Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/14/2011 04:16 AM Report

WOW!

Grover Norquist--really? The guy is so corrupt it is amazing Republicans sign his pledge--a stupid pledge that is now Republican dogma.

Just talking to the guy should be the kiss of death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal

Also, please watch "Casino Jack and The United States of Money".

Oh where, oh where is our Justice Department?

JohnGelles  07/13/2011 01:55 AM Report

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11779#comment_81418

Above link discusses Republican thought that they will dump the decision to borrow in the president's lap alone, where it has always been.

JohnGelles  07/13/2011 01:48 AM Report

Bartholomew~

Business does not hire help or more help when taxes are high and take-to-bank profits are low. Each dollar they pay for labor when taxes are 50% of after-labor-and-other-cost profits, labor costs them only 50 cents on the dollar paid for labor; BUT profits to-the-bank are minimal.

If taxes are reduced to 20%, the cost of labor is 80cents on the labor cost dollar, but profits-to-the-bank are very much higher -- not the full 30% differential in taxes, but much higher -- depending on other deductible costs and expenses.

For example, if other costs and expenses are very zero, and labor cost for every dollar of sales is 50 cents, then profit to the bank is 25% of sales if taxes take 50% of profit. But if taxes are only 20% of profit, profit-to-the bank is 40% of sales.

It is only when profit is zero or below, that high tax rates and low rates have the same effect. And high tax rates are never an incentive to hire more labor. But low tax rates can make added payroll possible.

The time when government can raise wages and jobs is when it writes "cost-plus a percentage of cost for profit" contracts. These allow business to increase dollar profits by increasing jobs and/wages. If there is wage control, it will be best for business to increase jobs.

=================

What we need most at the moment is for the Republicans to empower Presidents to borrow to pay for spending Congress votes for. This is our history -- until the unconstitutional debt ceiling was tried. If it is ever tested, and the President ignores it, he will win in the supreme court if he brings the issue to them.

If Congress tried to impeach a President for ignoring a ceiling, the President would have to take the issue to court ahead of any impeachment trial. If not, the issue would be decided by the Armed Forces. They would bank the President, their commander in chief.

Bartholomew  07/12/2011 07:44 PM Report

The flaw in low taxes. Low taxes encourage businesses to reduce expenditures and take higher profits. High taxes encourage expense and investment to lower the tax liability.

Lowering corporate and business taxes is not like lowering individual wageearner taxes. Business expenditures are not included in their net income, so adding employees reduces their tax liability.

As a result, when taxes are low, businesses have no incentive to add employees. But, when taxes are high, businesses have an incentive to invest in their business and increase their expenses to lower their tax base.

Therefore, to get businesses to hire, and to spend generally, the answer is to increase taxes, so businesses will spend more to increase their value instead of taking profits to put in the bank.

robdverity  07/12/2011 06:37 PM Report

Soak the rich. Mark Twain said it best, "No man has made a million dollars honestly." Adjust for inflation on your own. None of the bankers with obscene bonuses went to jail, so put a surcharge tax on income over $10 million. (How much is enough anyway?) Double it if made in banking.

Then shoot the miserable bastards!

tabs  07/12/2011 03:46 PM Report

One has listened to endless commentary about the deficit and debt, this opinion, that opinion, everybody has an opinion. What it boils down to is what vision of America is going to prevail in the years to come. On the BO/Dem side of the ledger it is social justice and social democracy where a large and thus expensive government takes an activist role in lives of its citizens. On the Republican side of the ledger a smaller lean and mean government leaves it up to the individual to take responsibility for themselves. Both sides of the issue have become polarized to the point where neither side listens to nor trusts the other side. This has led to an increasing dysfunctionality of the US government since the mid 1990's. With the voting down of the first go around of TARP in the fall of 2008 the US government showed itself to be a dysfunctional entity, as the government was not able to do what was necessary to save the nation from fiscal collapse. We are again staring that dysfunctional reality in the face with the negotiations over lifting the Debt Ceiling. Each side is seeking advantage in the outcome of the issue and neither side is willing to give much of anything even if they proclaim that they are at the top of TV volume control. The creditors of America in the world are sitting on the sidelines watching this drama play itself out with an aghast look on their faces. For what is truly at risk here is confidence in America to be able to take care of its business in a responsible way. If America once again acts irresponsibly the damage will not be repairable anytime soon as trust in America will have been lost and that has real consequence. At this point in time the American government still has choices to make in how it wants to address the deficit and debt issues, but the reality is that everyday that goes by the debt gets larger and the risk increases till a debt crisis is upon America and then it will be too late as America will not have any choices left to make, they will have been made by the extengencies of the situation, which will effectively end the Progressive era in America. Reality will have dictated a cruel and uncertain fate upon the American people as America will have ceased to be a force of good not only for itself but the world as well.

charlizecourriers  07/12/2011 03:22 PM Report

Obama is stalling-nothing more and nothing less, but disguising it by appearing to cut spending and appearing to raise taxes. This is nothing more that rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The last 48 years have been a unitary period in which the two parties, working in tandem, have created government spending but NOT THE FUNDING to pay for the increases in this spending. Obama's health care plan is the latest example-and Obama knows it, big time! The clock is clicking and Obama desperately needs revenue now. But this revenue is not equivalent to paying for his program. This stalling makes it more likely he will get reelected. The debt limit will go up again, but new programs will once again NOT be funded, only financed! Setting up the need to raise the debt limit still again. The Republicans and the Democrats don't want to pay for the programs, just 'finance' them.

fccm  07/12/2011 02:56 PM Report

Who elected Grover Norquist to run the Grand Old Party?

doodah  07/12/2011 11:49 AM Report

RE, I think I got you first this time, Gunslinger. heh heh

REMant  07/12/2011 11:38 AM Report

Well, first of all there's no particular reason why the US MUST default on its debt unless it borrows more to cover it. The govt could sell things, let ppl go, cancel programs and payments, etc. - what a normal person does in straitened circumstances. Not everyone looks to borrow more, or seek bankruptcy protection (or at least I hope not).

There is no doubt the president does believe in a Keynesian govt. Perhaps not as much as Krugman does, but the same nevertheless. He mentioned rebuilding infrastructure again, for instance. And I think Brooks is wrong. The majority of independents know full well the issue is not only about balancing the budget but what is IN the budget. Even so this AM's Post finds a poll that shows more care about increasing the debt, than not. Many will blame everything on the current administration anyway. I have no sympathy with that kind of attitude. But I think the president is completely aware of it, and that's perhaps why he said he would not accept halfway measures. I think that was more than good politics, and I've heard some good things out of him, for example with respect to health care and inflation indexing. He's indicated several times that he would be in favor of a simpler, more equitable and broadly-based tax code. The big problem is with enthusiasts in both parties, who think we somehow can give things away without paying for them, whether they be tax breaks or welfare payments. I would imagine Norquist is as much one as Krugman. IMHO they should be ignored, altho unfortunately a lot of them seem to be located on Capitol Hill. But understanding that economic growth is foremost a matter of individual enterprise is an essential point. One always has a sense with the Dems that they would rather be living in a monarchy, provided, of course, they were part of the court party.

Every flat tax proposal I've ever seen has a very high threshold (i.e., the income at which ppl begin paying) as the income tax did when it started, so the poor don't pay anything at all, tho the lower overall rate (or sometimes rates) mean the rich pay less than they do in a progressive system such as we have now. The middle-class does pay relatively more, but hopefully less individually, unless they are highly invested in things for which tax exemptions are granted, the so-called tax expenditures or loopholes. But closing them moves money from unproductive investments, such as real estate into more productive ones, both investment- and consumption-wise. At the same time it should increase revenue. Not, however, through "voodoo" economics, tho Sen Coburn is no doubt right that it will be "stimulative," but because of the broader base. I think perhaps someone should explain this to Mr Cantor.

While Reagan did broaden the tax base, and Volckeris actions did choke off inflation, on the other hand, his admin no less than Johnson's vastly overspent for both defense and social programs and this resulted in an escalation in both wages and prices and a market crash. Such events are not caused by prosperity, but by inflation due to borrowing. It was then that we turned from being the world's largest creditor to its largest debtor. While Medicare spending per beneficiary has increased an avg of 9% per year since its inception, the federal debt has grown at exactly the same rate, and ditto the price of a home in many places. Even so, anyone supposing just cutting the size of govt will solve all of our problems, hasn't reckoned with the structural and trade issues involved. And while increasing taxes no doubt stifles incentive, so also does not paying our bills.

doodah  07/12/2011 11:38 AM Report

If they raise tax rates a 1/2 percentage point per year will in no way possible change people's incentives, (especially the filthy rich). It's a modest increase and give plenty of time to antisipate and adjust, also you can give tax breaks to small business to keep their money working and producing AS long as it's (the money)is working and producing, but when the big profit takers cash in, CLOSE the Poopholes.

I know I'm totally ignornant over the whole total picture. But that doesn't stop the politicians from blowing steam out their poopholes.