(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[mjlegel.livejournal.com]

"What was more important for them to do? Furthermore, what did they not have time to do that they would have had time for had they not voted to repeal the ACA a bunch of times?"

Maybe the truest meaning of the words "narrow minded" ... when jobs, highway bills, immigration and about a million other things do not fit the category of "What was more important". I think the one single most important thing at this point is to convince people this narrow mind approach does nothing to improve our society.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except they also passed bills regarding things like jobs as well. Working on repealing the ACA did not take away from other necessary work.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Except they also passed bills regarding things like jobs as well

You mean things like tax cuts, deregulation, and tort reform, right?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Among others. You know, things that help create jobs.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

In a trickle down sort of way. Which is interesting from
someone who doesn't even espouse trickle down.

At this point, the problem really isn't that the top
do not have enough money to invest.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In a trickle down sort of way. Which is interesting from
someone who doesn't even espouse trickle down.

Not really a trickle-down way, just the way things end up working. If rules and regulations are keeping you from hiring, reducing those will help.

At this point, the problem really isn't that the top
do not have enough money to invest.

Which isn't really here nor there.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Not really a trickle-down way, just the way things end up working.
Lovely vague answer that is in truth an espousal of the failed trickle-down theory. But it doesn't really matter--nothing congress has done has improved the lot of the American people because they're not interested in improving the lot of anyone other than the 1 percent.

Which isn't really here nor there.
In other words, we should keep cutting taxes on the rich, just because we can, even though years and years of studies over the past 50 years have shown just how disastrous that has been. You really are a frozen human being, aren't you? Completely lacking in feeling, just a psychotic robot echoiing the same answers again and again.

Of course what's great about all this is that you might as well just bend over and spread them since you really seem to love being fucked by the rich.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

n other words, we should keep cutting taxes on the rich, just because we can, even though years and years of studies over the past 50 years have shown just how disastrous that has been.

Well, we should cut taxes on everyone. The rich in particular are paying far too much, but so is everyone.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

While it is true (I suppose) that the top may have money to invest, the really small business owner doesn't, and part of that IS due to regulations, fees and taxes.
.About 3 years ago, we were down to 4 people in our company (I';m a roofing contractor) (due in no small part to illegal immigration, but that's a different topic ;)) AQCMD, the City of Los Angeles And Cal OSHA (not to mention tripling of the price of asphalt...oops, just did) the "excess" profit (which paid my salary, and my employees livable wages) vanished. So when one of my employees retired, instead of hiring someone else, we sold our kettle. (altho tbh I was happy, that's really hard work for someone as old as I)
At any rate the point is the cost of regulations rarely hurt the really big guys, but the middle and little, which ultimately leads tofewer jobs, or at least fewer decent paying jobs. I realize not all industries are the same, but that's pretty much how construction works in So Cal..

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I suppose we don't have to go into what regulations were so cumbersome, while pointing out that it probably wouldn't hurt you if corporations could not pour unlimited funds into our campaigns, or if corporations could not limit women's health coverage, or even if we taxed the top 2% at a higher rate.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

a)who knows, seeing as how the state I live in has been ruled by union money for so long, we might get a balance.
b)oh please
c)Well sure, I've never been in more than the top 55%, but why? they already pay close to 70% of all taxes anyway....
it is not a revenue problem it's a spending problem.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why is the state with fastest job growth a blue state?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Plenty of things can help and hinder job growth. The goal is to do more of the former and less of the latter.

[mjlegel.livejournal.com]

They can call them jobs bill but if you have read any of them you know that is bull shit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They sure look like things that help job creation to me.

[mjlegel.livejournal.com]

Please refer to my original comment. Everything looks like a nail when a narrow mind holds a hammer.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's still better than busywork.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Like what, Jeff?

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Right. And where are those jobs? Didn't those bills mostly relate to tax cuts on the rich, in blind faith to the failed trickle-down theory?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Senate never took them up, sadly.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And no, most of them were about regulations and government interventions.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

None of which create jobs. In fact, more jobs are created by regulations and government interventions than are lost by them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

That's right. You need people to enforce regulations and interventions, and that creates jobs.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course it does. It has no negative impacts whatsoever, using the government as a financial intermediary is surely a better use of private money, and regulations never keep players out of the market.

I suppose this is the mentality that gets people thinking that the rich paid 90% of their income in taxes in the 1950s, or that there's a pay gap, or that most people didn't have insurance prior to the ACA.