US defaults next week what does everyone think?

[Lizard Of Oz]

Oh, my friend, but where oh where did I give Gov Perry credit for anything at all?

Oddly enough, Perry just came onto the scene and is already under attack from the left. Yeah, Texas is living proof that lowering taxes and making your laws business friendly can actually create jobs. Lots of jobs, more than several states combined. Dallas is booming right now, even when other cities such as Detroit are failing.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

There's a reason why Buffet could be buy and sell Trump several times over.

Because.... Trump is willing to pay higher taxes too?

So my answer with what the government could do about it is to scuttle the whole tax code, and start over with a more balanced, fixed rate for all incomes, and to get rid of all of these wacky tax breaks and loopholes. You can't fight inequality with more inequality as others proposed, such as a much larger tax rate for higher earners to "compensate" for the imbalance. This also applies to companies. Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that send jobs overseas, for instance. The tax rate will be arbitrary, but it is up to policy makers to figure out what the most equitable rate is. And if that rate doesn't work, adjust it until it best fits.

This could be a good first step, as it will help offset the national deficit. Perhaps the rich with the higher rate (due to the very nature of the fixed rate being higher compared to the continual tax cuts in recent history) could see that they could still be extremely well within their means, and gain more certainty that the extra tax burden isn't really burdensome. This certainty will allow these "job creators" to do that, create more jobs and stop the stagnation of money at the top.

This is exactly what I was proposing earlier in the thread. The only reason I can see why you should be able to avoid paying taxes is if you don't make enough money to survive if you have to pay them.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Because.... Trump is willing to pay higher taxes too?

Read the second two parts of his quote. You know, the parts you quoted in an attempt to undermine what Buffet said.

 

[Capt.Toilet]

What Trump said about gas prices will never come to pass. The dollar is so broken that 30 dollars a barrel would still net you 4 bucks a gallon on gas.

Odd how recessions make stuff cheap, but when the economy booms stuff is expensive as hell. If that is the case I welcome the recession with open arms.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Read the second two parts of his quote. You know, the parts you quoted in an attempt to undermine what Buffet said.

I'm sorry, what you're trying to say here is failing to gain any traction. I wasn't undermining anything. I would apply the same caveat to what Trump said as I did to what Buffet said: "It doesn't matter what Trump says, he is just one person." That said, I would be much more concerned about doing what Buffet says to do in light of what Trump says. It doesn't make sense to remain ignorant of what other people have to say just because you happen to agree with someone else. It would be a pretty awful thing if even more business was sent offshore, or entire companies just moved entirely offshore.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

This not a response to that^, just for fun...

[M]http://www.hulu.com/watch/269536/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-warren-buffett-vs-wealthy-conservatives[/M]

[M]http://www.hulu.com/watch/269537/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-the-poors-free-ride-is-over[/M]

 

[kiff]

OPEC baby, OPEC. Record profits and cheap leases.

what's your argument here... we shouldn't drill our own oil ?

So my answer with what the government could do about it is to scuttle the whole tax code, and start over with a more balanced, fixed rate for all incomes, and to get rid of all of these wacky tax breaks and loopholes. You can't fight inequality with more inequality as others proposed, such as a much larger tax rate for higher earners to "compensate" for the imbalance. This also applies to companies. Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that send jobs overseas, for instance. The tax rate will be arbitrary, but it is up to policy makers to figure out what the most equitable rate is. And if that rate doesn't work, adjust it until it best fits.

that's fine, but capital gains is really the issue. I understand making it apply as a normal income for ppl that trade all day for a living. but what about the ppl that sell a house or other investment?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

This isn't intended to mean anything in relation to the above posted videos, but I have a hard time caring what Jon Stewart has to say. I don't really find him funny or interesting in any way. I'd rather watch Conan and Colbert all day long.

 

[Crotale]

Banter.

Okay, a mere technicality. You have to admit I didn't actually say he created jobs or deserved credit; I merely noted that he was getting lambasted even his state is the one of the few that have a net plus in jobs over the rest of the country. Regardless of the exact industry that has led to this boom in the DFW area alone, I noted growth in pretty much all major industries in the area.

If you want to push the argument that oil alone is responsible for job growth in Texas, at least Rick Perry HAS a fucking positive going track record compared to...wait for it...THE CHOSEN ONE!








. _ .

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

at least Rick Perry HAS a fucking positive track record

that's right, keep eating up those talking points.

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has paraded around the stat that “since June of 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in America.” “Now think about that. We’re home to less than 10 percent of the population in America, but 40 percent of all the new jobs were created in that state,” Perry says.

This stat leaves out a lot of the story. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has promoted the number, but “it acknowledges that the number comes out different depending on whether one compares Texas to all states or just to states that are adding jobs.” Between 2008 and 2010, jobs actually grew at a faster pace in Massachusetts than in Texas. In fact, “Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009.” The unemployment rate in Texas has been steadily increasing throughout the recession, and went from 7.7 to 8.2 percent while the state was supposedly creating 40 percent of all the new jobs in the U.S.

How is this possible, since Texas has created over 126,000 jobs since the depths of the recession in February 2009?
The fact of the matter is that looking purely at job creation misses a key point, namely that Texas has also experienced incredibly rapid population and labor force growth (due to a series of factors, including that Texas weathered the housing bubble reasonably well due to strict mortgage lending regulations). When this is taken into account, Texas’ job creation looks decidedly less impressive:
Clearly, there is no miracle for Texas here. While over 126,000 net jobs were created in Texas over the last two and a half years, the labor force expanded by over 437,000, meaning that overall Texas has added unemployed workers at a rate much faster than it has created jobs. And although states like Michigan have lost jobs (29,200 since February 2009), the state’s labor force has shrunk by over 185,000 since then. As a result, while there are fewer jobs, there are significantly less workers looking for them.

As Paul Krugman put it, “several factors underlie [Texas'] rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular.” But they have little to do with Perry’s policies.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

what's your argument here... we shouldn't drill our own oil ?

I'm all for responsible drilling. My Point was that OPEC as has much or more effect on oil prices than how much we drill.

Okay, a mere technicality. You have to admit I didn't actually said he created jobs or deserved credit; I merely noted that he was getting lambasted even his state is the one of the few that have a net plus in jobs over the rest of the country. Regardless of the exact industry that has led to this boom in the DFW area alone, I noted growth in pretty much all major industries in the area.

The oil industry does well, other nearby industries do well. Even those that don't appear to be directly related.

Think of it like a gold rush town. The saloon owner doesn't mine gold, but he services those that do.

If you want top push the argument that oil alone is responsible for job growth in Texas, at least Rick Perry HAS a fucking positive going track record compared to...wait for it...THE CHOSEN ONE!

That track record isn't...wait for it....Dubya Part II's..., it belongs to the world-wide oil/gas industry. A major part of that industry has been in Texas since oil became an industry, and certainly long, long before Perry showed up.

 

[kiff]

I'm all for responsible drilling.

My Point was that OPEC as has much or more effect on oil prices than how much we drill.

and the more we drill our own the less influence opec has, more money stays here and we could create a LOT of jobs. the problem is we need to actually do it.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Unlike the Conservatives on this forum, I don't march lock step with any particular political party. Shocking!

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Interesting facts about Dubya II's Texas tax policies...

While Texas is generally considered a low-tax state since it doesn't impose a personal income tax, a new analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy finds the state's tax laws actually "redistribute income away from ordinary families and towards the richest Texans."

Taxes paid by the poorest 20 percent of Texas households -- those with incomes averaging $11,200 a year -- are actually the fifth highest in the nation, even though none of those households make enough money to owe federal income tax.

"With poverty rates on the rise, the Texas tax system is actually pushing families further into poverty," said Meg Wiehe, ITEP's State Tax Policy Director.

According to the Tax Policy Center, three-fourths of the 46 percent of U.S. households that pay no federal income tax earn $30,000 or less per year. But those families pay the same share of gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, property and sales taxes as the wealthy, so they end up paying the government a larger percentage of their incomes.

Texas, in particular, is "extremely imbalanced" in its reliance on sales and property taxes, the report concludes. Even without having to pay income tax, the poorest fifth of Texans ended up paying about 12 percent of their income in taxes in 2009, ITEP reports. The wealthiest 1 percent of Texans paid only 3 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

 

[kiff]

Unlike the Conservatives on this forum, I don't march lock step with any particular political party. Shocking!

Interesting facts about Dubya II's Texas tax policies...

Oh the irony

 

[Crotale]

The oil industry does well, other nearby industries do well. Even those that don't appear to be directly related.

Think of it like a gold rush town. The saloon owner doesn't mine gold, but he services those that do.

Yeah, I'm aware of economics there, professor. Point is that job growth does exist, whether you want to nitpick it or not. Comparing that of Perry to Obama, as an example, we see Obama's policies working less for America than any of the policies set forth by Bush or Perry. I mean, if you want to conclude that the jobs created by Obama's "stimulus" at a whopping cost of something to the tune of $2M spent to create each net job is a resounding success, well, by all means, rejoice (jobs his administration claimed were created, anyways).

That track record isn't...wait for it....Dubya Part II's..., it belongs to the world-wide oil/gas industry. A major part of that industry has been in Texas since oil became an industry, and certainly long, long before Perry showed up.

All things considered, at least Perry's administration hasn't worked to kill off an industry that has created so many jobs and brought prosperity to a state that otherwise would not have had it.

You know, your hatred for oil companies makes you look like one of those idiots that would look a gift horse in the mouth. "Ah don't wont 'Merika to be prospurse if it means them all bairns git rich."

 

[Capt.Toilet]

This isn't intended to mean anything in relation to the above posted videos, but I have a hard time caring what Jon Stewart has to say. I don't really find him funny or interesting in any way. I'd rather watch Conan and Colbert all day long.

I have to disagree. I tend to trust Colbert and Stewart more often than the braindead yahoos over in Washington. You ever hear Steward and Colbert debate, it can get really good.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I have to disagree. I tend to trust Colbert and Stewart more often than the braindead yahoos over in Washington. You ever hear Steward and Colbert debate, it can get really good.

I REALLY like Colbert, so don't confuse my position on them having their programs I have my disagreements politically with Colbert but I just find him so much better at satire, and so much better at blasting all political positions. Jon Stewart takes a stance on his show too much, he fails too often at the satire and it makes me enjoy his show a lot less.

 

[Twrecks]

<jk> Lower the deficit is easy, just let inflation hit double digits for a few years. It worked for Carter!

Meanwhile, round up welfare recipiants and shipem off to work camps.. </jk>

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I have my disagreements politically with Colbert but I just find him so much better at satire, and so much better at blasting all political positions. Jon Stewart takes a stance on his show too much, he fails too often at the satire and it makes me enjoy his show a lot less.

this tells me that you don't understand the premise of either show

Colbert's show and his on-air persona are purposefully designed to be heavy on the satire and lay it on thick. Stewart's show is clearly engineered to be more straight-forward in its delivery. as it pertains to each show, Stephen Colbert is actually a character while Jon Stewart is supposed to be more or less himself; he's not playing Jon Stewart but Stephen is playing Colbert. the comedy of the Daily Show is more focused on substance-driven content while the Colbert Report is more focused on character-driven content.

technically Jon does not employ any satire unless you count some cheesy accents/impersonations.
aside from using the media to satire itself (TV video clips), the majority of the satire on Daily Show comes from supplementary characters (the reporters) such as the character "Wyatt Cenac" or the character "Jason Jones" who reflect attitudes and stigmas of the American media at large. the show really isn't about Jon, who acts much more like an intermediary than a host, whereas the Report is much more about Stephen than anything else that's going on.

Jon is supposed to be taking outward stances on whatever issue he wants because it's what he has always done; he is himself, he's a traditional pundit. Stephen was constructed as a fictional pundit which necessarily restricts him (as per the format of his show) from making such obvious political statements.

if you think Colbert is just funnier than Stewart that's fine.
but realize that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are predicated on two entirely different angles.