The only way that is going to be fixed is with significantly higher wages.  As has been pointed out on this thread the bottom 50% do not pay a lot of taxes so you could cut them across the board to 0 and it would do little to help.

----------


## Dan40

> You're forgetting that management at the auto companies made the mistake of going to big cars.  The Japanese made small cars with better gas mileage.  Because of Saudi Arabia the price of gas skyrocketed.  As to steel they were faced with a lot of competition from foreign producers that hadn't existed before because of tariffs dropping.  We were still using a lot of steel in cars then so Japanese cars also hurt that industry.
> 
> Company management made a lot of mistakes in that period.  Yes, the unions also made a lot of mistakes.  Free trade and globalism the US wasn't ready for when we went into it.  
> 
> That said this isn't 1970.  Management has adapted mostly by moving to low wage countries and holding down US wages.  However, the US remains the largest market in the world.  That can't last when consumers are tapped out.  With 20 trillion in consumer debt I'd say consumers are darn close to being tapped out.  The only way that is going to be fixed is with significantly higher wages.  As has been pointed out on this thread the bottom 50% do not pay a lot of taxes so you could cut them across the board to 0 and it would do little to help.


You are forgetting that the modern UAW in order to get a piece of the management action, SCREWED the members.  Perhaps you are unaware that the new UAW member starts at a pay scale just above minimum and does not share in the big benefits package.  And you are also not aware that the retired UAW workers had their pensions cut dramatically.  Amazing how different the union became when it became part of management.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> We have more than 100 million people that take more money from the govt than they pay in.  Many of them have jobs.  Not what some would call good jobs, but jobs with earned income.
> 
> And they get EITC, EBT, obamaphones, Medicaid, housing, and food.  To call them TAXPAYERS is stupid.  They are tax takers.
> 
> Some working people that do have jobs and do actually pay some taxes have a tendency to use IRS as a no interest savings acct.  $5,000. is taken out of their paychecks throughout the year, and when they file their return they get $4,400. back.
> 
> Liberals would have us believe he/she paid $5,000. in taxes, but he/she paid $600.  Now is that $600, more of a burden on them than $35 million is on Trump?  Yes, sure it is harder for them.  But the issue is the taxes and who actually pays the taxes, NOT who has a hard time.  That is a different issue and IS the fault of the low paid worker.
> 
> There is NO REPORT on degree of difficulty.  Perhaps the lying liberals are confused with Olympic diving?
> ...


For a change you are actually stating some facts with your usual false allegations.  It  is not the fault of the the poor burger flipper who has to keep up with the impatient lines at McDonalds.  Who has to take the daily burns on his or her fingers while standing over a hot stove and a splattering deep fryer.  It is the fault of a system that takes on average 3% of that franchisees income and transfers it to a franchiser.  I understand that the average Wendy's owner isn't rich.  I understand that the subway owner doesn't have a protected territory.  

What we have is a lack of respect for these low wage workers.  Historically the there has always been to little respect for workers. Many of these people put their health and very life in danger to do those jobs that make the owners rich.  This is a reason for unions.  It is why the knights of labor formed.

----------


## Kodiak

> For a change you are actually stating some facts with your usual false allegations.  It  is not the fault of the the poor burger flipper who has to keep up with the impatient lines at McDonalds.  Who has to take the daily burns on his or her fingers while standing over a hot stove and a splattering deep fryer.  It is the fault of a system that takes on average 3% of that franchisees income and transfers it to a franchiser.  I understand that the average Wendy's owner isn't rich.  I understand that the subway owner doesn't have a protected territory.  
> 
> What we have is a lack of respect for these low wage workers.  Historically the there has always been to little respect for workers. Many of these people put their health and very life in danger to do those jobs that make the owners rich.  This is a reason for unions.  It is why the knights of labor formed.



Maybe these low wage workers should work on improving their skills and move on to more lucrative jobs.

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> You are forgetting that the modern UAW in order to get a piece of the management action, SCREWED the members.  Perhaps you are unaware that the new UAW member starts at a pay scale just above minimum and does not share in the big benefits package.  And you are also not aware that the retired UAW workers had their pensions cut dramatically.  Amazing how different the union became when it became part of management.


I am aware that the union was forced to accept a two tiered wage structure.  I am aware that the mismanagement of GM and many other companies resulted in pension cuts.  Pensions should be first in line if a company declares bankruptcy.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Maybe these low wage workers should work on improving their skills and move on to more lucrative jobs.


Improving skills is costly.  However, where are these higher paying jobs?  People don't go into burger flipping because they can find something else.  Those are the available jobs.  We have a lot of college graduates with degrees they though would be valuable flipping burgers.

----------


## Morning Star

> We have a lot of college graduates with degrees they though would be valuable flipping burgers.


This is what a college degree has been reduced to as the result of libtards taking over the education system.

----------


## Dan40

> For a change you are actually stating some facts with your usual false allegations.  It  is not the fault of the the poor burger flipper who has to keep up with the impatient lines at McDonalds.  Who has to take the daily burns on his or her fingers while standing over a hot stove and a splattering deep fryer.  It is the fault of a system that takes on average 3% of that franchisees income and transfers it to a franchiser.  I understand that the average Wendy's owner isn't rich.  I understand that the subway owner doesn't have a protected territory.  
> 
> What we have is a lack of respect for these low wage workers.  Historically the there has always been to little respect for workers. Many of these people put their health and very life in danger to do those jobs that make the owners rich.  This is a reason for unions.  It is why the knights of labor formed.


So you believe that YOUR job as a burger flipper is a career.  It is an entry level task where you prove you can show up on time each day and follow simple directions.  Do you think learning to flip 3 burgers at the same time demands respect?

IT DOES NOT.  But I do understand that you are proud to have achieved that tiny milestone.

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> You still haven't proved your allegation.


What allegation?

----------


## Oskar

> It  is not the fault of the the poor burger flipper who has to keep up with the impatient lines at McDonalds.  Who has to take the daily burns on his or her fingers while standing over a hot stove and a splattering deep fryer.


What is not his fault - that he is a burger flipper? Of course it is - it is the job he applied for, was offered, and accepted.

Most people don't spend their whole lives flipping burgers. It is an entry level job, not worth $15.00/hour, and one which you do to get experience before moving on to something more skilled and that pays more.

----------


## Dan40

> What is not his fault - that he is a burger flipper? Of course it is - it is the job he applied for, was offered, and accepted.
> 
> Most people don't spend their whole lives flipping burgers. It is an entry level job, not worth $15.00/hour, and one which you do to get experience before moving on to something more skilled and that pays more.


The intelligent burger flipper [not Robert] goes to an employer than has a more responsible job paying more money and where advancement is possible.  He tells the new prospective employer, "I've worked at McD's for 11  months, I never missed a day, never was late, My supervisor is Joe Blow, his boss is Sam Spade, so you can check my record."

Robert should not have to have reality explained, but he is unfamiliar with the concept.

----------


## Dan40

Evidently liberals BELIEVE that if an executive has a good burger in McD's he will ask the burger flipper to take over as CEO of Microsoft.

That no executive is ever going to have a good burger in any fast food emporium shoots that long range career plan in the ass.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> What allegation?


That the economy was good under G.W. Bush.

----------


## RobertLafollet

@Dana40, @Oskar The world has changed flipping burgers is no longer an entry level job.  Don't think managing a burger joint was ever entry level.  Keep this in mind you have about 10 flippers per manger.  Bookkeepers used to keep ledgers now that is done by a computer.  Factory jobs moved to Mexico and Asia.  What is left is retail and burger flipping burgers.  

Yes wages have something to do with taxes but this is a thread on taxes.

----------


## Morning Star

> That the economy was good under G.W. Bush.


20160808AndersonGDPChartAvg.jpg

Was a lot better than under Obummer

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

> That the economy was good under G.W. Bush.


It was, until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. Only outlier was 2001 an early 2002 because Bush inherited the Clinton recession. 

Democrats created the 2008 recession and then Obama doubled down on the bad polices which made it the Great Obama Recession.

Unemployment stabilized around 5% during the growth years of Bush's administration before rising to an 8% average during the Great Obama Recession (the number was probably higher due to Obama's Department of Labor underreporting jobs numbers).


http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table

The Dow Jones Industrial average recovered from the Clinton recession and rocketed skyward, gaining 7,000 points in 6 years.

http://genxfinance.com/a-visual-hist...rom-1996-2007/

These are the facts Bob. 

Bush led us out of the Clinton recession and through a great economic boom which was destroyed by Democrats through their manufactured sub-prime mortgage shenanigans, and then Obama led us further into a quagmire that we have come out of recently under Trump.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You're forgetting that management at the auto companies made the mistake of going to big cars.  The Japanese made small cars with better gas mileage.  Because of Saudi Arabia the price of gas skyrocketed.  As to steel they were faced with a lot of competition from foreign producers that hadn't existed before because of tariffs dropping.  We were still using a lot of steel in cars then so Japanese cars also hurt that industry.


YOU are forgetting that AMC made their cars bigger in the 1960s, because small cars DID NOT SELL. 

Ford Pinto.  Ford Escort.  Ford Fiesta (original)  Chevrolet Vega.  Chevrolet Chevette.  Chevrolet Sprint.  Chevrolet/Geo Metro.

...and on; and on; and on.

The Japanese cars were built better in the 1970s; but you couldn't say that of the 1980s, where the Chevrolet models WERE Japanese cars, built in Ontario; and the Ford Fiesta was a German import.

They had small cars.  The Japanese companies made money because their labor was a little cheaper and a LOT more productive.  And in fact, from 1988 or so, on...Japanese labor was MORE expensive than American.

Still there was savings because there wasn't UAW bullshit rules getting in the way of work; or EPA interference with manufacturing operations.

----------


## Oskar

> @Dana40, @Oskar The world has changed flipping burgers is no longer an entry level job.  Don't think managing a burger joint was ever entry level.


Burger flipping absolutely is entry level and no one but yourself ever suggested that managing is entry level. 

Did you get some rest last night, because you sound incoherent?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> 20160808AndersonGDPChartAvg.jpg
> 
> Was a lot better than under Obummer


I expected you'd come up with GDP.  GDP is a measure of how business and the rich do it does't mean average people are doing better.  Average also has the problem that it shows beginnings.  Bush started out benefiting from Clinton's surge while Obama started out hurt by Bush's terrible economy.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> It was, until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. Only outlier was 2001 an early 2002 because Bush inherited the Clinton recession. 
> 
> Democrats created the 2008 recession and then Obama doubled down on the bad polices which made it the Great Obama Recession.
> 
> Unemployment stabilized around 5% during the growth years of Bush's administration before rising to an 8% average during the Great Obama Recession (the number was probably higher due to Obama's Department of Labor underreporting jobs numbers).
> 
> 
> http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
> 
> ...


Bush was the one who pushed for the ownership society and sub-prime mortgages.  It was a Republican who at the end of Clinton's term ended Glass/seagul.  Clinton shouldn't have signed it.  Obama inherited Bush's wrecked economy.  It took him 6 months to get things turned around and almost a year to turn the unemployment rate.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> YOU are forgetting that AMC made their cars bigger in the 1960s, because small cars DID NOT SELL. 
> 
> Ford Pinto.  Ford Escort.  Ford Fiesta (original)  Chevrolet Vega.  Chevrolet Chevette.  Chevrolet Sprint.  Chevrolet/Geo Metro.
> 
> ...and on; and on; and on.
> 
> The Japanese cars were built better in the 1970s; but you couldn't say that of the 1980s, where the Chevrolet models WERE Japanese cars, built in Ontario; and the Ford Fiesta was a German import.
> 
> They had small cars.  The Japanese companies made money because their labor was a little cheaper and a LOT more productive.  And in fact, from 1988 or so, on...Japanese labor was MORE expensive than American.
> ...


I was warned a year before the first gas crisis that gas prices were going up.  Auto company management, particularly Chrysler which had made the smallest cars of the big 3 all went to bigger and bigger cars.  They in affect positioned themselves for destruction.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Burger flipping absolutely is entry level and no one but yourself ever suggested that managing is entry level. 
> 
> Did you get some rest last night, because you sound incoherent?


Now-a-days burger flipping isn't entry level.  Didn't say management is entry level.  I said that there were a lot few management slots then flipper slots.  I will say the the management trainee slots are glorified entry slots.  Don't think it is used that much anymore as the scam of saying someone is in management to avoid paying overtime is pretty well squashed because of unions.

----------


## Morning Star

> I expected you'd come up with GDP.  GDP is a measure of how business and the rich do it does't mean average people are doing better.  Average also has the problem that it shows beginnings.  Bush started out benefiting from Clinton's surge while Obama started out hurt by Bush's terrible economy.


Utter non-sense, when business is doing good workers are doing good and no GDP is NOT the result of the previous President. Your excuses are running thin.

----------


## Morning Star

> I was warned a year before the first gas crisis that gas prices were going up.  Auto company management, particularly Chrysler which had made the smallest cars of the big 3 all went to bigger and bigger cars.  They in affect positioned themselves for destruction.


They went with what the people wanted, no one wanted smaller cars and they still don't. Ask any car lot what sells, they all will tell you the same thing.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Utter non-sense, when business is doing good workers are doing good and no GDP is NOT the result of the previous President. Your excuses are running thin.


It is non-sense to say workers do good when business does good.  A new President can't turn the federal government on a dime so a new President is always impacted by the previous Presidents policies for 6 months to a year.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I was warned a year before the first gas crisis that gas prices were going up.  Auto company management, particularly Chrysler which had made the smallest cars of the big 3 all went to bigger and bigger cars.  They in affect positioned themselves for destruction.


Yeah.  Fiat was basically GIVEN bankrupt Chrysler, for a pledge that they'd bring out a small car in a year.

They did.  The Fiat 500.

How's that selling, again?

WHAT...IS selling?

----------


## Morning Star

> It is non-sense to say workers do good when business does good.  A new President can't turn the federal government on a dime so a new President is always impacted by the previous Presidents policies for 6 months to a year.


It is non-sense to say workers are doing good if the business is doing good? What the hell is wrong with you? When businesses are doing good they hire more people and can afford more wages and other compensations. They invest more in the business and growth in the business means more opportunities for upward mobility. You think workers fair better when the business is failing?

----------

Rutabaga (11-04-2017)

----------


## RGV

> Attachment 25472
> 
> Was a lot better than under Obummer


Better without Bush.
gdp.png

----------


## JustPassinThru

Another fake website cited

----------


## Morning Star

> Better without Bush.
> gdp.png


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  How does that help your case, first of all it's only speculation what Obummer would have been without Bush, second he would have killed Clinton's 3.9% down to 2.1% ..... no better than Bush?

Let's not forget the ONLY reason Clinton did as well as he did was because of a Republican Senate. Clinton and the Democrats opposed the Republican "Contract with America" tooth and nail.

----------

Rutabaga (11-04-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> *Scabs are the lowest thing on the planet.*  Even though I'm not in a union I will not cross a picket line.


liberals are the lowest form of life,,,right under festering carbuncles..

----------


## Rutabaga

> Better without Bush.
> gdp.png


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

paid for by barry the community organizer once again...

----------


## Oskar

> It is non-sense to say workers are doing good if the business is doing good? What the hell is wrong with you? When businesses are doing good they hire more people and can afford more wages and other compensations. They invest more in the business and growth in the business means more opportunities for upward mobility. You think workers fair better when the business is failing?


Yep. I used to get bonuses when my company met its quarterly financial objectives. Maybe Bob has always worked for failing companies. I wonder if that would include his own?

----------


## Oskar

> It is non-sense to say workers do good when business does good.


LOL! Do you think workers do better when businesses do bad?

----------


## Tessa

> Same Old Trickle Fantasy


The democratic party has nothing to offer. What they did give us made everything worse.

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## RGV

> How does that help your case, first of all it's only speculation what Obummer would have been without Bush, second he would have killed Clinton's 3.9% down to 2.1% ..... no better than Bush?
> 
> Let's not forget the ONLY reason Clinton did as well as he did was because of a Republican Senate. Clinton and the Democrats opposed the Republican "Contract with America" tooth and nail.


I think we all know the economy loves the Democrats.
Personally, I think it's a crap shoot. But if you want to play the game.
gdp pres.png

----------


## RGV

> How does that help your case, first of all it's only speculation what Obummer would have been without Bush, second he would have killed Clinton's 3.9% down to 2.1% ..... no better than Bush?
> 
> Let's not forget the ONLY reason Clinton did as well as he did was because of a Republican Senate. Clinton and the Democrats opposed the Republican "Contract with America" tooth and nail.


More?
def pres.png

----------


## Morning Star

> More?
> def pres.png


Where is the chart showing Rep vs Dem congress? That is where the deficits come from.

800px-us_federal_debt_as_percent_of_gdp_by_president.jpg

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Scabs are the lowest thing on the planet.  Even though I'm not in a union I will not cross a picket line.


Typical of liberal mindlessness.

How do you know, until you investigate, whether the reason for the strike is righteous or not?  Strikes and walkouts have been called because laborers were asked to move parts, something that engineers are supposed to do.  Strikes are called because non-union assistants bring lunch in on movie sets or meetings, something that cafeteria workers are by contract to do.

You DO NOT KNOW.  Someone making $50 an hour, pay and benefits, is on strike?  I got no pity; and I'll cross in a heartbeat.  And I'll swing a claw hammer at anyone who gets in my way.

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## Oskar

I always liked being a scab. I saw strikes as opportunities. If the union boys didn't want to work, I would!

----------



----------


## Oskar

One picket line I remember was a teacher strike. I drove by and told them that they should be in the classroom. 

One teacher got nasty and started cursing at me, so I told him that I was wrong - he should not go back and be a bad example to his students.

That made him madder.

----------


## Rita Marley

Now my advice for those who cry
Enroll at Berkeley, then go die
'Cause I'm the tax plan
Yeah, I'm the tax plan

----------


## RobertLafollet

> LOL! Do you think workers do better when businesses do bad?


No, I think there is only a slight relationship between how business do and how workers do.  That is much more true now then it was in 1980.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Where is the chart showing Rep vs Dem congress? That is where the deficits come from.
> 
> 800px-us_federal_debt_as_percent_of_gdp_by_president.jpg


So what?  I'm supposed to care.  As Cheny said Ronald Reagan taught us debt doesn't mater.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I always liked being a scab. I saw strikes as opportunities. If the union boys didn't want to work, I would!


Ok so you brag about being a low-life who is against American workers.  Sorry to hear that.  I thought you might be a nice patriotic person.

----------


## Oskar

> Ok so you brag about being a low-life.


Low-lifes are union thugs who don't want to work and attack those who do.

----------



----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> Ok so you brag about being a low-life.


Shup.. Mr. Union boss. 
The feeling is mutual. 

Always protecting and fleecing the slackers who are too stupid to work in a free market because their lazy , protected asses will get thrown off the job immediately.

----------


## Oskar

> I thought you might be a nice patriotic person.


Unions hate America.

----------



----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> Low-lifes are union thugs who don't want to work and attack those who do.


 :Angry20:  Years I had to work side by side with these lazy fuckers. 
We made the same money in right to work states (only places I'd work), but I worked for mine and did their work too while they laughed and did nothing. Thugs and worthless extortionists. 

Joke was on them, though. They had to  send that  money to the union boss extortionists every month. Lol.


Just like mafia protection money.

----------

Oskar (11-04-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Years I had to work side by side with these lazy fuckers. 
> We made the same money in right to work states (only places I'd work), but I worked for mine and did their work too while they laughed and did nothing. Thugs and worthless extortionists. 
> 
> Joke was on them, though. They had to  send that  money to the union boss extortionists every month. Lol.


My cousin was an engineer at Chrysler a while back, he wasn't allowed to turn a screw, if he did, the union would say, it would jeopardize other people's jobs, so he would have to stand there until a mechanic could be summoned to unscrew the face plate so he could do his job. Brilliant!

----------



----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> My cousin was an engineer at Chrysler a while back, he wasn't allowed to turn a screw, if he did, the union would say, it would jeopardize other people's jobs, so he would have to stand there until a mechanic could be summoned to unscrew the face plate so he could do his job. Brilliant!


Yea. Then you gotta fill out paper work for that. It's gotta get approved by a paper pusher. Then the mechanic has to be contacted and see when he'll be available. Four hours later , one of these asses shows up but not before company safety and then plant safety give the ok.

----------


## Dan40

> @Dana40, @Oskar The world has changed flipping burgers is no longer an entry level job.  Don't think managing a burger joint was ever entry level.  Keep this in mind you have about 10 flippers per manger.  Bookkeepers used to keep ledgers now that is done by a computer.  Factory jobs moved to Mexico and Asia.  What is left is retail and burger flipping burgers.  
> 
> Yes wages have something to do with taxes but this is a thread on taxes.


Again you are wrong.  Fast food jobs are entry level jobs.  Including the "manager"  And the jobs are not WORTH $15.00 per hour.

People are not paid for being people.  Jobs, not people, are what determines the pay.  If the PERSON is worth more than a fast food job, THAT person puts themselves on the job market and moves on to better things.

If a person decides that a fast food job is their career, THAT person has decided that they are nearly worthless.

Nothing for society to be concerned with, move along.

----------


## Dan40

> My cousin was an engineer at Chrysler a while back, he wasn't allowed to turn a screw, if he did, the union would say, it would jeopardize other people's jobs, so he would have to stand there until a mechanic could be summoned to unscrew the face plate so he could do his job. Brilliant!


Exhibition halls are deeply unionized.  At one, we took the product out of the truck, but had to wait for union members to move it across the PUBLIC sidewalk.  Setting up a display you have to have a union electrician clip on your lights and plug them into the outlet.  AT EXTRA COSTS.

----------


## Morning Star

> Exhibition halls are deeply unionized.  At one, we took the product out of the truck, but had to wait for union members to move it across the PUBLIC sidewalk.  Setting up a display you have to have a union electrician clip on your lights and plug them into the outlet.  AT EXTRA COSTS.


Of course libtards never consider that a sub $15/hr paycheck would go A LOT further if we didn't have all the added costs of their BS. I would bet a $7/hr paycheck would be equivalent to a $15/hr paycheck if we got rid of all their non-sense.

Trump eliminating regulations has done more for low wage employees than all their $15/hr demands. Cutting costs is what makes real value, raising wages only increases inflation of costs. If I make $20/hr but minimum wage is $15/hr then I need a raise to reflect my skill, which drives up all costs, which makes $15/hr now below poverty, so next thing you know libtards will want a $20/hr minimum wage.

----------


## Dan40

> I expected you'd come up with GDP.  GDP is a measure of how business and the rich do it does't mean average people are doing better.  Average also has the problem that it shows beginnings.  Bush started out benefiting from Clinton's surge while Obama started out hurt by Bush's terrible economy.


Actually the GDP DOES mean people are doing better.  Average incomes under Obama lagged behind average incomes under GW Bush until obozo's last year and then only caught up to what was normal 8 years earlier.

Note too on the GDP chart, Reagan and Obama faced the worst recessions in recent times.  Reagans was a bit worse with higher unemployment and double digit inflation.  Yet RR had a 3.5% GDP, and the brown clown had the lowest GDP of modern presidents.  And that was after the brown clown's own hand picked fiscal advisers told him in 12/2010, to do exactly what RR did.  The clown trashed that advice.

----------


## Dan40

> Of course libtards never consider that a sub $15/hr paycheck would go A LOT further if we didn't have all the added costs of their BS. I would bet a $7/hr paycheck would be equivalent to a $15/hr paycheck if we got rid of all their non-sense.
> 
> Trump eliminating regulations has done more for low wage employees than all their $15/hr demands. Cutting costs is what make real value, raising wages only increases inflation of costs. If I make $20/hr but minimum wage is $15/hr then I need a raise to reflect my skill, which drives up all costs, which makes $15/hr now below poverty, so next thing you know libtards will want a $20/hr minimum wage.


Federal minimum wages requirements have been passed for over 75 years.  And at NO TIME, with any increase, has the minimum wage worker gained more buying power.  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Shortly after a minimum wage required increase, unemployment of min wage workers goes up, and so do prices.  They not only gain no more buying power, but they actually lose a few pennies of buying power.

And on the local level, Seattle, passed a $15.00 min wage.  Unemployment in the section of workers went up.  Hours were cut, and the NET result IS, not a theory, but a FACT, the minimum wages workers in Seattle have less actual take home pay than they HAD with a lower minimum wage.  No inflation, no price increases figured in, just fewer actual dollars to take home.

----------

Morning Star (11-04-2017),Old Tex (11-04-2017)

----------


## Morning Star

> Federal minimum wages requirements have been passed for over 75 years.  And at NO TIME, with any increase, has the minimum wage worker gained more buying power.  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> 
> Shortly after a minimum wage required increase, unemployment of min wage workers goes up, and so do prices.  They not only gain no more buying power, but they actually lose a few pennies of buying power.
> 
> And on the local level, Seattle, passed a $15.00 min wage.  Unemployment in the section of workers went up.  Hours were cut, and the NET result IS, not a theory, but a FACT, the minimum wages workers in Seattle have less actual take home pay than they HAD with a lower minimum wage.  No inflation, no price increases figured in, just fewer actual dollars to take home.


Thank You

----------


## Dan40

> Thank You


FACTS are simply facts, no thanks needed for TRUTH.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So what?  I'm supposed to care.  As Cheny said Ronald Reagan taught us debt doesn't mater.


They never said that.

I could explain the insane dynamics of the debt of the 1980s to you; but it would be like trying to teach a pig to sing.  I'd get nowhere and the pig gets annoyed.

Reagan wanted the ridiculously-high tax rates, cut.  Tipsy O'Neil was hellbent on making the budget a mess of it; and rammed through every crackpot spending proposal he could stuff in it.  And passed it, OVER REAGAN'S VETO at one point.

Treasury receipts exploded, with the economy roaring back; but O'Neil was determined to out-spend it.

NEVER ONCE did Reagan say debt didn't matter.  I'm sure Cheney didn't, either; but Cheney never had serious input in the budget process.  VPs do not propose budgets; and Cheney as House member was just one vote.

----------


## RGV

> Where is the chart showing Rep vs Dem congress? That is where the deficits come from.
> 
> Attachment 25477


Doesn't the President sign off on the budget? I think so.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Federal minimum wages requirements have been passed for over 75 years.  And at NO TIME, with any increase, has the minimum wage worker gained more buying power.  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> 
> Shortly after a minimum wage required increase, unemployment of min wage workers goes up, and so do prices.  They not only gain no more buying power, but they actually lose a few pennies of buying power.
> 
> And on the local level, Seattle, passed a $15.00 min wage.  Unemployment in the section of workers went up.  Hours were cut, and the NET result IS, not a theory, but a FACT, the minimum wages workers in Seattle have less actual take home pay than they HAD with a lower minimum wage.  No inflation, no price increases figured in, just fewer actual dollars to take home.


Yes.

And the Left's representatives in the Federal Reserve, keep on deliberately inflating the currency.

So they keep on fighting this fight, twice every decade or more, to jack the Minimum Wage to keep up with inflation; and meantime inflation EATS THE POWER OF SAVINGS.

DISincentivizing anyone to save for future needs or retirement.  Essentially transferring buying power from the provident savers to the recipients of the New Money, the Crony and Rent-Seeker classes.

And Bobby, the great BOOKKEEPER, thinks that's just fine.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Doesn't the President sign off on the budget? I think so.


Think again.  The Democrat House passed a budget bill OVER REAGAN'S VETO.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> My cousin was an engineer at Chrysler a while back, he wasn't allowed to turn a screw, if he did, the union would say, it would jeopardize other people's jobs, so he would have to stand there until a mechanic could be summoned to unscrew the face plate so he could do his job. Brilliant!


Patrick Bedard, the auto writer, started out of college as a Chrysler engineer.  Early 1960s...back in the late 1970s, when Iacocca was talking about getting union concessions on work rules...Bedard wrote about how, working in the garage where they'd prep prototypes for track endurance tests...how he wheeled a tire and wheel over to change a flat for a driver.  He thought he was doing the test driver a favor, since the test-driver couldn't change the tire, by contract.

Nope.  The union steward saw it, and stopped everything.  They had to call for two laborers, and a towmotor operator, to come from another building...the laborers to place the tire on the fork tines, and the towmotor driver to move that wheel 100 feet to where the prototype car was.

Bedard, a new-hire engineer, was amazed.  Three people had to stop work for that nonsense; and the test-driver had to sit and wait, doing nothing.  Took about 45 minutes.

Shortly afterwards, in the 1964 fiscal crisis that Chrysler had, Bedard was laid off.  He had nothing but contempt for a company which, when in trouble, would lay off the people who could revitalize product; while keeping the union featherbedders all about.

I saw much the same thing myself on the railroad.  Work rules were inflexible.  Even to, in the early days of computerized time-tickets, even though we were able to use the company mainframe terminal to clock ourselves off, the crew dispatchers would threaten job actions if we did.  We were to CALL THEM, in Dearborn (we were in Cleveland) to clock off.

Unionism.

----------

Rutabaga (11-04-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Doesn't the President sign off on the budget? I think so.


So you know:

The president is required to propose a FY budget.

The House may pass it or reject it.

The Senate may pass it or reject it.[A Harry Reid Senate never passed any budget, not Bush's, not Obama's, not the Houses', and never had a Senate budget proposal to discuss or vote on or pass]
[note, in Obama's tenure neither a Democrat majority congressional body nor a Republican majority congressional body EVER passed any Obama budget proposal]

The House may propose and/or pass a FY budget and the Senate may pass it or reject it. [or in the case of a Harry Reid Senate, NEVER vote on a House passed budget.]

And the Senate may pass or propose a FY budget.

Once a budget [NOT a Continuing Resolution] is passed and reaches the president's desk, he may sign it or veto it.

If he vetoes it, the congress may override his veto with a 2/3 vote in each body.

Questions?


Similar things happen in state government, for instance the infamous ROMNEYCARE.

Romney as Gov of Mass told the Democrat dominated state congress that IF they passed the healthcare bill they proposed, he would veto it.

They passed it.

He vetoed it.

The Democrats overrode his veto with 2/3 votes in both Houses and then told the BIG LIE, ROMNEYCARE.

It was and is a Democrat bill from Mass to obamascam.

----------

Retiredat50 (11-12-2017)

----------


## RGV

> Thank You


All depends on who you believe. I never believe Dan.

No, Seattleâs $15 Minimum Wage Is Not Hurting Workers | The Nation
Palin claims Reagan faced a worse recession than Obama | PolitiFact

----------


## Dan40

> All depends on who you believe. I never believe Dan.


Another of your innumerable problems.

TRUTH is and always has been unacceptable and painful for you liberals.

And truth always makes you look as foolish as you actually are.

I try, but since you don't care to learn, why should I care?

----------

Daily Bread (11-13-2017)

----------


## Tessa

> I think we all know the economy loves the Democrats.
> Personally, I think it's a crap shoot. But if you want to play the game.
> Attachment 25474


You must be crazy.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Actually the GDP DOES mean people are doing better.  Average incomes under Obama lagged behind average incomes under GW Bush until obozo's last year and then only caught up to what was normal 8 years earlier.
> 
> Note too on the GDP chart, Reagan and Obama faced the worst recessions in recent times.  Reagans was a bit worse with higher unemployment and double digit inflation.  Yet RR had a 3.5% GDP, and the brown clown had the lowest GDP of modern presidents.  And that was after the brown clown's own hand picked fiscal advisers told him in 12/2010, to do exactly what RR did.  The clown trashed that advice.


Having lived through both recessons have to say the Bush recession was much worse.  Would point out the Reagan had a Democratic Congress and Obama for most of his term had a Republican Congress.  That helped Reagan a lot.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> They never said that.
> 
> I could explain the insane dynamics of the debt of the 1980s to you; but it would be like trying to teach a pig to sing.  I'd get nowhere and the pig gets annoyed.
> 
> Reagan wanted the ridiculously-high tax rates, cut.  Tipsy O'Neil was hellbent on making the budget a mess of it; and rammed through every crackpot spending proposal he could stuff in it.  And passed it, OVER REAGAN'S VETO at one point.
> 
> Treasury receipts exploded, with the economy roaring back; but O'Neil was determined to out-spend it.
> 
> NEVER ONCE did Reagan say debt didn't matter.  I'm sure Cheney didn't, either; but Cheney never had serious input in the budget process.  VPs do not propose budgets; and Cheney as House member was just one vote.


Reagan did try to make slight cuts in social programs.  He also doubled the FICA tax to save social security.  He also spent huge amounts on the military, while keeping the troops in the US.  He also did an amnesty program but didn't enforce e-verify.

----------


## Dan40

> Having lived through both recessons have to say the Bush recession was much worse.  Would point out the Reagan had a Democratic Congress and Obama for most of his term had a Republican Congress.  That helped Reagan a lot.


The only problem with your post bobby, is that as always, it is factually wrong.

Obama 2009-2017.

2009-2011 Democrat dominated congress.  No budget passed.

2011-2017 House Republican majority.  House budget proposals regularly passed. but die in the Senate.

2009-2015 Senate Democrat controlled. (Lying Harry Reid) No presidential budget passed.  No House budget passed.  No Senate budget passed or debated.



97th congress 81-83 House D, Senate R
98th congress  83-85 same
99th congress 85-87  same
100th congress 87-89  House D, Senate D

----------


## RobertLafollet

> The only problem with your post bobby, is that as always, it is factually wrong.
> 
> Obama 2009-2017.
> 
> 2009-2011 Democrat dominated congress.  No budget passed.
> 
> 2011-2017 House Republican majority.  House budget proposals regularly passed. but die in the Senate.
> 
> 2009-2015 Senate Democrat controlled. (Lying Harry Reid) No presidential budget passed.  No House budget passed.  No Senate budget passed or debated.


A budget isn't programs.  All you are doing is proving my point.  Obama got a lot of programs passed in the 2009-2011 period and they broke the back of the Bush Great Recession.  After that he could get nothing passed.

----------


## Daily Bread

RGV has small hands  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Daily Bread

Booby has small feet  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## coke

> What you really want is more money.  Stronger unions and higher wages will do a better job of getting you that.


A race to the thousand dollar loaf of bread. What you really should say is you want your currency to be stronger so your dollar will purchase more, instead of just giving you more low value currency.

----------


## Morning Star

> The only problem with your post bobby, is that as always, it is factually wrong.
> 
> Obama 2009-2017.
> 
> 2009-2011 Democrat dominated congress.  No budget passed.
> 
> 2011-2017 House Republican majority.  House budget proposals regularly passed. but die in the Senate.
> 
> 2009-2015 Senate Democrat controlled. (Lying Harry Reid) No presidential budget passed.  No House budget passed.  No Senate budget passed or debated.
> ...


Democrats don't bother with a budget, they simply spend until they run out of money then vote to raise the debt limit. There is really no reason why you need a budget when that is your SOP.

----------


## Dan40

> A budget isn't programs.  All you are doing is proving my point.  Obama got a lot of programs passed in the 2009-2011 period and they broke the back of the Bush Great Recession.  After that he could get nothing passed.


Like the failed OBAMASCAM INSURANCE LAW THAT HAS INCREASED INSURANCE 300+% since passage?

Or the failed STIMULUS that wasted more than $3 Trillion?

Or the failed Dodd-Frank that has cost the public trillions?

Programs like that?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Like the failed OBAMASCAM INSURANCE LAW THAT HAS INCREASED INSURANCE 300+% since passage?
> 
> Or the failed STIMULUS that wasted more than $3 Trillion?
> 
> Or the failed Dodd-Frank that has cost the public trillions?
> 
> Programs like that?


The stimulus worked.  Dodd-Frank is basically a good law.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Booby has small feet


Boy are you wrong.  I'm short and fat with big feet.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The stimulus worked.  Dodd-Frank is basically a good law.


No; and no.

----------

