Geithner: Economy rebounding, but job growth lags

allowing the private sector to do what it does best.

creating bubbles through deregulation and then getting bailed out when they burst???...left yourself wide open for that one Tom ;)

The government was complicit in the bubbles, big time... Baker from Louisiana called the Freddie/Fannie debacle in 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

We need to cut off the power relationship between big business and government (aka facsism) Eliminate private campaign contributions and business taxes.

these treasury secretaries look more like foxes with that 'guarding the hen house' look to me...

Holy crap, you're right.

blue: I'm with you--the "Obama miracle" will be one of pain and suffering for those of us who have to live and survive in the real world.

yes, please bring back Bush and republican leadership to save us...

Tim "The Tool" Geithner

The best line of the day.

Here is an opportunity to show the nation the party can actually do something positive ...

Yeah. When are people going to learn from history. The Dems are just also doing what the Republicans failed to do. Looks like neither party knows what to do.

Geithner is talking about every other countries economy other than ours. It appears that our economy is the only one not growing when Asia, Europe and most others are and our dollar is losing value.

China?

You have to learn to separate two things.

1) The jobs for the average working person.

2) The countries financial health.

In modern America number 2 is very dependent on Wallstreet and the global marketplace. While being not very dependent at all on number 1.

The middle class/ aeverage joe jobs hold such a small percentage of the nation's wealth anymore that they are not a main factor of the countries financial health.

Mike I fully agree. Have you watched Peter Schiff by any chance? He is the only economist that is telling people to invest in Asian currencies and Asian stocks, he seems to be seeing what others dont or refuse to see.

libertarianblue

Have you watched Peter Schiff by any chance? He is the only economist that is telling people to invest in Asian currencies and Asian stocks, he seems to be seeing what others dont or refuse to see.

Maybe Schiff is investing in the Asian economy and wants to sucker in as many people as possible to bolster his own wallet?

Every single day, it becomes clearer that this administration wants to wipe out the middle class and provoke a class war. THEY WANT REVOLT.

Problem is that the Republicians also want too wipe out the middle class just to make us all serfs to the coroporate world.

The republicans need to grow a set and take one for the team. Term limits, elimation of corporate campaign contributions and elimination of business taxes.

elimination of business taxes

I was with you until here. If anything business taxes need to be up'd a good deal.

Think about it for a second.... Government can manipulate business taxes to control corporations. Money is power. Combined with the fact that if businesses didn't pay taxes, they would have more money for things like inventory, price reduction, and more jobs. I own a business, and I can tell you that I pass along every single dollar in taxes I pay down to my customers. If I didn't pay taxes, I could lower my prices to the consumer. It makes a ton of sense. Higher business taxes does nothing but hit the consumer harder.

If I didn't pay taxes, I could lower my prices to the consumer. It makes a ton of sense. Higher business taxes does nothing but hit the consumer harder

As a small business owner prehaps, but we've seen nothing of the sort from corporations, in fact just the opposite; see insurance co's, oil Co's, etc. If I'd didn't have to pay taxes I may have more to give to charity or give more Christmas gifts too.

elimination of business taxes

Then Washington will find a way to fool the middle class into making up the difference without realizing they've been screwed!

Anita

Think about it for a second.... Government can manipulate business taxes to control corporations. Money is power.

100% correct, money is power and that's why Wall Street and Corporate America have so much power! When the degenerates on Wall Street tanked the economy did you notice that even before Wall Street called, Jackass Junior and Paulson couldn't act fast enough for Paulson's old buddies and partners-in-crime - Goldman Sachs et al?

... if businesses didn't pay taxes, they would have more money for things like inventory, price reduction, and more jobs

If businesses didn't pay taxes, they would have more money for things like filling the pockets of their big investors, more jobs created overseas, jobs filled here by foreigners on work visas and the most important thing of all, CEO's will have more money in their wallets to make their mistresses even happier.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the elimination of business taxes would be without regulation, but I think that eliminating the flow of cash between business and government is a great idea. Without campaign contributions and business taxes, we could get rid of the lobbyists to boot.

Combined with the fact that if businesses didn't pay taxes, they would have more money for things like inventory, price reduction, and more jobs.

There are two myths there for business in general I trust you are one of the few exceptions.

1) Business creating extra jobs when they have more cash is a myth. Business seeks only to maximize profits and minimize head count. The money from not paying taxes would simply become profit in the pocket.

2) Business does not pass savings on to the customer. As previously alluded business seeks to maximize profit. Just because their costs decrease doesn't mean they lower costs to the customer. If a customer has proven willing to pay a certain price, that price will remain the same regardless of cost decreases to the business.

Anita: I am sure we would all like to know what business you are in? It is very commendable of you about how you would pass on profits to your employees and customers if you were no longer responsible for business taxes, but as stated you would be a group of one!

As an Investment banker, I have ever yet to see with the exception of a few silicon valley businesses, any business other than start ups, flowing profits both to the customers and their employees.

Most corporations will in fact look to other diversified areas to spread their money, thus protecting themselves in a market turn-down in one of the products they are manufacturing or the service they are providing.

I will as I have stated before, support tax incentives to those providing job creation, and give credits to those who are willing to invest in plant and facilities, but the elimination of taxes to businesses in one fell swoop would be a disaster to our economy.

Now, if you are speaking of eliminating taxes on those small businesses where they employee 50 or less, imagine how that would work. All businesses where more than fifty employees work, would then work to eliminate jobs to go down to the prerequisite amount... the result less jobs. Tax credits to those who employee new hires would stimulate job growth, and with each new job, you have a new consumer of goods and services.

Government is not the problem, it is the management of our government, the lack of available oversight which with proper dedicated management would, as one would say, trickle down to the states, down to the counties and the cities in which we all work and try to live.

Anita: I would love to see an economic model of your suggestion on the elimination of business taxes. Would that only be for specific businesses, such as the self employed, or would that also be for limited partnerships, sub-chapter "s", and include corporations. Would your suggestion include a flat tax for all, and how and at what level would you instigate the income level for the tax? After all, without revenue, the government, our armed forces could not exist.

Think about this, will in fact the elimination of taxes for some, not encourage more lobbyists to be created solely for the purpose of additional tax eliminations? I would find it hard to believe any lobbyists would cease to exist as long as anyone has a special interest that needs to be supported.

You and I do not have a lobbyist which can represent us, oh wait, we do, and that person is our elected representatives both for state and the federal government. But as long as special interests can wield the power given to them via big business, banks, and corporations and the money they are able to spend on their behalf, we as individuals, as small business owners are like the ant against the elephant!

Anita, you seem very capable of expressing yourself, please elaborate on your business model and the tax model for it.

So you're saying Obama is not a capitalist?

So you're saying Obama is not a capitalist?

I think a whole lot of Americans no longer feel they are capitalists or that America should stay on a capitalism only path.

American capitalism is little more than a corrupt oligarchy of the uber wealthy and big corporation that use SOCIALIST protections just for themselves.

I think a whole lot of Americans no longer feel they are capitalists or that America should stay on a capitalism only path.

Whoever they are, I'd suggest a one-way plane ticket the hell out of here. I'm happy to pitch in.

And Steve... my business is a 50-stall horse training facility. I can assure you, if my business taxes were eliminated, the FIRST thing I would do would be to lower prices and fill my barn. Instead of spending my time teaching others my craft, I am training the small number of horses I have myself. Check out the fair tax. Its the closest thing out there to what I'm suggesting.

Anita: Have in fact checked out the so called "fair tax" and until it can be written so that indeed it is fair, I cannot support it.

I have explained my position on previous threads, and in a simple way, as long as the fair tax is based upon consumption, it will never be "fair". We all know that poorer individuals and poorer families spend 100% of their earnings, thus taxing 100% of their income. As one increases in wealth, one spends less and less, having discretionary income which can be placed into savings and investments.

I had a client who had a horse ranch, she raised Appaloosa's for sale, had one of the top breeders.... I know from conversations with her, of the work you have to put into your business..... good luck to you.

Steve, a consumption tax IS the way to go. And I completely disagree that as people make more money, they spend less. Perhaps as a percentage of total income, but their discretionary spending increases dramatically in terms of actual dollars and you know it, thereby contributing far more to the tax base. If I have a big house, I need to decorate it and furnish it, probably with higher end items. If I have luxury cars, maybe I buy a cute little convertible to tool around in for the summer. Maybe I buy jewelery, expensive wine and splurg for parties at my home. Maybe I like to vacation, or purchase a second home for which I would also need to spend money. And most importantly, I can afford to buy thing for OTHER PEOPLE who aren't as fortunate as me. All of these things contribute enormously to the tax base, and I have zero problem moving from an income-based tax to a consumption tax; in fact, I have long been a proponent of a national sales tax (excluding food).

Anita: While I do not doubt the underlying thoughts behind the fair tax, the problem as you stated is that one's percentage of tax liability as a ratio of income goes up dramatically for the poor or less fortunate.

The current bill I have read, does in fact give the poor or low income family a break, with a credit going to those with incomes below the poverty level, but that same break also is there for all income levels regardless of ones income.

I guess the word "Fair" comes into my mind... and while you and I do disagree, which I am sure we will.... how can it be fair when ones represented income percent is greater as ones income drops and not the other way around/

I fully understand the economic issue of more taxes being levied upon those with greater income due to their increase spending. But all of us know that at some point one reaches a fixed level of support needed for a family of lets say four, which as the income increases, places less and less requirements of spending for necessities, and leaves more income for discretionary spending.

I guess we will have to discuss or debate what is fair and to whom?

Perhaps a combination of fair tax with refund credits going to the less advantaged, and an income tax that comes into play at a fairly high level of income just might be a better choice to replace our current system....???

I know as a person who does many clients with tax problems, that I am more than capable of using our current system to either reduce or eliminate many of my clients tax liabilities within the laws allowed. I do especially well for those who file as self employeed.

Our system is flawed, we need one that is better, but perhaps rather than looking at a new system which is either black or white, perhaps shades of grey would be better?

Beautiful day today, good luck with those horses.....

Already did my morning in the barn. My day starts early.

The beauty of fair tax (from my point of view), is that it doesn't depend on percentages, but is levied on the actual dollars spent. For people with higher incomes, of course they save and invest more -- that is behavior we want to encourage, not discourage.

From my perspective, the simpler the better, so we can avoid all the politicans complicating the language of the law.

Thanks for the back & forth. Have a great day.

Anita: Have to believe you are on the West Coast along with those Vineyards you can see....

And, one last statement, actually made by someone else on another thread.... it just seems unfair that some(the poor or less affluent) will pay a higher percent of their income in income tax, then those who are able to afford a higher indexed amount. In that regard, it just does not seem "fair"!

Best to you too, and if you can somehow relate, explain, or justify the greater burden of taxes on a percentage basis, then please do educate me as I do learn and am willing to change my mind if a good argument is made!

I don't want to take from those whose possible fortunes have been made from their own hard work, or for that matter just given to them.... but it seems even in churches, that those who seemingly have more, are more willing to give and in doing so, offset the efforts made by those who cannot give as much.

This is the quandary set before all of us? Often what is fair for one, is not necessarily fair for another..... it is from the perspective of ones position and point of view. I guess I am always willing to "walk that mile in another's shoes" and in doing so try to understand those perspective not of my own.

Anita

So you're saying Obama is not a capitalist?

Yes he is a Capitalist and a well-to-do one at that. Why do you suggest that I was suggesting Obama was not a Capitalist?

Steve... I don't live on the West Coast. My husband has been trying to talk me into moving to King County (Seattle) for years, and there just is no way. I live in the heart of the midwest -- horse country. That's as far as I'm willing to pin it down.

I don't understand your confusion about the flat tax, but we need to stop talking about percentages and get down to actual dollars. In case you missed it, there is a food exemption, along with poverty level exemptions. How about all the tax money that would be collected from tourists? Under this plan, part of the burden shifts to them. Again, a consumption tax is the way to go.

For people with higher incomes, of course they save and invest more -- that is behavior we want to encourage, not discourage.

They should also pay a lot more to the country too with no loopholes and that is the behavior we want to encourage.

but we need to stop talking about percentages and get down to actual dollars.

All the flat taxes I have heard of are in percentages, i.e. everyone pays 30% of their income.

This system is horribly flawed, a person making $25K a year can far less afford to lose 30% as a person making $250K a year.

But even a flat absolute dollar value is also flawed, any number the middle class can struggle to afford would be a trivial amount to the wealthy.

God, you libs just LOVE to use taxes as punishment, don't you. You have obviously never read the Fair Tax proposals. Read it before you run your mouth. Right now you just sound ignorant.

There are two schools of thought on a new tax system, both of which have been encouraged by politicians wishing to enter the Frey for the position of President of the United States.

One is a flat tax system, with some particulars which many of the wealthy(by use of lobbyists) have added to appease the poor. The tidbits added dwarf the benefits given to those of wealth, and a flat tax would amount to a tax break being given to the wealthy, and the brunt of the tax burden upon those who could least afford it.

Another is the fair tax which those of Dennis Kucinich group which tout the fair tax and have presented it each and every year on the House Floor.

I only wish that either of these tax systems or even the current one, would in fact take into consideration that offering any credit is only as good as the tax liability being payed. If one has no net tax liability(poverty level) the benefit of a tax credit is zero. The exception to that rule is the child tax credit which gives to those eligible more income than that which is payed into in taxes.

It seems that in order to truly have a fair system, one that will index income, one that offers help to those making an effort to contribute by working but still working at the poverty level, we will in fact have to not offer equality to the first portion of income for the wealthy, which then becomes a hot issue for them. Read the Kucinich Bill on the Fair Tax, on the congressional website, you will understand better.

So, perhaps a bit of socialism is better than too much or the disadvantage of none which could be looked upon as continued disparagedment against the poor working class.

What this is going to take, is an accountant who is willing to be fair, from a perspective of not the wealthy, but from a perspective of the working middle class and business men and women who provide jobs for the middle class, but not leaning into the corporate camp or utilizing a system that favors the wealthy against others less fortunate.