Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Bans Google+ Ads
Barbara, not Barbie writes "Not content with making it hard for people to export their Facebook contacts to Google+, Facebook has now banned all ads from app developer Michael Lee Johnson, who ran an ad saying 'Add Michael to Google+.' Facebook sent him the following message: 'Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.'"
Yes, please keep voting Republican... I'm so close to buying my own Boeing 747 and would hate to also have to forgo buying another Bentley for my daughter if my taxes are raised back to pre-2001 levels.
I always have to wonder. Where do the anti tax hikes people think the money goes? It's not like the government isn't going to spend it, and that the people they give it to aren't going to spend it (at least not significantly less so than the people who held it in the first place, and in most cases, they are more likely to spend it).
Which means ... taxes create jobs. More jobs than you would get without taxes. I think the success of the stimulus has pretty much proven that to all but the very stupid.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Source please?
Last report I saw said that is cost 278,000 to create every job that was created from the stimulus bill. I'm not disagreeing with you, since I have no numbers on how much consumer spending it costs to create one job. I would be interested in learning more.
21st Century Renaissance Man
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you've got a job that pays $20k a year then you're probably looking at an additional $20k or so in overhead, and that's for jobs where you're just providing a service, now since the stimulus money was largely focused on construction and infrastructure, you'd be looking at a hell of a lot more than that in materials.
Additionally, a lot of the stimulus spending was on things which we should have been spending money on already. The government wasn't going around damaging infrastructure just to give people a job, that was largely done by neglect and a refusal of the citizens to pay the taxes to maintain it.
We're not talking about taking tax money and spending it in the US, we're talking about taking tax money and spending it on paying off China so they keep lending us money so we can become even more indebited to them.
Right now, China (and perhaps the Saudis) are financing $0.46 of every dollar the US government spends. When it creeps past $0.50 we might very well see someone from China sitting down with the President and Congress to decide how the money coming from China is going be spent - after all, they will pretty much own over 50% of the budget. Does this really sound like a good idea?
Sure, raising taxes would be great. We should also consider a "wealth tax" not just a income taxes. Right now, the folks making the most money aren't receiving it as a salary subject to income taxes but they are getting it as capital gains which is taxed at a much lower, fixed rate. That means that an income tax increase isn't going to affect capital gains income at all and would therefore be totally non-productive. I really want to see someone proposing that it should be illegal to have more than a couple of million dollars and the government should just take it all. That would really fix the economy, now wouldn't it? Make the US the home of poor people once again. Eliminate wealth in the US and give it all to the government to spend.
So how come Obama hasn't pushed any of his WPA-like programs that he was talking about during his campaign? Instead of spending over $200,000 per job with his stimulus program, how about some real government-paid jobs for millions of people? Fix unemployment by hiring people, not paying four times as much to someone else to hire someone.
Come on, if what we want is a real government-sponsored economy where the government actually supports people, then bring it on! Let's see it happen and see the results.
In a pure economy, you can't spend money you don't have. But in a credit-economy, that unfortunately doesn't hold true. So cutting taxes by itself doesn't stop the blockheads from charging it and increasing national debt. That generally only works so long though before they start cutting back spending. But governments in general are notorious for loose spending, since the ones cutting the checks are not dealing with their own money. So it all tends to boil down to lack of fiscal responsibility. (which Greece is finally reaching the end of their rope on)
Getting partisan, it's generally safe to say that republicans lower taxes and raise national debt, democrats raise taxes and lower national debt. It's "seesaw economics". People get tired of high taxes so they vote in republicans who lower taxes, raise debt, and depress the economy. People get tired of high debt and poor economy and vote in democrats that raise taxes, lower debt, and recover the economy. Rinse and repeat. The voters drive the cycle.
I really don't have a stance on whether taxes need to be raised or lowered. It really doesn't matter, one way or another, every dollar the government spends needs to be paid for, either now, or later. So many people just don't understand/realize that. Spending is the true issue, and we the people generally have very little say in that. If you lower the spending, you can lower the taxing, it's just that dead simple. All we can do is vote for congresscritters that we hope will be more sensible with the spending, but it never seems to materialize. It all comes down to greed really, every representative tries to get things for their state, leading to pork. But it's not just one or two or ten of them doing it, they pretty much all do it. And once you get into that situation, the only "losers" are the few that don't do it, so the result is, nobody wants to stop. And so it never ends, or at least not until you can get just about everyone to agree on fixing it at once, which is really hard to do.
The whole issue of "pork" comes down to compromise, need, and greed. If group A has a legitimate need for X, they can't get it without "compromise", which often means giving group B their Y as well, which very often is an unnecessary luxury. Group B is being greedy, and can get away with it because group A requires their help to get what they need. As a result we all are forced to pay for the unnecessary Y. That's the essence of pork. Find a way to fix that, and you can actually lower taxes without raising debt and damaging the economy.
Also, trying to simply say "taxes create jobs" ignores that circle of finance, specifically "jobs pay taxes". It doesn't make money, it just moves it around. The only way for a country to actually make money is by clearing a higher margin on exports than it loses on imports. (again money only moves, but from outside the country to inside it)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The greatest marking job of the past several decades was the one used to get average folks who will never ever have at the very least $500,000+ to their name to vote against their own self interests.
The source is just reality of numbers. The government spends everything it takes in, and then some. Poorer people with less money spend a larger fraction of their income than rich people (who can afford to save / hold back).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, it's the other way around. When taxes on the rich are low, business owners take the profits out of the business for "job-creating" items like big houses, cars, boats and bribes^Wpolitical contributions. As tax rates rise, owners leave more and more money in the business, spending more on hiring and R&D. But keep up the noble work of shilling for your plutocrat masters. I'm sure one day one of them will pat you on the head for your loyalty.
As far as raising taxes goes, it seems only rational to conclude that the USA can't keep increasing borrowing forever. At some point, the nation will either have to reduce the deficit or default (hopefully not by triggering a world war and legislating a default). Your taxes don't just magically disappear - they go to pay for operating the county (salaries, construction, defense and federal contracts). And, honestly, you're likely to send the majority of your disposable income out of the country in the form of electronics purchases, fancy German cars and "made in China" purchases.
Do you understand how selling Treasury Bonds functions?
Why doesn't the left bring up this point? The whole argument on the right is that the millionaires and billionaires are 'job creators' and taxing them will slow recovery. Well, the real job creator is demand for goods and services. Billionaires don't create jobs for no reason, they do it to fulfill a need. If the lower classes and the government aren't spending any money because the rich have it all, then there is no demand for the goods and services that the rich offer. That's the sitution we're in now. Taxes are at near historic lows and the wealthiest 5% of the country are hoarding 50% of the nations wealth.
We do. Regularly. You can't fight a religious war with facts, though.
Note to mods.
This could be considered a -1 redundant.
If there was a -1 overly obvious flag that would also be a candidate, Being as there is not a minus -1 overly obvious flag, overrated was probably the way to go.
However this does not count as flame bait as nobody is likely to argue with it.
Work bio at MMWD