Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later

[kentuck]

Do you have a faint suspicion that there is a class war going on, with the unemployment and the corporations continuing to cut jobs? And they tell us that the economy grew by 3% last quarter?

Let's be honest. They want the Bush taxcuts continued. And they will squeeze the American worker until they get what they want. What can anyone do about it??

The Congress is deathly afraid of raising taxes. They are always thinking about the next election. However, that is exactly what they need to do.

But they need to do it in a productive way. Those employers that hire people, especially those that are increasing productivity and profits during this recession, will be rewarded if they hire more employees. Those that do not hire will be penalized with a higher tax rate. Those that are operating at a loss will not be affected. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed immediately and not wait for the sunset.

The opponents will say it is insane to increase taxes during a recession. What recession? Big business and Wall Street are doing quite well, thank you. It is the working people that are in a recession. The corporations are squeezing the last ounce of productivity from the least amount of workers, simply because they can. For their compassion, they should be rewarded with a nice tax increase. That would be one way to fight back against the class war that is surely happening...

If this "class war" is intentional on the part of big business and Wall Street, what options do we have but to give them whatever they ask for, including an extension of the Bush tax cuts. That is the elephant in the economic picture.


...

[Skink]

1. At some point taxes are going to have to go up.

Raising taxes a little on the upper income now would be better than seizing assets later.

[TwixVoy]

2. "Do you have a faint suspicion that there is a class war going on?"

The hell you say?

[Orsino]

22. If it's only a faint suspicion, you're not gonna be much good to us. n/t

[Toucano]

3. We are still allowing a transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector.

Citibank is operating with a 300 billion dollar guarantee from the American taxpayer and is systematically raising interest rates on pre-existing debt.

The worst thing, I think is that I don't see any change on the part of the American people. They are as eager to snort up on junk news stories about Caribou Barbie, the latest Hollywood blockbuster, or another lost and murdered child story.

While the real news, news that directly affects them day in and day out, gets virtually no major media coverage.

It is as though it's 2003 all over again. The class warfare continues, the greed continues, the unemployment continues.

We have to do better.

[jdlh8894]

4. Just one question.

Where did the public sector get the money to give to loan to the private sector?

[kentuck]

6. It was either borrowed, printed, or taken out of the present economy..

Because they were supposed to lend the money back into the economy, for foreclosures etc, but they kept the money. It added to the present debt and made it more difficult to print or borrow more money, because it would overload the present debt burden. They put the squeeze on all of us.

[jdlh8894]

8. But where did the Govt. get the money from

in the first place? That is my point.

[kentuck]

10. They invent it. They print it. It is paper.

There is nothing to back it. They could print another trillion tomorrow if they wanted...

[Hannah Bell]

23. borrowed. against your future labor.

[kentuck]

5. Another option...

would be for those businesses and corporations that are not making money, they could opt out of the employer-based healthcare system. We could replace the coverage of their employees with a single-payer system and that would help those struggling businesses survive.

[Toucano]

7. For the life of me, I can't understand what is so scary about that.

Yet the U.S. Chamber of commerce argues against it, fighting tooth and nail.

Taking the health care burden off businesses would be good for business.

[kentuck]

9. Especially those businesses that are struggling...

Why would they oppose that? I know that they hate to turn the employer-based insurance loose because it gives them tremendous leverage over a lot of employees. It is almost like involuntary servitude.

[jdlh8894]

11. Still don't get it do you?

Was going to reply to earlier post(10) then read down further.The public sector is financed by you and me(The private sector).They should spend what we send them and nothing more. You say they will just print more money. Fine.
With nothing to back it up,we're looking @triple digit inflation. Try looking @ the mid to late 70's.

[kentuck]

12. And may I ask you?

What would be the difference in $5 trillion dollars spent by George W Bush and $5 trillion dollars spent by Barack Obama??

[jdlh8894]

14. Nothing! Except .....

it is still coming out of your or my pocket in the end.

[Toucano]

17. Yes, and going INTO the pocket of Wall Street executives

who ran their companies into the ground.

That's what we're talking about.

Once the money is in the treasury, it is no longer your money or my money. It is OUR money.

Our money is expected to be spent on things that benefit everyone, or at least a lot of people.

That is not what's happening. That's the transfer of wealth from the pockets of many to the pockets of the few.

[kentuck]

18. It is added to the debt..

and we pay the interest on that debt with our taxes and we lose by inflation on the rest of the debt. We pass it on to future generations.

[Skink]

15. Mind boggleing isn't it.

[ejpoeta]

13. the funny thing is that for all their talk about government spending and

tax and spend liberals and all that bs.... the republicans are all for spending. they spend as much if not more than the dems... they just don't bother to pay for it. i'd rather tax and spend then borrow and spend. why do you think it is that we owe so much money to china?? why is it we have such a high deficit that the republicans are all whining about now??? it is because they spend on things like bridges to nowhere and spend on their friends... they just don't bother to pay for it.

the fact is that people want things. they want services and take them for granted. they don't bother to stop and think about how these services are provided. they want more cops on the streets. they want to be able to go use their local parks. but they also don't want their taxes raised. and then they bitch when the lack of revenue forces the government, be it local or state or fedral, are forced to cut these services and programs that these folks take for granted.

you can't have it both ways. if you don't want to have to pay taxes then fine... expect to have less police. expect to have no public parks. expect to have limited access to libraries. i know there are more things i am forgetting but you get the idea. i know that in erie county people FLIPPED OUT when the parks were closed and libraries were closed and all that. but they weren't willing to have their taxes raised to pay for them either.

[jdlh8894]

16. Have no problem with paying taxes

I pay my share and then some.I run on a very tight budget(at home and in other concerns) I want my Govt. to do the same. If you have the money,spend it! If you don't,deal with it!

[kentuck]

19. We have the money...

We are spending over $7 trillion every decade on the war machine. That is still money. We cannot buy this crap with monopoly money. Same as Medicare. It depends on what your priorities are.

[ejpoeta]

21. and in essence, we are paying for it anyway...we're just paying a lot more

than we should have to because of the inefficient way we are going about it. we don't want to pay for the uninsured, so they end up in the ER with something a lot worse than it would have been were they insured and going for check ups. we lose in productivity of workers who have to take time off for being sick, or end up dying because of no insurance and therefore lose workers and have to train someone else. and lose the experience as well. I mean, we lose by hampering employers with the burden of providing insurance because the costs end up in their products when other countries don't make their employers do that and thus can provide products cheaper. how many pensions of retirees have the government taken over?? how many who were promised insurance and pensions as a trade off for their years of service got dumped?? because the employers just can't keep doing this. we need to separate work and insurance.... it is just not practical to keep them connected anymore considering that people don't work at the same job for their entire lives anymore.

[ejpoeta]

20. i agree. and there are plenty of places the government could cut but won't.

and i think that is part of people's issues with taxes... i mean, look at ny. I am willing to pay my fair share.... but then on top of that they put a bottle deposit on water.... so that they can collect the money. i don't really have a problem with a bottle deposit on water.... it's the way it seems the state is coming at us from all sides to raise money. it seems they are good at wasting what they get though. then i wonder if they are getting a cost of living increase when no one else is.... if you aren't looking they try to give themselves raises.... that kind of thing. it's easy to raise 'fees' on everything essentially making the regular people pay for the problems while tom golisano pisses and moans and 'moves' to florida so he doesn't have to pay the taxes. but i digress.... don't pretend you are 'fiscally responsible' when the fact is you spend as much as anyone else and just don't bother finding a way to pay for it. and last time i checked the government got BIGGER with the republicans in charge... not smaller like they claim they want government to be.