quote: Personally? I say go back even further...repeal the Reagan tax cuts.
The graph from Message 15 would certainly seem to support that sentiment.
Here's a better view:
The economic downturn has been a problem, yes. We'd still have a problem with unemployment, but we'd have much more money to help such as government investment in infrastructure, development of new technologies, extending the social safety net so that the long-term unemployed don't become completely unemployable (if you've been out of work for a year, employers no longer want to hire you.)
Cutting taxes does not create jobs. It never has:
In previous times when taxes were higher on the upper classes and businesses, employment was more fluid: Businesses took profits and put them back into the company in order to avoid having to pay those taxes. But as the tax rates on companies became lower and lower, as paying out dividends became less and less of a tax burden, those profits left the company and went into the pockets of the rich.
Companies aren't hiring because there isn't any demand. There isn't any demand because there aren't any jobs. There aren't any jobs because there's no reason for the companies to provide them. This is unsustainable.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
The problem is that no politicians want to address the issue.
Politicians aren't in the business of addressing issues or fixing problems. They are in the business of getting re-elected.
Because the conservative based has embarked on a multi-decade drive to reduce, if not eliminate, education among their core, they now find themselves in a position where the people who voted them in are mad, opinionated, and have LITERALLY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!
25% of Conservatives believe that they are in the top 5% of earners.
That's despite the ability to LOOK UP the numbers.
These are people who literally can't tell if their income ($50,000 a year) is MORE or LESS than someone making $25 million a year.
The issue is the monies needed for government to actually do anything. If the debt ceiling does not get raised then a lot of the current non debt related commitments, Social Security retirement benefits, military salaries, government workers salaries, the Federal parts of unemployment insurance, the US postal service might not go out after August 3rd.
Pay the military! Pay the military! Pay the military!
If Congress is stupid enough to go into default, then there's someone in the military stupid enough to park his tank on the Capitol steps and demand his paycheck.
So, you think a deployed soldiers wife and children should not receive a paycheck? I guess most people don't realize that for some (most, maybe) being a soldier is a job, with the expectation of being paid to do it. These people risk their lives and put their lives on hold and have ZERO to do with the situation you clamor about or against. I am a veteran so I speak first hand about it being a job."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
Well, it seems we aren't talking about the same thing then, eh? malvern made a comment that insinuated (and this has been tossed about) that military personnel would not receive paychecks. You then responded, in kind, saying to stop payments to the military. This response, being in response his comment, made it obvious that you agreed to stop paying members of the military. Perhaps you care to clarify?
No, I did not say that I "think a deployed soldiers wife and children should not receive a paycheck",
But that is EXACTLY what would happen if members of the military stopped receiving paychecks.
I said that not paying the Military is likely a good idea.
True. But cutting the pay of a lowly, newly enlisted, father of 3 and newly married E2 is NOT the way to go about it. But if you think the pay cuts will come from the top down, you are sadly mistaken.... There IS, however, a LOT of wasteful spending.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
There is a historical precedent for my remarks, Jar. It was called the "Bonus Army" of World War I vets who descended on Washington as the Great Depression was in full swing, demanding jobs and other government aid and benefits. What they got were clubs, rifle butts and tear gas, with none other then Douglas MacArthur, the Army Chief of Staff, expelling them from town.
So, you think a deployed soldiers wife and children should not receive a paycheck?
Should federal employees lose their job and/or paycheck? Should my grandfather, who worked hard every day of his life, not get his social security check? Should my grandma not get a life saving surgery because Medicare refuses to pay? Should Joe Blow, a father of 3, not get his unemployment check after being laid off from the factory?
...and the ripple effects would be immediate. What percentage of a hospital's income, ANY hospital, comes from Medicare and Medicaid payments. And there are how many EMPLOYED people in the health care industry?
The answer to all of those is no, in my opinion. We all know that none of those programs are where the problem lies, though. None of those programs are where there is the most waste. Those programs help people, not pad pockets."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square