Three out of every eight Americans are unemployed

The author is totally clueless about what "unemployed" means. Either that or he's totally dishonest.

What else would one expect from the "Washingtonexaminer"?

Crap in, crap out.

 

We gave the so-called "job creators" massive tax cuts that put us trillions of dollars into debt. Instead of creating jobs they stuck it in their offshore accounts.

What a dumb (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea that was.

 

We wouldn't be $17 trillion in the hole if we didn't cut the tax revenue to cover spending.

When will you people learn? You can't cut taxes and borrow yourself into prosperity.

 

Of course.

This OP article is either a moron at the Washingtonexaminer who has no clue as to what he's talking about (very possible), or someone who is blatantly dishonest (more likely) spreading propaganda, and the coalition of the gullible who simply believe whatever crap they are fed.

 

Of course you will. That is the baby boomer bulge retiring. We've known this was going to happen for decades. It was why they increased FICA taxes in the early 1980s, to have a reserve of fund to pay for the boomers retirement costs.

But instead they squandered that reserve on huge tax cuts for the "job creators" that aren't doing squat except counting the growth of their money stashed in offshore accounts.

 

You mean the "downside" conservatives warned us about with the 1993 tax increase? The downside of record job creation, the longest postwar boom, strongest economy since the '60s, decades' low unemployment and poverty levels and people dependent on Govt? That downside?

I agree. We should consider that downside.

Right. Raise taxes on a billionaire and he might have less money to stick in his offshore account.

- - - Updated - - -

Write your Republican Tea Party reps and tell them to compromise on a tax increase.

 

Well...let's look at 'your' facts;

Here are the historical SS and Medicare rates for the period you mention;

1979 to 1980 SS was 5.08% and Medicare was 1.05%

1981 SS was 5.35% and Medicare was 1.3%

1982 to 1983 SS was 5.40% and Medicare was 1.3%

1984 SS was 5.7% and Medicare was 1.3%

1985 SS was 5.7% and Medicare was 1.35%

1986 to 1987 SS was 5.7% and Medicare was 1.45%

1988 to 1989 SS was 6.06% and Medicare was 1.45%

1990 and later SS was 6.2% and Medicare was 1.45%

And for the period between 1980 and 1989 the annual income limits were;

1980 25,900
1981 29,700
1982 32,400
1983 35,700
1984 37,800
1985 39,600
1986 42,000
1987 43,800
1988 45,000
1989 48,000

In the 80's the median income was approximately $16K so the income limit didn't really apply to a majority of workers. And the FICA rate increased from 6.13% in 1980 to 7.51% in 1989...again a very modest increase. Both the annual income limits and the payroll tax rates were consistent and steady and don't really show any rush to create a cash fund for eventual baby-boomer retirement.

Further, even though there is no cash in the SS trust fund, there are US securities of equal value which also collect interest income...so when you say 'they squandered' SS funds on 'tax cuts' this is not true at all. Nothing has been squandered because the US securities remain in place.

And, your claim that FICA rates were increased to deal with baby-boomers, well...this is not true because by 2033 the fund is exhausted. After 2033 the annual payroll tax income will only cover about 75% of the annual SS obligations.

The SS program is grossly mismanaged and even Obama reduced FICA rates for a couple of years thereby further reducing SS income and the trust fund. Between now and 2033, the government will pay out all FICA taxes collected plus deplete the current $2.7 trillion SS trust fund, and in 2033 at the rate of 75% becomes a total Ponzi scheme...

 

Obviously you have taken the words 'One nation indivisible' and just thrown them out the window...or at a minimum you prefer a double standard. ALL US citizens need to fund the government they demand...not just the wealthy. ALL US citizens reap the benefits of living in the greatest country on Earth...so logic dictates all US citizens should pay their fair share of funding the USA...

 

Why do you believe that only the U-3 measure of unemployment is valid?

Actually, the author may have understated the case: The U-6 measure (which includes the "[t]otal unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force") was 13.1 percent in December 2013 (when it was last measured): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Moreover, it is my understanding that participation in America's labor force is at its lowest percentage since the late 1970s...

 

No, we gave tax breaks and stimulus money to the people who could afford a big name lobbyist and could make huge campaign contributions to politicians. The mega-corps such as GE, GM, CitiGroup, and the handfull of ultra-rich such as Soros and Buffett, get the sweet deals which always improve their personal position at the expense of the rest of us.

Most people with a job in a corporation work for a small business (<500 employees), those companies get nothing but trouble from the government particularly since obama. The small businesse sector has always led the recovery, but under obama they have had nothing but regulations and uncertainty.

The debt cannot be blamed on tax cuts alone. When tax revenue goes up, spending goes up even more. The government is broken.

 

And, the megacorps that weren't spending money on lobbyist, like IBM, Microsoft, and Apple, were run through the justice system until they did. A politician has got to protect his (or her) income stream.

Many regulations protect the megacorps profits by creating barriers to entry. No profits, means the politicians income stream is threatened. (and you thought government only cost you taxes.....)

With deficit spending, what ties spending to tax revenue? Hey, we can borrow more.

I especially love Obummers, we will not negotiate - "the Republican's have to increase the borrowing limits, so we can pay the bills we owe". Yet, the left won't negotiate on any spending cuts to reduce the bills we owe.......

 

It is easily sustainable. The fewer people in the workforce, the higher wages and salaries (and tax revenue) will be. What is NOT sustainable is the trend toward higher incomes and LOWER tax revenues. Theoretically, one guy earning a few trillion per year could support everybody else and still have everything he wants.

 

I don't agree. I don't think people who don't have a job because they are too sick or old or because of economic conditions should have to pay a tax. To the contrary.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not necessarily so. Wages and salaries are based on supply and demand. If the demand for labor decreases, you won't get higher wages and salaries.

 

Do you really believe that? Are you ignoring global competition?

The tax on one guy earning a few trillion is orders of magnitude higher than the tax on a 300 million earning a ten thousand.....

 

Why do you make up things about what I believe?

 

No, the massive tax cuts almost all went to the richest, the supposed "job creators" who haven't done (*)(*)(*)(*) but stick more of the nation's wealth in their offshore accounts.

RW propaganda. Taxes and tax revenues went up under Clinton, and spending proportionately went down. Same thing has happened over the past four year.

But I agree government is broken. We have a group controlling the House more interested in trying to hurt Obama than help the country.

 

According to the White House and Obama, here is the spending forecasts for the next few years;

2014 3,777,807,000
2015 3,908,157,000
2016 4,089,836,000
2017 4,247,448,000
2018 4,449,240,000

Doesn't appear that spending is going down for any reason anytime soon...Obama and politicians don't give a rip about tax receipts and deficit spending...they just spend whatever they can get away with and it's ALWAYS more than the government income...always deficit spending...always more debt. BTW; the federal government cannot have a surplus because they don't know what to do with the cash other than spend it...

 

The demand for labor isn't going to decrease as the % of workers to population continues to go down. Eventually, labor is going to be hard to find.

 

How do foreigners compete with McDonald's for labor?

 

What did I (allegedly) "make up"?

I quoted you as asserting that "[t]he author is totally clueless about what 'unemployed' means." Presumably, this implies that you believe that the U-3 statistics (the "official" unemployment rate, as set forth by government functionaries each month) is the only real measure of unemployment.

If this is not what you believe, please feel free to elucidate...

 

There is slightly over 300M US residents. How the heck do you think there are 300M workers paying income tax? And 10K is hardly enough for a single person to live on, and you think a family of 4 should pay income taxes on top of every other tax already burdened on them? And you think that would make a dent? As your 300M is probably closer to 800,000.

 

1. Frozen dinners, ready for the microwave.
2. Automation - automated freezer to the window food prep equipment. To order and pay for the food - "there's an app for that".
3. Robots and Skye video links.

 

You can't give "massive tax cuts" to those that don't pay taxes.

The money isn't put into off shore "accounts" it is put into off shore businesses, where the taxes on corporations are low (because that country actually wants business)

Because of the tech boom, incomes, thus taxes went up. Those on welfare went down for two reasons, tech boom hiring, and welfare reform.

It sure wasn't progressive policies that brought prosperity - if that worked we would be swimming in surplus, not drowning in debt.

Republican's have stated openly they want to stop Obama from 2008 - yet the country gave them the house in 2010, didn't take it back in 2012. Must be because the country was so happy with the way the left fixed things when they had total power. ROTFL.

 

Thats basically what I wrote. The ultra-rich and well connected get the benefits. That includes "progressives".

Tax revenue went up under Clinton because the economy was booming, not because of govt policy. Spending went down because of the Republican Congress.

Federal spending is basically flat (trivial changes) under obama, maintaining the massive annual deficit since 2009. Revenue is fluctuating in what appears to be a 7 year cycle since 2001, its currently in the upswing phase. No matter how you spin it to make obama look good, the federal budget is a disaster.

Good for the House, the more they hurt obama the better. Only 3 types of people want obama to succeed - the misguided "useful idiots" of socialists who think it will be utopia despite a century of examples of the failure of socialism; those who think they will be one of the ruling elite (thats nobody on this forum); and the takers who are simply jealous of other people.