David Brooks Slams GOP Obstructionism: 'If You Offered Them 99-1, They'd Say No'

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• DavidBrooks

[mrchiefofsinners]

Obstructing socialism in the United States is a good thing.

[fornello123]

@Claytonroberts1 you cannot afford to be a consumer until you PRODUCE something first. all production happens in a job, either in one that you create for yourself or that somebody else created for you.

[NatureScout]

@quizerry I don't call you a single name but you asked what the government has ever done right and the truth is you owe your existence to it. I was not me who showed you to have no respect for the people who sacrificed and continue to sacrifice for you. You did that on your own. As for the facts mine actually have data you have yet to state where you got your data.

[NatureScout]

@ladylordess Actually U seemed to just stumble on the point I was making 2 U. Rich don’t create jobs; Jobs R made because people have needs. Everyone needs and can offer something but if you get people with 2 much power($) they can/will hamper others ability to express either. I said nothing about bartering but you’re right it is a way around the $. $ can be controlled by a few. Bartering can’t easily B controlled but it’s not as efficient of path from services 1 can give to need 1 needs filled.

[mbderham]

@quizerry False! 2010 budget is estimated at $3.6 trillion. In 2003 the budget was $2.2 trillion. In what world is that a nine fold increase? Is our military junk? Are Social Security and Medicare junk? Is interest on our mounting debt junk? That's where virtually all of our money is going. But let's cut taxes because we certainly need to increase our outlays on debt service while we're fighting wars for the oil companies that pay no taxes.

[mbderham]

@quizerry Wrong! The Treasury would still be issuing bonds, whether the Fed existed or not. No specific state in our union has a central bank yet all of them are in debt. Since I doubt you know what purpose the Fed serves, you blame our fiscal problems on them rather than your congressional representatives and corporate executives. To reiterate, we have a FISCAL problem. Congress is responsible for fiscal policy and the Fed deals with monetary policy. Very different.

[mbderham]

@quizerry Whether you believe it or not, the current economic crisis has much to do w/ income distribution. Too many resources becoming ever more concentrated at the top. Result: Growing aggregate supply, lagging aggregate demand. So what is the wealthy's solution to this demand problem? Extend credit to the masses so they can continue to consume and then charge usury rates, just like the old company store. Load 16 tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.

[mbderham]

@quizerry Higher taxes can encourage the allocation of resources to more innovative investments because the "smart money" needs to invest their capital in such a way to garner a higher return. The greedy are not going to become any less greedy because they have to pay marginally higher taxes - they're going to have to be smarter investors rather than just sitting on their laurels and counting their cash.

[mbderham]

@quizerry I love how people manipulate statistics to conform to their preconceived notions. If the top 1%'s share jumped, couldn't one also argue that they were benefiting dispropotionately from lower marginal tax rates. The idea that higer marginal tax rates on the wealthiest somehow discourages inovation and investment is a total fallacy. What were the highest marginal tax rates when Bill Gates founded Microsoft? When Warren Buffet made his first million?

[quizerry]

@NatureScout You can't argue the facts so you resort to name calling?