Instead of trying to limit executive pay, raise taxes on job creators, and try to control the economy...?

Question

Instead of trying to limit executive pay, raise taxes on job creators, and try to control the economy...?

Answer 1

"why aren't Congress and president Obama trying to reduce welfare recipients? "



Because Corporate Welfare costs tax payers 5 times more than social welfare does....and benefits fewer people....primarily people who aren't in vital need of aid.

Answer 2

"Instead of trying to limit executive pay, raise taxes on job creators, and try to control the economy...why aren't Congress and president Obama trying to reduce welfare recipients? " - Because these "job creators" have become a bigger drain on the economy than welfare ever has.



If these corporations do not want the control that the government will place on them they don't have to accept the money. It really is that simple.

Answer 3

One of the biggest things that would help our nation is stopping CEO's from shipping job overseas. Having products made over here is what it going to take. Otherwise, nothing is going to change.

Answer 4

Ha ha! That was me who said that last line! Or rather posted it. But I have to agree with you. Democrats seem to want to eliminate the middle class and upper middle class. Which is what socialism does. They are for more gov't interference in people's lives and more dependence on gov't. That is the way you control a population.



We need a leader who promotes more personal responsibility, not less. The more people depend on the gov't for their income, the more they will need it. What happened to strong work ethics? What this country was built on.



We really do need to get more people off the welfare rolls. We now have generation after generation who think it is an acceptable lifestyle. Free enterprise, when left alone, will take care of itself. Which is what Reagan promoted. Allow people to fail. That is how you learn to succeed.

Answer 5

ANSWER they should REDUCE and POLICE welfare MORE





BUT



WHY DON'T THEY DO WHAT REAGAN DID?





What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan. Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981. The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government. Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement. Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement. This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system. Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people). But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy. No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015. Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush. The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund). Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers

Answer 6

Just think about the states that depend on these CEO's tax on their pay.



Boy obama knows crap about everything. Talk about screwing up. How stupid can this idiot be.

Answer 7

Amen- you are so correct. I agree with you 8000000000000000%

Answer 8

Well all recipients of government assistance are regulated in how they can spend it. This should be the case so that money isnt abused exactly in the way you pointed out it might be with people who are unemployed. Surely this should also be the case, even more so, with people who are being given even larger sums of money. It doesn't sense to refer to the unemployed people today as people who need to be incentivised to work; there are very few new jobs being created to replace those lost.

Moreover it didnt make sense to restrict welfare recipients beforehand. This led to people not being able to afford housing and a new middle class pushing prices really high. The housing crisis is widely acknowlegde in most countries that followed loosely Reagans policy of welfare reforms have been the perpatrators and sufferers of the current financial crisis.

Also its nonsense to call people like Democrats and New Labour socialists. They are the people who most aggressivley and much more successfully carried many of the welfare reform policies of Reagan and Tacther. This is due to the fact Welfare States are notoriously hard to get rid of. In many cases social expenditure has risen in these countries. This is because it was practical at the time. Given the competition from Asia. Today these people more or less realise that the situation has changed and have brought about changes therewith.

I think the position you present is quite ideological. Neither Reagan nor Tatcher achieved it. Nor would it be desirable to do so. All that they did was make people on middle and low incomes pay more and the rich pay less. These kind of rich people may have worked hard, but they also gave themselves raises, didnt contributed to welfare and reinforced inequality and stratified success and oppurtunity on a class basis. The people who worked for them worked nearly as hard to make the taxes now paying their wages and after the serious ideological and financial mistakes they made its not too much to expect that the taxpayers money would be controlled. These financial mistakes are resulting exactly from the amount of power and wealth given to these people. They have squandered that power and money.

I think its a very middle class view to think people who often recieve welfare are lazy. Low wage jobs in america often offer pittance for wages while the price of accomadation has been expensive over the years These people suffer a lot of distruption and difficulty in getting education and getting ahead for exactly the reasons I outlined above. As a result they are often on welfare, why not? the market has failed to provide and adequate standard of living and oppurtunity to these people. Not everyone has it easy, especially not as easy as corporate executives and the rich backgrounds that more often than these people have come from. My heart certainly doesn't bleed for them!

Answer 9

So you basically are on board that we should limite corporate welfares.



These people are not just doing nothing. They are using our tax money to fund their million dollar vacations complete with private jets.



And you are in board millions of Americans are laid off recently, growing in thousands every week and need help, or you are basically so out of touch you think they are all parasites?



No. Recovery is when you quit whining and start living int he real world (the start of your recovery that is).



Addition: The government will not "socialize" the companies. Obama is just continuing the solution proposed by leading economists that if we dont save big banks/companies like AIG and CitiGroup, their collapse will cause devastating domino effect in our economy which will lead to situations similar to the great depression.



The government will not put salary cap on all companies, only on those that seek bailout money. What is wrong with that?

Answer 10

Because you need to understand socialism and communism which is what the end goal is for the liberals in charge. The end goal of socialism is that everyone gets paid the same amound regardless of what they do. They seek total social and economic equality.



Conservatives on the other hand believe in "equal opportunity" meaning that the end result may not be the same, but at least everyone had the same chance to achieve what they want. That is called TRUE FAIRNESS and JUSTICE.

Answer 11

Well I don`t share your world that it is everyman for himself but when Reagan said that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" he just got done lowering our tariffs that started the Republican giving our industrial might to Communist China. However I would like to see Hugo Chavez idea that the oil belongs to "we the people" we could get rid of welfare and tax cuts would fallow and we will just pay the private companies to get the oil out of the ground for us. By-the-way we can`t get rid of welfare with our Republican economy.

Answer 12

Thank you for waking up to this! America is in a devastating position and this man put us there. He started a war with Pakistan and cut the defense budget that was smart with 2 wars going now! The excess in his budget and where it is going. 5.5 billion to Africa for Sex Education and Condoms. Ridiculous! He chose his Cabinet of Presidential Advisers by their basketball skills. Asinine.I could go on and on etc. but not necessary as you see it too!

Answer 13

Major Kudos to you...