Why is he talking?

Then provide the link, Assup! When I caught WPF and BigLouise doing that, I provided the link. If you can't provide the link, STFU!

My guess is that SirReal is simply an intelligent and articulate guy. Prove me wrong, provide the link.

Or STFU!

Sorry I didn't see your link in this thread, but I wonder.

?Could those significant decreases in healthcare (actually medical insurance, but I wouldn't bust your balls over a little grammatical error) costs be coming from shifting the cost from the employer to the employee?

The shift by many companies and municipalities to a greater part time workforce seems to be doing just that. Originally Posted by SirReal

Tax Credits
By providing healthcare to employees, there are between 1.4 and 4 million businesses with fewer than25 employees and average salaries of $50,000 or less that are already eligible for tax credits of up to 35 percent. After January 1, 2014, the credit increases to 50 percent and will be available for any two consecutive years.

flighter is a true believer in a lot of things that aren't true. QE 1, 2, and 3 had more to do with the rise of the stock market than fiscal health. Can you say bubble? The economy dropped sharply because of the housing bubble and Fannie/Freddie. Who called for an audit of Fannie/Freddie in 2005? What it was George W. Bush and John McCain. They got stopped by a unified democratic front and we took it in the neck. Bush loaned money to GM as well. They paid that money back but Obama counted it against what he loaned them but they are still 25 billion dollars in the hole to the US taxpayer. Who signed TARP into law? Why it was George W. Bush and not Barack Obama. October 3rd, 2008. Check it out. Give credit to the right man if you want to give credit to TARP. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD thank you for your ignorance. The housing bubble and subprime loan business did not by itself cause the financial meltdown. You had brokerage firms executing high risk and unregulated trades to customers who were not in the know. Lehman Brothers, AIG and others lost more money than Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae tradeing unregulated products. Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanly, Chase Bank, Citygroup as well as Freddie / Fannie were all selling the mortgage backed security. These firms and others were in Bed with the rating houses like Moodys and Standard and Poors. These securities were granted a gift triple A rating which made them more attractive to an unsuspecting clients and allowed them to flood the market to the extent of a combined Trillion Dollar loss. The prospectus of these securities was not worth the ink that they were written with. Al Gore gives a high level summary of what happened in this link but does not get into the execution details. Yes Tarp was started by Bush, but Bush was long gone when most of the bailout loans were made in 2009. AIG received the highest loan at $225 billion. The only thing Bush should get credit for is taking a surplus from Clinton and turning it into a deficit and wasting 8 years in Iraq looking for WMD's.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...121707563.html

Another Reagan? Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years. Reagan also increased taxes. Bush and Dick Cheney put the USA in the steepest recession since the great depression. It's not Obama's fault that Wall Street crashed and lost all of their money tradeing unregulated securities. Let's see, when Bush left office, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Freedie Mack, Fannie Mae, Citigroup, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo and Auto makers GM and Chysler were all bankrupt, just to name a couple. All of these companies had to be bailed out. Obama got the USA out of the recession. Financial markets are stable, the housing market has rebounded. The tea party almost caused a default. Sen. Ted Cruze is a Moron. Originally Posted by flghtr65

All that you've mentioned are examples of crisis's. That's why Obama is president. What did that Chicago schmuck Rahm Emanuel say, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste" Well that is what Obama believes in as well cause he's capitalizing on the shortcomings of past administrations and uses them to further his leftist efforts, and the beauty of it all is while he's doing all this he can point his finger at the other guy and say "Nope that was them not me" See that's what we have now. A little trick artist doesn't do anything wrong it's always someone else.

JD thank you for your ignorance. The housing bubble and subprime loan business did not by itself cause the financial meltdown. You had brokerage firms executing high risk and unregulated trades to customers who were not in the know. Lehman Brothers, AIG and others lost more money than Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae tradeing unregulated products. Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanly, Chase Bank, Citygroup as well as Freddie / Fannie were all selling the mortgage backed security. These firms and others were in Bed with the rating houses like Moodys and Standard and Poors. These securities were granted a gift triple A rating which made them more attractive to an unsuspecting clients and allowed them to flood the market to the extent of a combined Trillion Dollar loss. The prospectus of these securities was not worth the ink that they were written with. Al Gore gives a high level summary of what happened in this link but does not get into the execution details. Yes Tarp was started by Bush, but Bush was long gone when most of the bailout loans were made in 2009. AIG received the highest loan at $225 billion. The only thing Bush should get credit for is taking a surplus from Clinton and turning it into a deficit and wasting 8 years in Iraq looking for WMD's.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...121707563.html Originally Posted by flghtr65

What part of "Lehman Brothers = private entity" ... "Fannie & Freddie = public entity" do you lib-retards not understand? The failure of Fannie and Freddie -- which were supposed to be monitored by the likes of Dodd and Franks (who were profitting personally from their postion as 'guardians of the public trust') -- obligated American taxpayers to cover their mistakes.

Tax Credits
By providing healthcare to employees, there are between 1.4 and 4 million businesses with fewer than25 employees and average salaries of $50,000 or less that are already eligible for tax credits of up to 35 percent. After January 1, 2014, the credit increases to 50 percent and will be available for any two consecutive years. Originally Posted by CJ7

Lazy Fuck Plagiarist...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthi...ll-businesses/

thanks

what page in the Heritage talking points memo is that from ? Originally Posted by CJ7

Seems to me that if your going to try to diminish my content by implying that I am working off some talking points or parroting bs trolled from the internet, you of all people CJ should credit your source when you cut and paste someone else's material:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthi...ll-businesses/

Which was pulled from yet another change to the "law"
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Busines...mall-Employers


An excerpt from a 5/2012 GAO report disclosed how the tax credits you referred to probably cost more to comply with than they are worth.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590832.pdf

"One factor limiting the credit’s use is that most very small employers, 83 percent by one estimate, do not offer health insurance. According to employer representatives, tax preparers, and insurance brokers that GAO met with, the credit was not large enough to incentivize employers to begin offering insurance. Complex rules on FTEs and average wages also limited use. In addition, tax preparer groups GAO met with generally said the time needed to calculate the credit deterred claims. Options to address these factors, such as expanded eligibility requirements, have trade-offs, including less precise targeting of employers and higher costs to the Federal government."


Tax compliance is another TAX that should be added to the list of how this "Affordable Care" costs me personally.

The billable hours my CPA will require, and I will have to pay, are going to increase as will administrative costs to capture, document and report even more information on additionally required government reporting compliance. Even with our best efforts we are still left to deal with a system, so big and so complex and conflicted, that you can't get consistent and correct clarification of what the rules are from the agents we have to call on.

The ACA was written as a figure it out as you go plan, as our government seems to have been operating with that same mentality for at least the last 7 years. Hence "we need to pass it to know what's in it", now how the fuck can that be an acceptable methodology to anyone.

This lack of clear and consistent rules, tax law, regulation and enforcement has persisted in hindering businesses to be able to have confidence in the planning and investment of large capital projects. Do you think the government should be run without budget and without restraint? No private entity can, unless they are on the government bailout list. I would think stability and consistency would be the best thing it could provide for improving the economy and our country.

Waaahhhh!

Seems to me that if your going to try to diminish my content by implying that I am working off some talking points or parroting bs trolled from the internet, you of all people CJ should credit your source when you cut and paste someone else's material:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthi...ll-businesses/

Which was pulled from yet another change to the "law"
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Busines...mall-Employers


An excerpt from a 5/2012 GAO report disclosed how the tax credits you referred to probably cost more to comply with than they are worth.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590832.pdf

"One factor limiting the credit’s use is that most very small employers, 83 percent by one estimate, do not offer health insurance. According to employer representatives, tax preparers, and insurance brokers that GAO met with, the credit was not large enough to incentivize employers to begin offering insurance. Complex rules on FTEs and average wages also limited use. In addition, tax preparer groups GAO met with generally said the time needed to calculate the credit deterred claims. Options to address these factors, such as expanded eligibility requirements, have trade-offs, including less precise targeting of employers and higher costs to the Federal government."


Tax compliance is another TAX that should be added to the list of how this "Affordable Care" costs me personally.

The billable hours my CPA will require, and I will have to pay, are going to increase as will administrative costs to capture, document and report even more information on additionally required government reporting compliance. Even with our best efforts we are still left to deal with a system, so big and so complex and conflicted, that you can't get consistent and correct clarification of what the rules are from the agents we have to call on.

The ACA was written as a figure it out as you go plan, as our government seems to have been operating with that same mentality for at least the last 7 years. Hence "we need to pass it to know what's in it", now how the fuck can that be an acceptable methodology to anyone.

This lack of clear and consistent rules, tax law, regulation and enforcement has persisted in hindering businesses to be able to have confidence in the planning and investment of large capital projects. Do you think the government should be run without budget and without restraint? No private entity can, unless they are on the government bailout list. I would think stability and consistency would be the best thing it could provide for improving the economy and our country. Originally Posted by SirReal

ok, fine you're right. Other than wasting your time here yammering about "your loss" what the fuck are you planning to do about it?

What part of "Lehman Brothers = private entity" ... "Fannie & Freddie = public entity" do you lib-retards not understand? The failure of Fannie and Freddie -- which were supposed to be monitored by the likes of Dodd and Franks (who were profitting personally from their postion as 'guardians of the public trust') -- obligated American taxpayers to cover their mistakes. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IBH, your point about Freddie and Fannie is a different issue than what I was disputing with JD. Freddie and Fannie did not lose a Trillion Dollars trading unregulated securities by themselves. They had a lot of help. Lehman Brothers and AIG lost more money than Freddie and Fannie. All of these firms (Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, CityGroup, Chase Bank , Freddie, Fannie and others) together lost a Trillion trading unregulated securities by the process I described in a prior post. This is why Ben B. has been spending 85 billion per month, buying up what Wall Street lost. It's true that the American Taxpayer was not obligated to cover AIG's mistake, but TARP deemed AIG "to big to fail" and gave them a 225 billion dollar bailout loan. TARP decided not to save Lehman Brothers and credit was frozen all over the world in 2009 for a full year. Even a guy like Donald Trump could not get a loan.

You're not answering the questions. You proffered a straw man argument that fell apart on close scrutiny. You keep deflecting when you insist on comparing New York to North Carolina while wholly ignoring any similar comparison between California and North Dakota. HINT: a California comparison with North Dakota inconveniently refutes your point so you don't -- cannot -- see it as an "answer".

You insist that taxes do not retard business, yet that's exactly why several taxes are in place . . . and you know it, e.g., Odumbo's tax penalties on the coal industry to promote his green agenda is another example of such taxes. BTW, Bloomberg was a dim-retard for most of his life, and Bill Monning is still a dim-retard ... and numerous others like Bloomberg and Monning who -- when it conveniently furthers their agenda -- insist taxes retard business can be found.

Further, you want to suggest that Freddie and Fannie were only a "portion" of the problem contributing to the economic collapse in this country, and then you admit that portion was 40%. You were disingenuous when you said "portion" as if to imply those organizations contribution to the economic crisis was minor and of no consequence.

Instead of recognizing and addressing those obviously irreconcilable points in your argument, you ignorantly deflect and call a substantive rebuttal of your POV "gibberish". It's your POV that is gibberish, and it does not stand up to close scrutiny.

If your wee, little feelings are hurt when your POV is shredded by facts, you'd best run off and pout now. Because if you're that sensitive, you're in the wrong forum. BTW, that's lib-RETARD, learn how to read. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Shreeded by the facts? somehow, your examples prove your point, but my examples, which are the direct converse of yours don't "shred" your assertation. I never "insisted" anything, merely said there was no corealtion between tax rates and unemployment rates. The word portion means "Part of" , you interpreted it wrong, of course. Your assertation early in the thread that Fannie and freddie were the problem(no mention of any investment houses), was not an accurate characterization. Nice try.
If you can show me a direct reationship between tax rates and unemployment, I'd love to see it. can you also explain why tax cuts,since the time of reagan, have produced record deficits and an economy in the worst recession since the great depression?

Shreeded by the facts? somehow, your examples prove your point, but my examples, which are the direct converse of yours don't "shred" your assertation. I never "insisted" anything, merely said there was no corealtion between tax rates and unemployment rates. The word portion means "Part of" , you interpreted it wrong, of course. Your assertation early in the thread that Fannie and freddie were the problem(no mention of any investment houses), was not an accurate characterization. Nice try.
If you can show me a direct reationship between tax rates and unemployment, I'd love to see it. can you also explain why tax cuts,since the time of reagan, have produced record deficits and an economy in the worst recession since the great depression? Originally Posted by drluv1

Already established that taxes on a commodity does impede use of said commodity: and "labor" is a commodity. Why do you keep denying that? Here's a study (which cites other studies with similar findings) that makes the overt connection you continue to deny:

"Estimates controlling for plant-specific trends suggest that a 10% increase in payroll taxes reduces wages by between 1.4% and 2.3% and in employment by between 4% and 5%. There also appears to be less shifting and greater disemployment for production than for nonproduction workers. Less shifting and more disemployment for production workers may be due to the fact that the minimum wage is more likely to bind [be inflexible] for this group of workers. Less pass-through for production workers could also be due to the fact that these workers are more likely to turn to the informal sector if their wages are lowered. An implication of these results is that reductions in payroll taxes for low-wage workers, often proposed as a way to boost the relative demand of low-skill workers, may be an effective measure to reduce unemployment ..."

http://www.uh.edu/~adkugler/Kugler&Kugler_EDCC.pdf

BTW, imagine how a 40% reduction in the overall economic fiasco might actually have translated into a 40% reduction in the misery suffered by the American public for the past 5 years.

IBH, your point about Freddie and Fannie is a different issue than what I was disputing with JD. Freddie and Fannie did not lose a Trillion Dollars trading unregulated securities by themselves. They had a lot of help. Lehman Brothers and AIG lost more money than Freddie and Fannie. All of these firms (Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, CityGroup, Chase Bank , Freddie, Fannie and others) together lost a Trillion trading unregulated securities by the process I described in a prior post. This is why Ben B. has been spending 85 billion per month, buying up what Wall Street lost. It's true that the American Taxpayer was not obligated to cover AIG's mistake, but TARP deemed AIG "to big to fail" and gave them a 225 billion dollar bailout loan. TARP decided not to save Lehman Brothers and credit was frozen all over the world in 2009 for a full year. Even a guy like Donald Trump could not get a loan. Originally Posted by flghtr65

But unlike Lehman Brothers, et al, where the American public wasn't legally "obligated" to bail them out, Fannie and Freddie put the American taxpayer on the hook.

+1.

Keep up the posting SirReal !

In other words, CBJ7 can't comprehend the truth and common sense in your post, SirReal! Well played, and welcome aboard! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

can you also explain why tax cuts,since the time of reagan, have produced record deficits and an economy in the worst recession since the great depression? Originally Posted by drluv1

Good Question Doc, btw, thanks for a reminder to look back into my first favorite band. The loudest band in the land!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ownTh3L54

And here is one for the Ladies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeUosbClag8


Okay to your question, I think the focus should be more on the spending side of the federal government's budget failures. More than enough tax revenue has been coming into treasury for decades to serve the legitimate and constitutional needs of the federal government.

It has gone way past what it's role and legal obligations are. The 550% growth in, inflation adjusted, annual spending since 1965 is where I think the problem is centrally located. The overtaxing of individuals and the heavy burden to business of regulation and tax compliance are significant factors in the continuing weakness in this country's economy. Additional factors are overly complicated and conflicting federal regulations, continuing lack of consistency, structure and enforcement of the laws we are to be bound by.

If taxing, or increasing the cost of, a harmful product will drive down the consumption, or use of, a product. Then wouldn't the same logic apply with increasing the cost of employment reducing the use of employment.

At a minimum it appears that the threatened required increased cost of full time employees has the consequence of increasing the consumption, or use, of lower cost part time employees. (As in the under 30hr work week for the majority of the employees added in the latest federal jobs report.)

The inevitable path of unintended consequence and cost with federally driven solutions. We are supposed to be a free people. Free to succeed, free to fail, free to help another by choice. But not by imposing others to forfeit the fruits of their labors for things against their beliefs or desires. Originally Posted by SirReal

When a employer hires an employee, that employee is an asset and as I said the employer expects to make a"profit" from them, marginally increases the cost of that employee and may or may not have an effect on employment. There are a myriad of other factors that come into play. If what you contend is true then why isn't there a perfect corealation between tax rates in different states and unemployment? "sin taxes" are much more than marginal and for them to work they typically have to be onerous and then they are only marginally effective.