A new CNN/Opinion Research survey finds that 63% of the public thinks that projects in the economic stimulus plan passed last year "were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit," with 36% saying those projects will benefit the economy.
Nearly three out of four Americans think the money has simply been wasted.
Of course, of the $787 billion in the package, $288 billion was for tax cuts to 95% of all Americans and $275 billion was for states to prevent cuts in public services. Most of the remaining money dedicated for specific "shovel-ready projects" hasn't even been spent yet because the projects were not "shovel-ready."
Joe Klein: "It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos."
Want to know why the US is failing?
You people are dumb.
Originally posted by Bardock42again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
Can you explain that a bit further?
This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.
Occasionally, some things should be voted on by citizens other than electing officials for office.
I highly doubt that a popular vote by U.S. citizens would have been in favor of this.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.
Mind showing some research cause I don't agree with this at all, not simply because I don't want it to be true, but it's not reflected in the people I know or even in the factual #s for unemployment.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.
It's way more complicated than that.
There is a maximum tolerable limits.
There is market stability.
There is current credit availability.
There is market trust.
There is the "how the other countries" are doing.
There is stock market status/confidence.
There is consumer confidence.
There is the "at war" and "not at war" state.
There are other smaller/larger factors such disasters or disease.
And I'm probaby missing a bunch.
It's not as simple as just straight taxes.
Raising taxes at one particular time could cause major problems whereas, raising it at another time could have great short term benefit. Then, there's everything inbetween a large negative or positive impact.
Here's a great article-
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/21/the-great-tax-con-job/
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's way more complicated than that.There is a maximum tolerable limits.
There is market stability.
There is current credit availability.
There is market trust.
There is the "how the other countries" are doing.
There is stock market status/confidence.
There is consumer confidence.
There is the "at war" and "not at war" state.
There are other smaller/larger factors such disasters or disease.
And I'm probaby missing a bunch.
It's not as simple as just straight taxes.
Raising taxes at one particular time could cause major problems whereas, raising it at another time could have great short term benefit. Then, there's everything inbetween a large negative or positive impact.
It's not that complex. We are one more step from making it all go away: just make our next president a black woman and it'll magically all go back to normal 💃.
You believes in hexes, right? This will make it all the good karma come flowing back. America will show what she's really about!
I read a great article on tax cuts today, too
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100022697/why-tax-cuts-are-bound-to-favour-the-rich/#
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's a great article-
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/21/the-great-tax-con-job/
I do not disagree with the main point of the article that taxing the more wealthy ends up benefiting the nation as a whole, but some of the stats are skewed.
Regardless, I do not agree with the way your earlier comments:
Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.
Each of those points are oversimplified and need more explaination in context. People have more disposable income actually doesn't mean much since hardly anyone uses their money wisely in the first place, and history has shown over and over that the average joe will blow money on Margaritavilles just to do it even if it means paying the light bill a little late.
Originally posted by chithappens
It's not that complex. We are one more step from making it all go away: just make our next president a black woman and it'll magically all go back to normal 💃.You believes in hexes, right? This will make it all the good karma come flowing back. America will show what she's really about!
I'm not sure how much of that was serious or a joke. 😕
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually, it was specifically redefined BY fascist regimes from the older definitions of corporate groups joining into a single body of equal power. Ushgarak, I actually had to read Mussolini and other fascist literature to pass classes so you might want to actually consider doing that before you confuse two different definitions of a single term. The topic of this thread has everything to do with the modern definition of corporatism as originally redefined by the fascists as in private industry and interests having more influence and receiving more benefit from the body politic than the public while itself becoming de facto involved in the legislative process and executive functions. The fascists called this "third way economics", we call it privatization and act like it's some brilliant new idea thought up by Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. This thread has everything to do with that exercise of corporate power defined as "free speech" by the court via what can only be called legalized bribery and truly is antiamerican.
Claiming to have read well on such an area and then giving a quote from Mussolini that is entirely false somewhat contradict. Sorry, your general behavior in this threa has been one of showing ignorance of the term 'corporatism' and as a result bringing a false subject into the thread. And Mussolini's idea of Corporatism is in fact very much in line with the definiton I gave (at least in theory), so there is a. no point in trying to wriggle out that way and b. you were clearly yourself confusing 'corporatism' with 'to do have financial corporations' earlier in the thread (as that is the only possible link that the subject of this thread has to the word 'corporate', so pretending otherwise is trying my patiernce.
If you want to argue that this law is fascist, go ahead. It makes no sense but you are free to make a fool of yourself. But don't claim that this has anything to do wth historical fascism, the term 'corporatism' or Mussolini, as all these things are outright untrue.
That's an end to that matter. Take it to PM if you want to discuss that area further.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And I know people who's wages DID go up when their taxes increase. It's a matter of averages, not anecdotes.
Well, I don't know any of those people. There is a possibility that none of them are in this part of the country.
Are you talking about people who work for the government? I wouldn't count them.
It looks like people are already mobilizing against this
Sadly, I think it stands very little chance. A constitutional amendment is a very difficult thing to push through, especially when all the corporate money will be against it.
The only other option would be for a future supreme court to overturn this, something that definitly isn't going to happen for at least a generation.