Krauthammer on Obama Address: A ‘Campaign Speech’ of a ‘Watered-Down,

Name two differences between the stimulus package and the tax cuts for the rich.

1) The stimulus package was a tax cut for both rich and poor.

2) The names.

One removes wealth from the private sector and commits generational pedophilia.

The other leaves it in the hands of the private sector. Simple.

Oh, so middle class and working class taxpayers are not part of the private sector and somehow this means they should never get to see any of their tax money back? And suddenly the private sector doesn't get anything back from a stimulus (who's making money when an American road is fixed with stimulus money, that's right, an American construction corporation)?

NEWSFLASH: 99,5% of every goddamn penny the government spends goes back to the taxpayers!

This is grade school logic again.

yeah Guilli the rich are SUPPOSED to stay rich and the poor are SUPPOSED to stay poor. What arent you understanding?

"should never get to see any of their tax money back?"

If it isn't taken from them in the first place, then why should they have any expectation of seeing it come back to them? You make no sense. All money does not belong to the government first, then the people second. It's the other way around.

99.5% huh? Really? that is laughable! Where the hell do you think the first stimulus went Gulli? Roads and bridges? If that is so why did Obama ask for another $450 billion for roads and bridges last night?

No, America allows you to fail. At least its supposed to. (see the too big to fail rubbish) People are moving from the lower class, to the middle class, to the upper class and vice versa all the time. It is fluid and dynamic, not static.

They didn't shoot it into space or turn it into foreign aid so it did end up with Americans somehow.

Yes, of course, the essential flat tax that America has now (yes, a flat tax, tax revenues coming from specific percentiles correspond to their incomes, when you look at wealth instead of income it even becomes regressive) punishes entrepeneurship. It places the burden on entrepeneurs who are just starting out and are thus at the time in their live when they have to work the hardest. Turning $10.000 into $100.000 is much harder then turning $100.000 into $300.000. To a first order approximation the former is 3,33 times harder (to a second order approximation it becomes even harder because necessary expenses such as food and clothes weigh more heavily in the former case). Does the guy working from $10.000 to $100.000 pay 3,33 times less of his income in taxes? No, he pays the same percentage. So who's getting punished here and who should be grateful he gets a lot more money for less effort?

People are only moving up when there's a vacant spot at the top. The fact of the matter is that a remotely capitalist society cannot function if everybody were rich, in fact it has mechanisms to prevent such a thing from happening: when the wages of the poor increase so do the prices in the stores, when these are big stores it means their owners will get richer even faster than the workers and small storeowners and we're back at square one, the only difference being the poor get to buy more stuff if economic growth in other countries has lagged behind. There is only room for 1-3% rich people at the top, the game that decides who gets rich and who doesn't is a zero sum game: if 100% of the population studied and worked really hard then still only 1-3% of them would get into the high society because that's all the system can sustain, if everyone went to college and got a master's degree it would not result in everyone getting a job as an engineer, doctor, scientist or lawyer, it would result in a decrease of the value of a master's degree and the majority of master's degree holders would still end up with menial jobs. This is, I think, the most fundamental economic concept conservatives don't get (as well as the fact that doing a job is just as important as creating a job). This is why you can't call poor people losers: at least 97% of them have no chance of climbing up the ladder because the game is fixed. The only option that we're then left with is thinking "hey, this is not a bad thing, having mechanics and plumbers is actually useful to society, so why don't we give them the option of leading a good life with the jobs they have, and if that includes some social security than so be it, their value is not in money, it's in their work and them being human beings, perhaps the mothers and fathers of our future leaders".

Wonder why there's no response to my post above? No one interested in a factual discussion?

So, do not create one thing ever, as per gulli
There are never new products, designs or approaches to preexisting product, according to this mentality.
There wont be a new coke, chip, IBM, Intel, AMD,windmills, solar panels, batteries ever created, the pie is fixed, no room for growth, ala Obama

This is not what I said.

No one can have a factual discussion with you Gulli. You ignore them if they don't fit your narrative.

I hardly ever see you come up with real numbers and statistics...

So every bullet the government buys comes back to us? Every CEO who purposely drove his company into the ground to get a bailout is handing out money to everyone? And by the way, only 50% of Americans currently pay taxes so your also implying that he only cares about half the country(which he does, but its not the people who pay taxes!)

That bullet is bought from an American ammunition manufacturer. That CEO is a taxpayer and every American pays something into the federal revenue and social security, not just 50%. You are right however to point out the distribution of the returns can be skewed (it currently is, in favor of the rich).

People are only moving up when there's a vacant spot at the top.

This is what you said, conclusion, pie never grows, nothing news ever created, monies never shift

To further your/my point:
The fact of the matter is that a remotely capitalist society cannot function if everybody were rich, in fact it has mechanisms to prevent such a thing from happening: when the wages of the poor increase so do the prices in the stores, when these are big stores it means their owners will get richer even faster than the workers and small storeowners and we're back at square one, the only difference being the poor get to buy more stuff if economic growth in other countries has lagged behind.

Whats being told to you is, people start their own companies, create their own businesses, and arent rich by even Obamas definition, which seems to widen the more he spends.
People, according to their desires wont be stopped in a open business climate. If thats not for you, then you simply dont have these talents, tho your children may.
Now, if you choose to cut off your childrens potential, Id say your way is the way to go, if you take risks, you can retain these scenarios for your children.
Do you want a guaranteed warm n fuzzy blanket, or wish to own your own room?
The watered down approach you push slows everything, only adds to bureaucracy and waste according to governments known inefficiencies.
Right there, those inefficiencies amount to a large sum, and only widens the more you put into such an approach.
Those monies usually go to the rich, yes, as its their monies, but also to some non rich successful peoples as well, where they use this money for further growth, which is penalized by government at some point or another.
If we choose to be this wimpy, take no risks, demand from others and not as much from ourselves, then yes, we deserve what we get

What pie did I talk about

A) The money pie.
B) The "room" at the economic top pie, as a percentage of the population size.

I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you because it seems you thought I was talking about the other pie.

In Norway the GDP per capita is $85.000, 80% higher than in America. Does that make the Norwegians rich? No, it doesn't: a loaf of bread costs 3 euros there. Just to show the difference between having more money and being rich. This is exactly what happens when more people get more money: the value of your currency decreases. If you don't understand why this (and limited demand for high paying jobs) limits the number of rich people in a society (as a percentage), no matter what technological advances occur, then it's pointless to debate these issues.

Corparate Jets
B;aj, blah, blaj
Earned incomr CreditS
silence

If youve created such a scenario, like in CaliforniCA, as in Norway, yes, it all costs more.
Now, I ask why
The business man that sells that loaf of bread pays higher taxes, the farmer that grows the grain pays higher taxes, than man that has to buy that loaf pays higher taxes, the trucks that delivers the grain pays higher taxes, the man who cooks the bread pays higher taxes, so, in the end, its the government slowing things down, including all its inefficiencies all along the way, that controls the rate of all things.
So, like in CaliforniCA, it sounds nice to make decent money, but its taxed high, and everything thats anything is as well, thus the same in Norway, the only difference is, in Cali, you have next door competition, where such taxation and thus, lower wages still retains that same standard of living, and Cali cant compete, and theyve been bleeding jobs for years.
Now I know, you can blame it on the businessmen, or the rich, which can and sometimes happens, but I find it extremely disingenuous of you never to mention governments extreme inefficient ways, and its dire impact on economies.
Allowing for the truth is helpful in a wider understanding, as well as for cooperation.

california is in the hole. i live in this economic mess. everyone in the CA gov. is owned by the unions. teachers union is one of the biggest. it is so corrupt they are going to go bankrupt. unless the gov. bails them out  

Are you saying taxes rather than the amount of money in circulation creates inflation? What have you been smoking? Granted, taxes may eventually cause some inflation but that effect is rather small (not enough to negate the value of those taxes) and it happens because the system brings more money into the economy.

If you bother to look, if youre minimum wage is elevated, and continually so, if your union wages are the flag bearer within the state as to top wages, which come from the people paychecks, thus devaluating them, add in the compounded higher taxation thruout the whole structure, the regulation that stifles and drives out business, and yes, you have CaliforniCA.
As mjmjpfaff said, he lives there, Ive lived there, and its veru obvious, especially when youve lived other places, as I have, and looking at whats happening to Californias economy, their job status, the actual cost of living, where they dont decide how much money is printed, but the feds do, and youll see your dollar gets you little, is taxed every way you can imagine (well, OK, maybe not you gulli), where jobs are diappearing, and deficits are climbing, if they could make their own maoney, they would, but instead, theyll rely upon the feds, where theyll make or print more.

You're mixing all kinds of things up, but when you say higher wages for workers cause inflation you are absolutely right. It's the point I've been making all along and it's the most fundamental reason (hardwired in capitalism) why it can't be that everyone would be rich if they just worked very hard. Either everyone is middle class/poor or there is a 1-3% rich elite, having more rich people would cause massive inflation that would put the least rich down to the middle class. Nothing else is possible under capitalism, socialism or any other known system. Will you at east concede to this? And if you concede to this, would you concede to the point that it is ridiculous to call poor people failures because the system only allows for a limited number of winners? Now of course there's always a chance you could be one of those winners, so by all means do try, but when you fail, or choose a profession that does not pay very well, you cannot be called a loser or be taken for granted by those that depend on you (though they may not be aware of it).

Ill add, since Cale cant print its own, other countries can, and do.
When competition is low, inflation can be seen as a good thing, since alot of those inflated dollars are overseas, and have to be in existence for buying power, thus inflation, with collateral investments.
If the dollar has run out, as in circulation amounts, borrowing needs to inflate its numbers, where such investments take place, as money moves from hand to hand, and has to be realised at some point.
So, saying the pie is locked, and government has little impact, especially when we see such large expenditures thru government, is naive at best, and disingenuous for sure

No, its you who never have links.
Look into Cali's disastrous econmy, their jobs loss, their tax rates, their elevated standard of living, as it pertains to monies coming in, it all means nothings when everything costs more, their revenue makers are depleted thru taxation and regulation thru competition, driven by government, theyre hurting there.
Youre only looking at it as if the rich have this potential, which if true, Id agree for the most part on part of what youre saying, but the fact you continually withhold governments negative impact on economies thruout the world shows you either hold little to those impacts, strictly for a certain agenda, or you need to bone up on many things

You are talking about the wrong pie again. I was NOT talking about the money pie, as I made clear a few posts ago.

Currently gulli is so far in front the rest of you look like phys ed majors in an economics class.

Well done Gulli ... loving this.

So, there isnt anyone called Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Wosniak, Zuckerberg,Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc etc etc etc etc, who in this country alone have come along the IBM giants, the Intel giants etc etc etc, and those companies arent worth anything more, nor add to the billionaire populations?
As far as ignoring my response to your earlier one sided position, it still goes unanswered, and yes, this is my response to your 1-3%, as its grown, and will continue to.
It comes down to jealousy and a determined dislike with a certain conviction of supposed attitudes by those some dislike , and is a poor way to have a overall POV.

Theres more millionaires in government than in any other business, at least elected officials, as the minions are dictated as to how to fit within the prescribed rules and regulations that choke any business, but seems to works fine in the public sector of government.
So, hail to your slave masters, as I and others remember that we put them in office, and so we shall throw the bums out, no matter how rich they are

My brakes are making noise. Maybe He can take a look.

do you not understand what a nation state is? we have some of the lowest taxes in the world and you act like you are on the verge of violence any given moment. do you really want to live in a world of private cops, toll roads, no public schools. i bet you pay no more than 22% in taxes. you are just bad with your money and resentful towards people who dont believe in you Ann Rand dogma.

Well gosh, I guess you got me all figured out then don't you? sheesh! kids!

there are some things that the government has to take control of to set standards. if a lot of the governments jobs were privatized and did not use union labor we would have less debt.

BS: the government doesn't own much in competitive sectors. Privatization would only lead to (local) monopolies and other abuse.

Its only because the teachers arent supposed to be competitive, and we hear wailing when and if it happens.
Tenure and unions eliminate it, as well as other government positions.
The rewards system for teachers have been extremely slow in coming, and takes away from excelling there.
For every 8th child, theres what, at least three teachers? And thats no biggy?

So, making this large market, and soon the health care as well, makes for very large markets.
Theres others as well, but theres two

There are only 400 billionaires in the US, out of a population of 312 million. There were 7.8 million millionaires as of 2009, or 2,5% of the population. Of course both numbers are expected to grow because of population growth and inflation.

Then give us the rest on that millionaire number....

In philosophy? Obviously. You sitting at that computer deciding there is no such thing as reality and then taking lunch. Considering the amount of drugs required when declaring your major in philosophy obviously had little meaning.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/u-s-millionair...

Now, if the rich are becoming richer, then theres alot less of them, as guess what, theyre the ones risking it all, not expecting something for free

There is 1 teacher for every 8 children (including special needs children). Privatizing schools is as evil, immoral and just plain stupid as privatizing the military. It won't be cheaper either, after all, CEOs like their bonuses and of course there has to be a profit margin as well and there will be no price caps (which leads to abuse since K-12 education is not a choice). It's really one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and will kill all critical thinking.

Exploring the frontiers of stupidity is what you do best.

Risking it at the Wall Street casino and crossing your fingers you won't end up on the streets... Then when you win boast that it was all due to your mad gambling skillz.

No sir, your ideas are immoral and evil
As you claim mine are
Now, since we cant go further Im right and youre left (out)

i never said to privatize all schools.

Also, since youve obviously not bothered to look into private schooling and its costs, your whole argument is built on a house of cards, especially, when all you have is flame for competitiveness, reality, and sheer hatred for those that make money.
Its truly a shame youre doing this to your children

Is we learning yet.

and the government is becoming the worst abuser of power

Until youve actually owned a business, run one, married one, and possibly even created one, what people say, and the way it is are two differing things.
Creating a larger government to stifle business costs us more, businesses more, consumers more, and who wins?
The government, where they can create a disproportionate bang for the buck, and this, as progressives say, is progress

12% or so of are population is union labor and you think are debt is caused by this? do you not understand how much government work is subcontracted to small business and large contractors? ( some ballooning in costs due to corruption) our 2 wars, bushes gift to big pharma, and rising cost of health care due to private contractors is far beyond any fake # one could push out of their mind to say union labor is responsible for 14T in dept.