On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
Do you look at those numbers and blame regulation, though? 30 years ago Reagan cut regulations and taxes for the rich, believing that the wealth would trickle down. Since then, as you mentioned, the average American hasn't seen much of an increase in income (I think it's actually 1%, adjusted for inflation), while the rich have become incredibly richer. I'm about to leave so I don't have to time to get into it, but the "30 years ago" avenue of discourse is not going to make your case very well, in fact it's the favorite argument for those that favor taxing the rich, since prior to 1980 the middle class was much stronger and the wealth disparity was much smaller. The charts are always floating around and I'm sure somebody will pick up this point and expand on it.
[quote] With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
[quote]
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
Until doing so stops benefiting those who have less.
When is someone giving you money not a benefit?
You're not looking at the whole picture. If you take too much from the wealthier, it will get to a point where there will be not enough capital to invest in a significant way, that would obviously not benefit the non-wealthy people since there wouldn't be jobs. It is a matter of finding a balance, and I'm afraid we're far from it right now.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
It ends where the majority draws the line, that's called democracy. Western european countries are far more 'leftist' than the USA and we get along just fine with more regulation. No regulation means humans will exploit any loophole for personal profit, at the cost of thousands of peoples' livelihoods. The top 1% in the USA account for ~25% of the national income, that's an INCREDIBLY warped figure compared to any other country. The 'super rich' have it AMAZINGLY good in the USA and bringing that up to par with other countries isn't going to 'stop them from creating jobs', it simply means they'll have to buy 1 less yacht. The horror.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
It ends where the majority draws the line, that's called democracy. Western european countries are far more 'leftist' than the USA and we get along just fine with more regulation. No regulation means humans will exploit any loophole for personal profit, at the cost of thousands of peoples' livelihoods. The top 1% in the USA account for ~25% of the national income, that's an INCREDIBLY warped figure compared to any other country. The 'super rich' have it AMAZINGLY good in the USA and bringing that up to par with other countries isn't going to 'stop them from creating jobs', it simply means they'll have to buy 1 less yacht. The horror.
No doubt there will be an economic bump when the super rich start pulling out of some of their more risky investments to ensure the same level of comfort they have today, but they'll get over it when they start realizing their wealth isn't going to accumulate if they don't invest. In the long run we'll be much closer to stability in wealth distribution than we are today, with the scales tipped enormously far in favour of the rich.
People terrified of the prospect of increasing taxes on the rich are thinking so short-term.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water?
Sadly that's not an illusion, but was the reality before unions began to fight for the right of the workers and government began to regulate business. Take for example a look at the average hours of work at the beginning of the industrialisation:
82 hours and a seven day week. Sounds awesome. The working hours weren't the only things that were horrible back than (healthcare, social security, enviromental pollution ...) but were the easiest one to find a good illustration on. Unregulated business shits on peoples life as long as it is able to increase it's margins of profit (and as long as their is enough human material to plow through). It's not an illusion but rather a sad historical thruth.
And has nothing to do with people being evil, but simply with a free capitalistic system - if you don't shit on your working force but your competition does they will be able to produce much cheaper and thereby produce more products and/or sell them cheaper, kicking you out of business at some point in time. It's simply a side-effect of pure capitalism that's only logical.
In the US people literally died to get those rights, which is why around the 1920 you have that dip then rise as people forget about what they fought for. And with those right to work laws which were passed essentially on a small rich group's audacity unions are dieing out in the US My thoughts on the matter of the super rich is that capital gains tax should be progressive like income tax but should be higher then income tax, although it has already been taxed once is the argument to why it's lower capital gains is money from money they aren't going out buying like shoes in order to sell them to people they are speculating, which doesn't really stimulate an economy like consumption.
Consumption and production should be encouraged over just speculation, although investments are good they are also bad so called investors with alot of money get a lot of money in return and these people profit when the markets are doing good and when they are doing bad, so you have to keep their ability to obtain wealth from essentially just having more then most else they are just running a redistribution program where they lend money to those who need it in turn making more money if it all goes right, ie the rich get richer and all they need to do is call their broker every once and awhile i mean this is like gambling money and yet for the most part it's taxed less then that.
Want to lower taxes? Well didn't we try that in 2001 and had great growth during the period but how did it end? It ended with the worst recession we had in a very very very long time, these people burned the world down because we let them so why let them do it again? 30 years of giving tax breaks so the so called job creators have done worse for the American middle class.
It wasn't low taxes that did it, it was unregulated free market banking practices. After a colossal blunder like that its amazing how much denial some people are under in continuing to believe that a free market is infallible.
That was part of it. You could also say the Community Reinvestment Act played a role.
You could also say it was the Clinton administration pressuring on banks to make riskier loans.
Both were causes for the bubble bust stemming from government intervention in the housing market.
[quote] With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
[quote]
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
It ends where the majority draws the line, that's called democracy. Western european countries are far more 'leftist' than the USA and we get along just fine with more regulation. No regulation means humans will exploit any loophole for personal profit, at the cost of thousands of peoples' livelihoods. The top 1% in the USA account for ~25% of the national income, that's an INCREDIBLY warped figure compared to any other country. The 'super rich' have it AMAZINGLY good in the USA and bringing that up to par with other countries isn't going to 'stop them from creating jobs', it simply means they'll have to buy 1 less yacht. The horror.
No doubt there will be an economic bump when the super rich start pulling out of some of their more risky investments to ensure the same level of comfort they have today, but they'll get over it when they start realizing their wealth isn't going to accumulate if they don't invest. In the long run we'll be much closer to stability in wealth distribution than we are today, with the scales tipped enormously far in favour of the rich.
People terrified of the prospect of increasing taxes on the rich are thinking so short-term.
I just wanted to agree with Bibdy here. The USA is basically the best place for the super-rich to be right now. You have a lot of wiggle room before you even drop to 2nd best place to be super rich. Nobody is going to go anywhere or do anything differently.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water?
Sadly that's not an illusion, but was the reality before unions began to fight for the right of the workers and government began to regulate business. Take for example a look at the average hours of work at the beginning of the industrialisation:
82 hours and a seven day week. Sounds awesome. The working hours weren't the only things that were horrible back than (healthcare, social security, enviromental pollution ...) but were the easiest one to find a good illustration on. Unregulated business shits on peoples life as long as it is able to increase it's margins of profit (and as long as their is enough human material to plow through). It's not an illusion but rather a sad historical thruth.
And has nothing to do with people being evil, but simply with a free capitalistic system - if you don't shit on your working force but your competition does they will be able to produce much cheaper and thereby produce more products and/or sell them cheaper, kicking you out of business at some point in time. It's simply a side-effect of pure capitalism that's only logical.
In the US people literally died to get those rights, which is why around the 1920 you have that dip then rise as people forget about what they fought for. And with those right to work laws which were passed essentially on a small rich group's audacity unions are dieing out in the US My thoughts on the matter of the super rich is that capital gains tax should be progressive like income tax but should be higher then income tax, although it has already been taxed once is the argument to why it's lower capital gains is money from money they aren't going out buying like shoes in order to sell them to people they are speculating, which doesn't really stimulate an economy like consumption.
Consumption and production should be encouraged over just speculation, although investments are good they are also bad so called investors with alot of money get a lot of money in return and these people profit when the markets are doing good and when they are doing bad, so you have to keep their ability to obtain wealth from essentially just having more then most else they are just running a redistribution program where they lend money to those who need it in turn making more money if it all goes right, ie the rich get richer and all they need to do is call their broker every once and awhile i mean this is like gambling money and yet for the most part it's taxed less then that.
Want to lower taxes? Well didn't we try that in 2001 and had great growth during the period but how did it end? It ended with the worst recession we had in a very very very long time, these people burned the world down because we let them so why let them do it again? 30 years of giving tax breaks so the so called job creators have done worse for the American middle class.
It wasn't low taxes that did it, it was unregulated free market banking practices. After a colossal blunder like that its amazing how much denial some people are under in continuing to believe that a free market is infallible.
nope. actually government policies hedged the risks for banks to do risky stuff, and then when the banks still failed it even bailed them out.
[quote] With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
[quote]
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
That really confused me. Everything about the deficit is always saying things like "Saving 1.2 trillion over the next 10 years." It makes me think that he's off by a factor of 10.
On September 20 2011 18:10 dontnerfterranagain wrote:
On September 20 2011 17:42 shell wrote: Lol give money to the United States goverment? for what? for more wars?
The man wants so save lives not finance death..
exactly dude, this is why we are fucked over here, People actually think its a good idea to give this government more money. the left wants to give these insane murders more money to make and drop more bombs??
I wish more americans understood this, its freaking sad!
Now be fair, it's the right that also dares not cut into the defence budget and actually because of them Democrats dare not cut it back because Republicans always accuse them of being soft on foreign policies and military matters. Now if you hide in Ron Paul's camp, it still leaves a good portion of the Right that while preaching spending cuts, will never touch military spending. In short neither side is willing to deal with Pax Americana. I mean you could call a plague on both houses, but such a partisan dig is nonsense when you consider which party went to war in the last decade. Even the great conservative thinker William Buckley thought the right had lost its way in aligning itself so heavily with Bush's war policies.
Furthermore progressive tax= empire expansion is such a dodge. Canada currently has a progressive tax system has very little military power to project overseas. One does not equal the other. It's true yours disappears into the blackhole that is the military, but ours by and large goes into social programs.
We, the ron paul camp arent hiding anywhere. Dont take that military spending money, and put it into social welfare programs. just cut it out and balance the budget. cut military spending before welfare spending is a great idea.
Well you can't cut the defense budget without pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, half the budget i believe although this may have been numbers in 2009 was operational costs not including interest on debt. That being said it probably be easier to pull out of those area's then actually get effective medicare/medicade along with social security reform the pass on though as the recipients of such plans are part of the largest voting demographic.
The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
[quote] With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does.
Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus.
The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that.
[quote]
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
It can't be the video is dated march 31st it has nothing to do with obama's current proposal http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact which is dated sept 8th
1.6 trillion dollars is this years budget short fall you make that up you start to reduce the defect, that video tries to take all that from the 3.8 trillion dollar expenditure for the year, ie it's playing you. It ignored what is already established revenue for the federal government which in large part is income tax and social insurance payments which in large part is payed by both the rich and the not so rich already. It also uses the word profits from previous years which likely wouldn't include what was already taxed away(profits is a broad term).
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
I have no confidence in the federal government's execution on creating jobs. Look at Solyndra. That's a total loss of more than half a billion dollars in loans on 1000 jobs that lasted less than 2 years and Solyndra only lasted that long because it had other investors that got wiped out, too. Growth rates of 0% is better than creating jobs that require a million dollars of new money to sustain.
OTOH, the Republicans aren't going to get us out of debt either. It's pretty hopeless.
On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote: [quote]
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
It can't be the video is dated march 31st it has nothing to do with obama's current proposal http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact which is dated sept 8th
1.6 trillion dollars is this years budget short fall you make that up you start to reduce the defect, that video tries to take all that from the 3.8 trillion dollar expenditure for the year, ie it's playing you. It ignored what is already established revenue for the federal government which in large part is income tax and social insurance payments which in large part is payed by both the rich and the not so rich already. It also uses the word profits from previous years which likely wouldn't include what was already taxed away(profits is a broad term).
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
The spending is preserving jobs that aren't pulling their own weight, and it also makes the economy worse and worse.
Spending needs to be cut, and labor laws need to be removed for the most part so that the cost of labor can decline to a point where there's enough demand for it to give people jobs. It won't happen immediately, but continuously spending money on stimuli that don't create anything but simply allow people to preserve jobs that are not creating any wealth, and are not worth the pay that they receive is a much worse decision.
I don't want jobs and a growing econ. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a growing econ right now without the recession, and a contraction. at this point I JUST want them to cut debt, because that IS possible... for now, while the interest on our debt is still only 10% of our income.
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
I have no confidence in the federal government's execution on creating jobs. Look at Solyndra. That's a total loss of more than half a billion dollars in loans on 1000 jobs that lasted less than 2 years and Solyndra only lasted that long because it had other investors that got wiped out, too. Growth rates of 0% is better than creating jobs that require a million dollars of new money to sustain.
OTOH, the Republicans aren't going to get us out of debt either. It's pretty hopeless.
Solyndra was 1 company, also privite venture invested double to what the government did =p so what does that say about private venture?
$38.6 billion loan guarantee program 535? million to Solyndra which didn't work out, 1.3% of that loan guarantee program The expected failure rate was like 5% to 10% of the loans if you're just counting what has been loaned out already thats put it around 3% for the failure of solyndra Tax payer losses i've seen numbers around 525 million clearly a big loss on that investment If the program kept/ gained 65k jobs is hard to say after all it's all speculation to if a job would have been lost if not for the influx of cash etc.
On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote: [quote] His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
It can't be the video is dated march 31st it has nothing to do with obama's current proposal http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact which is dated sept 8th
1.6 trillion dollars is this years budget short fall you make that up you start to reduce the defect, that video tries to take all that from the 3.8 trillion dollar expenditure for the year, ie it's playing you. It ignored what is already established revenue for the federal government which in large part is income tax and social insurance payments which in large part is payed by both the rich and the not so rich already. It also uses the word profits from previous years which likely wouldn't include what was already taxed away(profits is a broad term).
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
The spending is preserving jobs that aren't pulling their own weight, and it also makes the economy worse and worse.
Spending needs to be cut, and labor laws need to be removed for the most part so that the cost of labor can decline to a point where there's enough demand for it to give people jobs. It won't happen immediately, but continuously spending money on stimuli that don't create anything but simply allow people to preserve jobs that are not creating any wealth, and are not worth the pay that they receive is a much worse decision.
I don't want jobs and a growing econ. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a growing econ right now without the recession, and a contraction. at this point I JUST want them to cut debt, because that IS possible... for now, while the interest on our debt is still only 10% of our income.
And what happens when you cut out the 1.6 let's make it 2 trillion of the budget so we have a budget surplus and maybe could start paying off debt how many goverment jobs have just been lost? how many programs for the poor and elderly have you cut causing more job losses. Sense the bottom half of the american population spends shit ton more then they save it means they drive the consumer economy hurting them means stores cannot move products so they have to cut back, cut backs means ppl are less willing to invest as it's a shaky market, hell banks barely loan out as it is. long term it sets the economy to shrink not grow. Short term maybe small growth or just a flat no growth
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
I have no confidence in the federal government's execution on creating jobs. Look at Solyndra. That's a total loss of more than half a billion dollars in loans on 1000 jobs that lasted less than 2 years and Solyndra only lasted that long because it had other investors that got wiped out, too. Growth rates of 0% is better than creating jobs that require a million dollars of new money to sustain.
OTOH, the Republicans aren't going to get us out of debt either. It's pretty hopeless.
Solyndra was 1 company, also privite venture invested double to what the government did =p so what does that say about private venture?
$38.6 billion loan guarantee program 535? million to Solyndra which didn't work out, 1.3% of that loan guarantee program The expected failure rate was like 5% to 10% of the loans if you're just counting what has been loaned out already thats put it around 3% for the failure of solyndra Tax payer losses i've seen numbers around 525 million clearly a big loss on that investment If the program kept/ gained 65k jobs is hard to say after all it's all speculation to if a job would have been lost if not for the influx of cash etc.
Yeah, an absolute failure that we so far know about. The private equity also chased Solyndra because the DoE and the Obama administration telegraphed its commitment to green energy. What's a better bet than being on the better side of a government guarantee.
The entire solar generation industry is subsidy driven around the world. Given the current sovereign debt crisis around the world, solar and renewables are bad position to be investing. That doesn't matter though because politicians have to pay back their donors, and that applies to both sides of the aisle. Some Republicans have to keep those energy subsidies for coal and oil coming too.
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
I have no confidence in the federal government's execution on creating jobs. Look at Solyndra. That's a total loss of more than half a billion dollars in loans on 1000 jobs that lasted less than 2 years and Solyndra only lasted that long because it had other investors that got wiped out, too. Growth rates of 0% is better than creating jobs that require a million dollars of new money to sustain.
OTOH, the Republicans aren't going to get us out of debt either. It's pretty hopeless.
Solyndra was 1 company, also privite venture invested double to what the government did =p so what does that say about private venture?
$38.6 billion loan guarantee program 535? million to Solyndra which didn't work out, 1.3% of that loan guarantee program The expected failure rate was like 5% to 10% of the loans if you're just counting what has been loaned out already thats put it around 3% for the failure of solyndra Tax payer losses i've seen numbers around 525 million clearly a big loss on that investment If the program kept/ gained 65k jobs is hard to say after all it's all speculation to if a job would have been lost if not for the influx of cash etc.
On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote: [quote]
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
At what point do you stop taking from those that have nothing to give, to those that do? Where does it end?
Slippery slope arguments go nowhere. Stick to the proposal put before you by Obama, not to some far flung distant future.
The proposal is, that people that are getting away with taxation-murder, are going to have to start paying their fair share. What's wrong with that?
It can't be the video is dated march 31st it has nothing to do with obama's current proposal http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact which is dated sept 8th
1.6 trillion dollars is this years budget short fall you make that up you start to reduce the defect, that video tries to take all that from the 3.8 trillion dollar expenditure for the year, ie it's playing you. It ignored what is already established revenue for the federal government which in large part is income tax and social insurance payments which in large part is payed by both the rich and the not so rich already. It also uses the word profits from previous years which likely wouldn't include what was already taxed away(profits is a broad term).
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
The spending is preserving jobs that aren't pulling their own weight, and it also makes the economy worse and worse.
Spending needs to be cut, and labor laws need to be removed for the most part so that the cost of labor can decline to a point where there's enough demand for it to give people jobs. It won't happen immediately, but continuously spending money on stimuli that don't create anything but simply allow people to preserve jobs that are not creating any wealth, and are not worth the pay that they receive is a much worse decision.
I don't want jobs and a growing econ. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a growing econ right now without the recession, and a contraction. at this point I JUST want them to cut debt, because that IS possible... for now, while the interest on our debt is still only 10% of our income.
And what happens when you cut out the 1.6 let's make it 2 trillion of the budget so we have a budget surplus and maybe could start paying off debt how many goverment jobs have just been lost? how many programs for the poor and elderly have you cut causing more job losses. Sense the bottom half of the american population spends shit ton more then they save it means they drive the consumer economy hurting them means stores cannot move products so they have to cut back, cut backs means ppl are less willing to invest as it's a shaky market, hell banks barely loan out as it is. long term it sets the economy to shrink not grow. Short term maybe small growth or just a flat no growth
Of course... because that's how real economy works... the economy NEEDS to shrink, because a lot of the jobs are unsustainable.
First of all government jobs don't create anything they're part of the bureaucracy. So when you cut them (of course in places where the budget needs to get cut anyways like regulation,) you basically just stop giving people a government hand-out of a considerable amount of cash (when compared to a welfare hand-out at least.) for doing work that does nothing positive in the country...
all those government jobs that oversee policies that are responsible for our struggling economy are triple-dipping on the economy hurt... 1) you're paying people money when we're in deficit 2) the people aren't creating anything or providing a service that anyone would actually be willing to pay that amount for, 3) the job is part of government program which hurts the economy... other government jobs that aren't as bad double dip, and some that are somewhat necessarily like police, and etc. only hurts us once (but police is state funded anyways.)
as for people that are gonna come off welfare... well they'll have a better shot at finding jobs once regulations are repealed. are some people going to be working for extremely low wages for a bit just to sustain themselves? probably... But as of right now they're funded by the government with money that's being printed, and is stealing purchasing power from the rest of the people (and it hurts the lower class that has jobs the most) so eventually the whole "living for extremely low wages just to sustain yourself" thing will happen anyways, just to way more people, while there are still some on government welfare.
and as for the consumer... that's the whole problem. We're spending more than we're producing. a lot of people that have jobs now that are protected by the government spending are jobs the services of which people shouldn't be able to afford in the first place, and it only sends either the people or the government into more debt, which of course will either lead to the eventual default and currency reconstruction (which will be pre-phased with hyperinflation) or it will make the recession/contraction a lot worse.
edit:
and the last part.. as for the banks... banks shouldn't be lending. why do you think interest rates are so low? they're to encourage banks to lend. They're artificial rates. all the banks which proceed to lend at these rates will default when the rates go up (and the rates MUST go up in order for savings to ever occur.)
Why do interest rates exist in the first place? They first of all hedge the risk of default by the loaner for the bank, they also reflect the supply - demand interaction for money. Right now rates should go up, once they go up banks will be more willing to loan, but less people will be willing to lend. Instead people will start to try to repay their debt, and then possibly save. Once a lot of people are saving the rates will be able to go back down again, because obviously if no one is lending, and everyone is loaning money to the bank, they're gonna want to lower the rates to pay less interest.
Of course... higher rates will lead to less people wanting to borrow to invest, but that's a good thing, because there's not that many people actually willing to lend in the first place, so every time a bank gives out a loan, most of it comes from the money they get from the FED, which of course has a chance of being no longer guaranteed because a lot of people want to shut it down, so that's why banks are cautious about lending now, even with these low rates.
On September 21 2011 08:06 Kiarip wrote: The defense spendings are huge, but the spendings on the actual military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq don't compare at all in costs to the defense spendings or the social security or medicaid. Kinda makes you wonder how many operations the government may be running without the people knowing about it.
anyways... Ron Paul for example said he would literally immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq... but that won't be enough to cut the deficit. Not even close. Still he would rather cut spending than raise taxes, and that's a good thing imo. The problem with all the taxing that the Left wants to do is that they try to use the money they save on the tax-cuts immediately on their garbage programs. I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats won't get us out of Debt. That's why they propose these plans to cut "a trillion over 10 years," because then they can spend a whole lot now, while saying that most of the cuts should come later, but the government will not be mandated to make those cuts once they get there, not to mention the fact that a trillion in 10 years is nowhere near enough.
You do know cuts to programs show a direct link to increase in unemployment and slows the econ, take at look at any of the EU nations under heavy austerity measures their growth is often 0%. You want to cut debt but you want jobs and a growing econ? That's apples and oranges.
I have no confidence in the federal government's execution on creating jobs. Look at Solyndra. That's a total loss of more than half a billion dollars in loans on 1000 jobs that lasted less than 2 years and Solyndra only lasted that long because it had other investors that got wiped out, too. Growth rates of 0% is better than creating jobs that require a million dollars of new money to sustain.
OTOH, the Republicans aren't going to get us out of debt either. It's pretty hopeless.
Solyndra was 1 company, also privite venture invested double to what the government did =p so what does that say about private venture?
$38.6 billion loan guarantee program 535? million to Solyndra which didn't work out, 1.3% of that loan guarantee program The expected failure rate was like 5% to 10% of the loans if you're just counting what has been loaned out already thats put it around 3% for the failure of solyndra Tax payer losses i've seen numbers around 525 million clearly a big loss on that investment If the program kept/ gained 65k jobs is hard to say after all it's all speculation to if a job would have been lost if not for the influx of cash etc.
Yeah, an absolute failure that we so far know about. The private equity also chased Solyndra because the DoE and the Obama administration telegraphed its commitment to green energy. What's a better bet than being on the better side of a government guarantee.
The entire solar generation industry is subsidy driven around the world. Given the current sovereign debt crisis around the world, solar and renewables are bad position to be investing. That doesn't matter though because politicians have to pay back their donors, and that applies to both sides of the aisle. Some Republicans have to keep those energy subsidies for coal and oil coming too.
solar energy is good idea, but in it's current forms pretty much based off what bell labs did years ago it's a dirty teach, it requires the use of hydrocarbons to create solar panels. Things like solar water heating would be better among other things but pretty much something has to change in how we make solar energy into electricity else it's not a very green, green energy.
as far as solyndra it was a good idea back when the price of silicon was sky high but after the silicon market crash, due to speculation oh hey! lookie there, solyndra wasn't gonna work out when this corresponds to the bid and then granting of the loan ionno i'd have to look up. But finding shit on solyndra is tuff i keep getting the same story about it's failure :_
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/c/ca/Workweek_development_de.svg/800px-Workweek_development_de.svg.png)
