|
Its because Perry creates jobs by stealing them from other states by offering low taxes and other business friendly things. This works great when you are running texas but when you have to grow jobs for the whole nations he has no clue what to do. He has never really created a job so much as moved them from other states. This will never work for america as a whole because where are we going to move the jobs from? we cant undercut mexico
"Stealing"?
You do know that all states try to do this, right, and it isn't "stealing" any more than McDonald's "steals" business from Wendy's if you decide to go to McDonald's because it's cheaper.
What Governor Perry did in Texas was not very different in principle what Ronald Reagan did in 1981-1982 in the whole of the US as far as taxes and regulations, 17 million jobs were created in the US during the Reagan Administration. Except Perry kept low taxes low and didn't create new regulations, Reagan had to cut both taxes and regulations.
If other states had as business-friendly a climate as Texas, Texas wouldn't have gotten those jobs. The businesses would have stayed put. What Perry did in Texas does work on a national level; it has before.
|
I have to agree with DeepElemBlues. I doubt my company would have grown and expanded anywhere near as aggressively and quickly without it's Austin, Texas site. We went from 200 to something like 600 people in just a couple of years. If the company had planned to continue employment in California, it would have been a much slower process due to the extra costs involved.
The simple fact that Austin has become a big technology hub, giving California-based technology companies a cheaper workforce to pool from (MUCH lower cost of living in Texas allows tech companies to pay people in Austin a good deal less for the same jobs) is owed to Texas' tax and regulation policies over the last couple of decades.
But, I have a hard time picturing how that's going to work on the global level. How exactly does one bring back low-level manufacturing jobs to the US, when the salaries that companies are already paying are just not within a pay grade anyone in a first world nation will accept? Remove the minimum wage and they're still not going to open low-wage manufacturing jobs here. I don't see the benefit in it. The way I see it, those jobs are gone and they're not coming back, thanks to automation and globalization. It's time to accept that and move on by retraining our existing workforce for the more advanced jobs of the future.
Well that, or wait until they die off and the new generation of kids, who are pretty much forced into getting a college degree, at a minimum, picks the US back up. Though, the rising costs of education are making even that highly unlikely.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 13 2011 03:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Its because Perry creates jobs by stealing them from other states by offering low taxes and other business friendly things. This works great when you are running texas but when you have to grow jobs for the whole nations he has no clue what to do. He has never really created a job so much as moved them from other states. This will never work for america as a whole because where are we going to move the jobs from? we cant undercut mexico "Stealing"? You do know that all states try to do this, right, and it isn't "stealing" any more than McDonald's "steals" business from Wendy's if you decide to go to McDonald's because it's cheaper. What Governor Perry did in Texas was not very different in principle what Ronald Reagan did in 1981-1982 in the whole of the US as far as taxes and regulations, 17 million jobs were created in the US during the Reagan Administration. Except Perry kept low taxes low and didn't create new regulations, Reagan had to cut both taxes and regulations. If other states had as business-friendly a climate as Texas, Texas wouldn't have gotten those jobs. The businesses would have stayed put. What Perry did in Texas does work on a national level; it has before.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times when he was president. He also implemented the largest tax increase in any state up to that point when he was governor of California. He nearly tripled the federal deficit, unemployment soared after his 1981 tax cuts, up to 10.8%, and income inequality increased massively, until after he started raising taxes again. The federal government increased in size dramatically under Reagan.
|
Ron Paul would be the best choices in my opinion ...
he is kinda radical in many issues but because of that the only one adressing the real issues of our financial disaster.
|
On October 13 2011 02:36 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 23:37 zalz wrote:You really dont know what your talking about at all, do you? Whites arent split fifty fifty for example, a majority of whites go for the republican party. And yeah...if were talking about minorities the hispanic and black vote matter, not the Muslim one. They arent even 1% of the population. What would happen if someone actually dropped some actuall numbers... Carter / Ford 47%/52% Clinton / Bush 39%/40% Clinton / Dole 43%/46% I suppose it's easier to pretend to know what you are talking about then to actually look up the numbers and change your flawed to an opinion supported by facts. What the fuck is this, seriously? If its pretending to be white voting patterns, its only so close as you added it up to the total of voters as a whole and cut the whites votes in, rather than merely looking at a white votes. 43-46 suddenly becomes basically an 8 point split. Under Bush whites were nearly 60% in favour of Republicans. The democrats havent taken the white vote in decades...
You should have just said you were sorry for making that mistake and admit you were just talking on emotion, not reason and facts.
Now you replied in anger and you ended up looking even more uninformed. Facts apply to everyone, just cause you don't like them don't mean you can ignore them.
|
Reagan raised taxes 11 times when he was president.
And none of his tax increases came close to touching how much he had cut.
He also implemented the largest tax increase in any state up to that point when he was governor of California.
At a time when California was almost in as bad budget trouble when it is today. He gave tax rebate checks when the state's coffers had a surplus as a result of his good governance.
He nearly tripled the federal deficit,
This has nothing to do with his jobs record, now does it. It's just a laundry list of talking points.
unemployment soared after his 1981 tax cuts, up to 10.8%, and income inequality increased massively, until after he started raising taxes again.
This is disingenuous. Unemployment soared because of the policies instituted by Volcker, intended to bring down inflation. These policies were a wild success, to the point where 1.1 million jobs were added to the economy in September 1983.
If you look here:
http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl
You can see that unemployment nosedived in 1983. Reagan had only had one tax "increase" on individual taxpayers by that point.
And month-by-month from the Bureau of Labor (Statistics Department lol):
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
It's also disingenuous to say "tax increase" as if they are all the same thing. There is a difference between raising tax revenue by raising rates in general or raising revenue by closing loopholes and with targeted rate increases and decreases intended to raise revenue. Reagan's tax rate cuts were both general and targeted and his tax rate increases were narrow and targeted. Raising more revenue through greater tax receipts without higher rates is a lot different from what you're implying.
You can look at the effects of Reagan's tax policies on the tax burden here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_receipts
The federal government increased in size dramatically under Reagan.
No one more acknowledged that Reagan did not do as much as he wanted to do than Reagan himself. He lowered the rate of discretionary non-defense spending and non-discretionary non-defense spending and devised a fix that kept Social Security solvent for another 30 years.
The only part of the federal government that increased "dramatically" in size under Reagan was the military, and I'll happily trade adding less than 20% of current yearly GDP to the deficit over 8 years in return for bankrupting the USSR, which was the far more important result.
|
On October 13 2011 02:58 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:36 lizzard_warish wrote:On October 12 2011 23:37 zalz wrote:You really dont know what your talking about at all, do you? Whites arent split fifty fifty for example, a majority of whites go for the republican party. And yeah...if were talking about minorities the hispanic and black vote matter, not the Muslim one. They arent even 1% of the population. What would happen if someone actually dropped some actuall numbers... Carter / Ford 47%/52% Clinton / Bush 39%/40% Clinton / Dole 43%/46% I suppose it's easier to pretend to know what you are talking about then to actually look up the numbers and change your flawed to an opinion supported by facts. What the fuck is this, seriously? If its pretending to be white voting patterns, its only so close as you added it up to the total of voters as a whole and cut the whites votes in, rather than merely looking at a white votes. 43-46 suddenly becomes basically an 8 point split. Under Bush whites were nearly 60% in favour of Republicans. The democrats havent taken the white vote in decades... The Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole numbers don't add up to 100% because of Ross Perot. However I do agree with you that these numbers aren't all that telling. Clinton won 370 and 379 electoral votes in those elections. The numbers in a close Republican win (like 2000, 2004) and a big Republican win (1980, 1984, 1988) should have larger margins. It seems from the Clinton numbers that the worst case scenario fir Republicans is to only win white voters by 1%. Reagan's numbers should give us an estimate of their best case scenario.
Yeah, sorry, my mistake on reading that. And exactly my point, Republicans got hammered in 96 yet still took the white vote. In 2000 whites went 54% to repub, 2004 58% and 2008 55%. Republicans simply need to mitigate the democrat advantage in black and hispanics and they will handily take the election. As to my original point when this conversation got started, I think Cain can help that, at least with blacks. Romney is pretty moderate so he wont do nearly as much damage as Sanotarum or other republicans would do in courting the hispanic vote, so I really think its a strong ticket.On October 13 2011 03:49 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:36 lizzard_warish wrote:On October 12 2011 23:37 zalz wrote:You really dont know what your talking about at all, do you? Whites arent split fifty fifty for example, a majority of whites go for the republican party. And yeah...if were talking about minorities the hispanic and black vote matter, not the Muslim one. They arent even 1% of the population. What would happen if someone actually dropped some actuall numbers... Carter / Ford 47%/52% Clinton / Bush 39%/40% Clinton / Dole 43%/46% I suppose it's easier to pretend to know what you are talking about then to actually look up the numbers and change your flawed to an opinion supported by facts. What the fuck is this, seriously? If its pretending to be white voting patterns, its only so close as you added it up to the total of voters as a whole and cut the whites votes in, rather than merely looking at a white votes. 43-46 suddenly becomes basically an 8 point split. Under Bush whites were nearly 60% in favour of Republicans. The democrats havent taken the white vote in decades... You should have just said you were sorry for making that mistake and admit you were just talking on emotion, not reason and facts. Now you replied in anger and you ended up looking even more uninformed. Facts apply to everyone, just cause you don't like them don't mean you can ignore them. Why would I apologize when I was blatantly right? Democrats havent taken the white vote in decades, especially recent decades.
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/exitpolls.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://brandtao.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/demographics-for-us-presidential-election-2008/
Look at the exit polls if you think im lieing. I expect an apology for your ignorance by the way.
|
On October 13 2011 04:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:And none of his tax increases came close to touching how much he had cut. Show nested quote + He also implemented the largest tax increase in any state up to that point when he was governor of California. At a time when California was almost in as bad budget trouble when it is today. He gave tax rebate checks when the state's coffers had a surplus as a result of his good governance. This has nothing to do with his jobs record, now does it. It's just a laundry list of talking points. Show nested quote + unemployment soared after his 1981 tax cuts, up to 10.8%, and income inequality increased massively, until after he started raising taxes again. This is disingenuous. Unemployment soared because of the policies instituted by Volcker, intended to bring down inflation. These policies were a wild success, to the point where 1.1 million jobs were added to the economy in September 1983. If you look here: http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annlYou can see that unemployment nosedived in 1983. Reagan had only had one tax "increase" on individual taxpayers by that point. And month-by-month from the Bureau of Labor (Statistics Department lol): http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletIt's also disingenuous to say "tax increase" as if they are all the same thing. There is a difference between raising tax revenue by raising rates in general or raising revenue by closing loopholes and with targeted rate increases and decreases intended to raise revenue. Reagan's tax rate cuts were both general and targeted and his tax rate increases were narrow and targeted. Raising more revenue through greater tax receipts without higher rates is a lot different from what you're implying. You can look at the effects of Reagan's tax policies on the tax burden here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_receiptsNo one more acknowledged that Reagan did not do as much as he wanted to do than Reagan himself. He lowered the rate of discretionary non-defense spending and non-discretionary non-defense spending and devised a fix that kept Social Security solvent for another 30 years. The only part of the federal government that increased "dramatically" in size under Reagan was the military, and I'll happily trade adding less than 20% of current yearly GDP to the deficit over 8 years in return for bankrupting the USSR, which was the far more important result.
This doesn't really refute his point. Reagan boosted GDP and created jobs by increasing the deficit, not by making government smaller. To the comparison between Reagan and Perry, though, thus still does hold. Almost half of the jobs created in TX during this recession have been government jobs.
|
On October 12 2011 11:40 BioNova wrote:
Your favorite color is blue, and you'll like it. Matter of fact, it will probably be Romney.
I hope it will be Romney, for no other reason than it will be great fun watching the republican hordes squeal over him being mormon.
|
On October 13 2011 03:16 Bibdy wrote:
I have to agree with DeepElemBlues. I doubt my company would have grown and expanded anywhere near as aggressively and quickly without it's Austin, Texas site. We went from 200 to something like 600 people in just a couple of years. If the company had planned to continue employment in California, it would have been a much slower process due to the extra costs involved.
The simple fact that Austin has become a big technology hub, giving California-based technology companies a cheaper workforce to pool from (MUCH lower cost of living in Texas allows tech companies to pay people in Austin a good deal less for the same jobs) is owed to Texas' tax and regulation policies over the last couple of decades.
But, I have a hard time picturing how that's going to work on the global level. How exactly does one bring back low-level manufacturing jobs to the US, when the salaries that companies are already paying are just not within a pay grade anyone in a first world nation will accept? Remove the minimum wage and they're still not going to open low-wage manufacturing jobs here. I don't see the benefit in it. The way I see it, those jobs are gone and they're not coming back, thanks to automation and globalization. It's time to accept that and move on by retraining our existing workforce for the more advanced jobs of the future.
Well that, or wait until they die off and the new generation of kids, who are pretty much forced into getting a college degree, at a minimum, picks the US back up. Though, the rising costs of education are making even that highly unlikely.
Regarding the paragraph in bold, you have to consider more than the possibility of bringing jobs back that are already overseas. Obviously, companies that invested heavily in overseas infrastructure (factories, offices, etc) are going to be hesitant not to move because of their investments. Some companies will bring jobs back to the US, but others won't.
The real benefit from reducing corporate taxes, regulations, and other barriers to business is found in the jobs and businesses that are being created continuously. All businesses -- whether new or established -- will eventually have to make decisions about where to locate their new facilities (or even relocate existing facilities). If they are given the appropriate incentives, along with lower costs, of locating particular facilities in the US, then they may do so in lieu of moving out of the country.
In short, reducing corporate burdens isn't going to bring back all of the jobs that have gone overseas. However, it will create an environment that encourages new job growth domestically.
|
This doesn't really refute his point. Reagan boosted GDP and created jobs by increasing the deficit, not by making government smaller.
The two did not have a causal relationship. Reagan did not create jobs by deficit spending; deficit spending doesn't create jobs. There isn't an example in American history, including during the Gerat Depression, where deficit spending succeeded at creating stable job growth. Sensible, consistent tax and regulatory policies do.
Even conservatives will also admit that external factors independent of domestic policy also played a large role.
To the comparison between Reagan and Perry, though, thus still does hold. Almost half of the jobs created in TX during this recession have been government jobs.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-job-boom-under-perry-driven-government-energy-174054077.html
That story doesn't address during the actual recession, but 13% is not nearly half. And as the story noted, much of it comes from increases in law enforcement, which you will be hard-pressed to find a non-libertarian argument against.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story.html
I fail to understand how natural growth in the number of government jobs thanks to population growth undercuts Perry's argument.
And, of course, most of the job growth comes from local governments - which set their expenditures and employment decisions independent of the state government, though of course state funding is a large factor. No governor, Rick Perry included, calls up the commissioners of County X and tells them how to run their county for the year; he doesn't have that kind of power over them.
And it's kind of silly to try to discredit Perry's record because Lyndon Johnson decided to reward his home state 50 years ago with big projects like NASA's center in Houston.
It's disingenuous to attack Perry's jobs record in this way.
|
Still Perry is worse at job creation in Texas than his predecessors. He raised taxes, and expanded the government in the state considerably.
|
On October 13 2011 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +This doesn't really refute his point. Reagan boosted GDP and created jobs by increasing the deficit, not by making government smaller. The two did not have a causal relationship. Reagan did not create jobs by deficit spending; deficit spending doesn't create jobs. There isn't an example in American history, including during the Gerat Depression, where deficit spending succeeded at creating stable job growth. Sensible, consistent tax and regulatory policies do.
You're saying two slightly different things here - deficit spending doesn't create jobs, and deficit spending doesn't create *stable* job growth.
Deficit spending can easily create jobs in the short term. WWII is an irrefutable example of massive federal spending taking an unemployment rate of around 15% in 1940 and pushing that number below full employment (at some points even below 3%) during the war. Of course that couldn't go on forever (this isn't stable) but that's not the point. The temporary boost in employment over a 5 year period was enough to restore purchasing power to households; when the economy was returned to "normal" there was sufficient demand without the super-high government spending/employment.
Now you can argue that it was the spending that created that additional 12% of employment, not the deficit per se, and it could have just as easily been accomplished with a balanced budget. But in order to make that argument, you'd have to argue that it wouldn't have mattered if the government had paid for the additional spending via higher taxes.
Tying this back to the present, the libertarian narrative today seems to be that 30 years of runaway deficit spending and inflation gave us temporary employment boosts at the cost of long-term stability (ie the job creation of 1981-2007 was unstable), and now those chickens have come home to roost. I don't fully buy their narrative, but I think there is a good point that we've glossed over underlying problems with big deficits and easy money. Personally I am fine with the government using temporary measures to ease the pain of recession, but this shouldn't be a replacement for fixing the fundamental issues we have.
Even conservatives will also admit that external factors independent of domestic policy also played a large role. Show nested quote + To the comparison between Reagan and Perry, though, thus still does hold. Almost half of the jobs created in TX during this recession have been government jobs. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-job-boom-under-perry-driven-government-energy-174054077.htmlThat story doesn't address during the actual recession, but 13% is not nearly half. And as the story noted, much of it comes from increases in law enforcement, which you will be hard-pressed to find a non-libertarian argument against. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story.htmlI fail to understand how natural growth in the number of government jobs thanks to population growth undercuts Perry's argument. And, of course, most of the job growth comes from local governments - which set their expenditures and employment decisions independent of the state government, though of course state funding is a large factor. No governor, Rick Perry included, calls up the commissioners of County X and tells them how to run their county for the year; he doesn't have that kind of power over them. And it's kind of silly to try to discredit Perry's record because Lyndon Johnson decided to reward his home state 50 years ago with big projects like NASA's center in Houston. It's disingenuous to attack Perry's jobs record in this way.
Bah, I mixed up my facts. 47% of new government jobs from 2007-2010 were created in Texas. I was thinking 47% of new jobs in Texas were with some level of government.
( http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297833/perry-47-government-jobs/ )
The same article points out that since 2000, the public sector in Texas has increased its employment by 19% while the private sector has only increased its employment by 9%. So employment in Texas has become a bit more centered around the public sector than it was before Perry took office, but not by nearly as much as I had mistakenly recalled.
|
Cain's 9-9-9 is the worst idea I've ever heard of in my life for stabilizing any economy. Not only is it a Domono's pizza commercial, but it just taxes the poor more than ever
And if state sales tax was added on top of it...
16.5% sales tax in Florida, woo-hoo....
|
Yeah, government spending is not meant to provide stable job growth in a capitalist economy, but merely a catalyst to get the economy moving again when we hit hard times. The two things that SHOULD have happened the second the recession hit, was increased domestic government spending (to keep money moving within the country), AND reduced taxes (to ease our individuals burdens).
We've been completely sidetracked by the deficit issue, when we should have just accepted the fact that we need to rack up a big bill and spend our way out of the recession. What should THEN have happened is, once we reached another boom period, we raise taxes, we reduce spending, and we pay back the deficit we racked up, and with any luck we'll be in a good position to pay back the previous deficit, and weather the next storm. This is how things should happen, but thanks to GWB dragging us into two wars, with increasing military bills with no end in sight, taking a huge gamble on lowering taxes in the middle of a boom period and the housing market collapse, we already had a huge deficit bill from the get-go and politicians seized the opportunity.
The fact that we've been sitting here bickering over which of the two has the most merit, in light of an existing deficit, when we should have applied BOTH, just makes me facepalm. The last 3 years wasn't the time to fight over that shit, but thanks to politicians being politicians, we're in a worse position now than we would have been if both sides hadn't squandered this whole presidency on a pissing contest.
But, obviously, I digress. What has Mitt Romney proposed for fixing the economy? I've heard a lot of talk from Perry and Cain, and damn near nothing from Romney. It seems like the media is just going to keep ignoring him until they give up and accept the Mormonism thing.
|
I like Romney, but he seems to put his finger to the wind and change his stance on certain issues depending on who he's trying to appeal to.
|
On October 14 2011 02:55 Gummy wrote:
I like Romney, but he seems to put his finger to the wind and change his stance on certain issues depending on who he's trying to appeal to.
It's hard to tell if he's a man that is flip-flopping to gain popularity (something I have little respect for - it makes him a tool), or if he's genuinely encountered things that have challenged his preconceived beliefs (something I have a lot of respect for - it makes him human).
|
On October 14 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 02:55 Gummy wrote:
I like Romney, but he seems to put his finger to the wind and change his stance on certain issues depending on who he's trying to appeal to. It's hard to tell if he's a man that is flip-flopping to gain popularity (something I have little respect for - it makes him a tool), or if he's genuinely encountered things that have challenged his preconceived beliefs (something I have a lot of respect for - it makes him human).
I can only guess about Romney's beliefs on social issues, but his flopping around on Romneycare is patently disingenuous (notwithstanding the fact that he is artfully handling the issue).
|
I'm crossing my fingers for Paul/Roemer 2012.
It's a long shot, but I love Ron Paul for his focus on liberty and sound money, and I love Roemer for his jobs plan and his 'free to lead' approach.
|
The latest round of polling has been coming in over the past few days. For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to show results for Romney, Cain, and Perry:
Rasmussen:
Romney: 29%
Cain: 29%
Perry: 9%
PPP:
Cain: 30%
Romney: 22%
Perry: 14%
NBC/WSJ:
Cain: 27%
Romney: 23%
Perry: 16%
Of these polls, only the Rasmussen poll was taken exclusively after the most recent debate. Note how far Perry has sunk in that poll (he's actually in fourth behind Gingrich who received 10%).
Cain is still going strong. If he can get his organization going, he may win this thing against all odds. It just goes to show that the Tea Party hasn't gone away. You can bet that Cain's success is driving the republican establishment nuts.
You can see a summary of all polls here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
