|
On September 22 2011 18:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 17:57 Zergneedsfood wrote:On September 22 2011 17:05 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 16:52 sleepingdog wrote:On September 22 2011 16:28 Kiarip wrote:
nothing at this point will actually create jobs, but tax cuts are better for our economy than the stimulus. the "tax cuts are better than government spending" is so pre 2000....I'm sorry, but even though we still don't know shit about economics (compared to biology, physics, etc. economics is still very far behind) this sentence is so unbelievably over-simplified, nobody should ever use it again...ever there are a million situations where tax cuts are better and a million situations where stimulus is better ok... RIGHT NOW, tax cuts are better than stimulus. I disagree. Businesses are sitting on more corporate wealth than ever before. There's no reason why a tax cut would suddenly give them the incentive to spend. The issue is demand related. When polled (according to The Economist), most small businesses cite lack of customers coming into their store as a reason why they feel their business isn't doing so well, and hence unwilling to spend more money than they have to. The recession has made businesses a lot more streamlined and efficient because a lot of companies are switching over to automated systems, which removes jobs. Simple economics solutions like "tax cuts", thus, are completely ignoring why the economy is not growing. Also, why is nobody arguing that the reason why the economy still blows is because we lost over $7 trillion in household wealth because of the mortgage crash? 1/5 have mortgages worth more than their homes (at least I think that's the right statistic). Whenever I hear people say "Oh the stimulus fucking sucked and didn't work", I always ask them "Dude, we lost well over $7 trillion in the crash in household wealth alone, and you're expecting a mere $1.4 trillion to cover for that?" Then they just reiterate the same thing to me and I stop talking because I get tired and bored. x) People are too busy deleveraging, which is why a tax cut won't fuel any growth.  It's ridiculous that you conclude that we lost anything in the crash, when the crash followed a build up of a bubble which created a lot of fake equity. The burst of the bubble is simply the elimination of the fake equity. Yes it takes a down-turn, but a recession is needed in order to balance the marketplace. We weren't allowed to have a recession back then but it's not gonna matter, it's gonna happen eventually and the later it happens the worse it's gonna be.
Okay, let's assume that the equity was "fake" (I'd argue that they were just artificially high, not fake. Difference in connotation.). The loans people took out were real (even though they couldn't pay them back). A lot of people got screwed over regardless of whether or not they could properly pay back loans. The reality is this: people took out loans, they can't pay back those loans, and now, with their wealth gone, things have gone bad.
The issue of demand, lost wealth, and debts still exist, regardless if it was just "fake" equity that we're talking about. And again, tax cuts still don't solve.
The burst of the bubble isn't just some mechanism to get rid of useless things in the economy, 08 crash was a lot different because people were selling junk assets and toxic loans that were eventually going to go bad, and when they did the bubble burst. That's reality, and it's not some theory on how bubbles have historically worked.
|
On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself.
I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this.
By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.)
This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
free trade is good enough in theory that it at least is a genuine thing you'd want to try and make use of to improve general welfare for all involved. the 'left' should not be against free trade, rather, be for good governance and labor conditions in the countries designated cheap labor sources to improve worker conditions there.
in the grand scheme of things, if americans suffer a loss of standard of living so that some 3rd world countries can better develop, then that's an acceptable step in development.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 22 2011 19:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself. I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this. By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.) This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained.
charitable deductions is still on last time i checked.
yes govt needs to improve its efficiency, but at that operational level govt and corporations are faced with the same problems, except govt problems are sometimes harder to complete.
now, the quoted 'analysis' attempts to portray the issue as one of simple efficiency, probably some sort of 'short term contribution towards economic growth' idea on a most charitable interpretation. but that is not the only criteria w which to evaluate a social investment. there are redistributive and social value ideals at play here too.
overall pretty good post though considering the ironic username.
|
On September 22 2011 19:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself. I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this. By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.) This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained.
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
What strikes me is that it seems people really don't believe in democracy and in politics at all. They see the government as some kind of vaguely necessary stuff that needs to be reduced to the minimum because it's ruled by stupid people anyway.
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you.
|
On September 22 2011 17:53 Kiarip wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 17:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 17:05 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 16:52 sleepingdog wrote:On September 22 2011 16:28 Kiarip wrote:
nothing at this point will actually create jobs, but tax cuts are better for our economy than the stimulus. the "tax cuts are better than government spending" is so pre 2000....I'm sorry, but even though we still don't know shit about economics (compared to biology, physics, etc. economics is still very far behind) this sentence is so unbelievably over-simplified, nobody should ever use it again...ever there are a million situations where tax cuts are better and a million situations where stimulus is better ok... RIGHT NOW, tax cuts are better than stimulus. So are you ignoring my request for you to back up your claim? I'm no economist so please explain to me why it's good to give money to the people that are just going to sit on it instead of to the people that are going to spend it and increase demand? Ok first let's start with the fact that stimulus doesn't work... It only protects jobs that aren't pulling their weight in the first place. The taxes used to get the money for the stimulus, and the inflation that the printing of money causes can actually destroy jobs that are pulling their own weight. The problem with spending is that we will spend them on foreign products (80% of products at walmart are chinese for example) so which americans will benefit from these purchases? I'll tell you which, the ones that are in the service sector jobs doing the selling of these foreign products. Our own production doesn't grow from it, only the parts of our economy that help us consume the imports from other countries grows from it (at least for the most part.) Overall you have to understand how the business cycle works to understand why the stimulus is bad. It's late here, so this video that was posted in another thread will save me some time to explain it. The overall problem is that the consumption for a large part worsens our trade deficit. We're importing more than we're exporting, so we're consuming our way into debt. If there was no stimulus, yes a lot of these service consumption jobs would be lost, but these are jobs that our current economy can't sustain anyways. Trade deficit causes currency devaluation which is also bad. Now why it's bad to tax to rich... well it's not quite as bad as the deficit spending, but it's still bad. Right now a lot of rich people are sitting on their money because they've realized that the cheap money provided by the FED is a fraud and they're all scared about what's going to happen. In essence they don't want to blow up another bubble. In 1995s it was the dot-com bubble, then the housing bubble both of these things to an extent were results of the low interest rates, because if the rates are low you're inclined to invest, because your return on savings are so low... but of course we've learned that the bubbles lead to a crash and people don't want that, so the economic situation is unstable and people are hesitant. Obviously you can tax the rich to cut the deficit, and then it will be even less profitable to run businesses and some may go out of business, and others may take some portions of their money out of the market, but it's not THaT bad to tax them as long as you're just using this money to help pay the deficit while also cutting the spending. It becomes very bad when you start trying to redistribute this money because that in turn coordinates the private sector spending which is actually a bad thing... and of course if the rates went up people would spend less, and it would make the entire idea of stimulus seem rather silly, but in reality the rates must go up in order for people to pay off their debts, and in order for the market to once again accumulate enough resources for sound investments to be made.
I think the rational behind it is that the richest the rich get, the more they invest. That's Adam Smith argument: the reason that we allow people to get super rich is that they provide work by investing and employing people.
When you consider that a vast majority of financial operation now are speculative; and that speculation don't produce anything, you see the limit of that reasoning.
See this is a misconception.The real rationale behind this is the following: If the rich spend their money on non-investments... then who cares? They're spending their money like anyone else would. If the rich SIT on their money, then what in fact they're doing is leaving the resources in the marketplace. This would be very evident if our system wasn't so broken because we DO have such a high wealth disparity right now. Because if the rich that have the majority of the money, don't use it to purchase the majority of the products (which they should be able to do technically since they have proportionally more money.) Then they're leaving those products in the economy, so what that does is drive the prices of those goods down, which in turn creates the opportunities for investment to use those goods. The money that the rich sit on is actually the money that grows the economy, because if they isolate those assets from the rest of the people, this diminishes the money supply which in turn drives the purchasing power of currency up, and drives the prices down, which grows the economy. as for the speculation... a lot of this just has to do with the fact that the rates are too low. The rates are low so putting your money in the banks isn't profitable, and also isn't safe given that if the rates go up the banks will probably fail, so they speculate instead. If the rates go up then speculation will go down considerably. Look at how much the commodities have gone up... It's because they're being used to hedge inflation, that's normally part of the purpose of the interest rates, but the interest rates aren't anywhere near what the real levels of inflation are right now .
Why do you feel it helps your cause by posting a video by a guy from a fringe of economics? A guy who teaches at the mises institute in alabama, a breeding pond for fox news commentators and fringe economists that arent taken serious in academia? A guy who published exclusively in fringe publications? A guy who exclusively learned history? Whose most popular online course argues that the catholic church was the founder of modern society that gave us law and morals?
(I admit that I had fun with the podcast. The parts I heard are so enragingly twisting history, it seems like satire)
All this is ad hominem of course and does not discredit anything he says or you say. Same as it wouldn't discredit me posting economic theory of marxists, trotskyists or stalinists.
Mix this in with the rest of the post which hints at protectionism, the unfounded and discredited laffer curve, ignorance of basics like gains of trade and monetary policy and finally ignorance of what you attack: the stimulus. Not even economists, who largely deem the stimulus as ineffective, would say that "it saves jobs that shouldn't be there".
tl;dr: -censored-
|
On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:14 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself. I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this. By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.) This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained. Elect a government that spends money wisely. I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else. What strikes me is that it seems people really don't believe in democracy and in politics at all. They see the government as some kind of vaguely necessary stuff that needs to be reduced to the minimum because it's ruled by stupid people anyway. Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you.
With you on that: Elect a government that spends money wisely. Amen. Research politicians, ask them the tough questions, keep yourself apprised on where the money goes / growth of certain programs / sustainability of outlays. Still aghast on the mental check-out that occurs from the crowd assuming all politicians are corrupt and whose actions should never be taken notice of. The same politicians that would like nothing better than for you to occasionally hear about getting government money to help you out, and never worry about funding it. Or, to put it in this thread's context, only think that the rich like Warren Buffet will have to pay for it. Quite the attraction.
But if you're the informed populace devoting some thoughts to what services/agencies/regulations the government ought to provide, and the means of providing them, then we can have more talk about the budget and less just about recent news articles about less than .01% of the budget.
~Danglars, ironic in this thread for being the Dumas's villain driven by greed, though named for playing a character allied with evil on a computer game, oneofthem.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do!
On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits?
On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you.
Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human.
|
On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human.
Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids.
I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results.
For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy.
|
On September 23 2011 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human. Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids. I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results. For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy.
That's just plain naive. You should trust neither implicitly, but realize that you need both in a continuous power struggle if you, the little guy, is going to make any headway in society. The moment either of the big power forces takes over (public or private), we're all in for a world of hurt. Look at US history all the way up to the 1950s, and all of the atrocities committed towards other human beings in the name of profit, for what happens when the private sector has no regulation and look at the USSR or Nazi Germany for what happens when the government controls everything. Neither of those system works. Like it or not, we thrive when put under competition.
I think people argue over trump change too much in these debates and are missing the real elephant in the room; the way things currently operate, neither group of US politicians is going to have the cajones to reduce spending in order to pay back the deficit. They'll always pass the buck on to the next administration, under the guise of spending now in order to improve the economy so that we're in a better position to pay it back later. This concept was adopted the moment Keynesian Economics made its appearance in the 1950s. But, it hasn't worked in the last 50-60 years, not because I believe Keynesian economics is wrong, but because they only enact expansionary policy, never contractionary. In order for it to work, the government needs to raise taxes and reduce spending during times of economic growth, but they don't, because maintaining expansionary policy during those periods is just too tempting and it takes it a politician with major balls to tell the country "Okay, fun's over. Time to pay back those bills.". It's political suicide.
Doesn't matter how much more money the government gets, doesn't matter which political party it is, only an administration with selfless conviction or, even scarier, nothing to lose is going to pull that brake.
|
On September 23 2011 01:15 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human. Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids. I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results. For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy. That's just plain naive. You should trust neither implicitly, but realize that you need both in a continuous power struggle if you, the little guy, is going to make any headway in society. The moment either of the big power forces takes over (public or private), we're all in for a world of hurt. Look at US history all the way up to the 1950s, and all of the atrocities committed towards other human beings in the name of profit, for what happens when the private sector has no regulation and look at the USSR or Nazi Germany for what happens when the government controls everything. Neither of those system works. Like it or not, we thrive when put under competition.
Obviously you need a balance. I never said the opposite.
Do you think Republicans and other right wingers want any kind of balance? Now, I am a European leftist (I vote French socialist party), which is for a compromise that in my opinion doesn't let too much power to private interest and still let the good sides of a liberal society work at their best.
I am not a Stalinist, and if it seems that I am advocating an all powerful state that controls everything, I really haven't been clear.
|
On September 23 2011 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:15 Bibdy wrote:On September 23 2011 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human. Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids. I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results. For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy. That's just plain naive. You should trust neither implicitly, but realize that you need both in a continuous power struggle if you, the little guy, is going to make any headway in society. The moment either of the big power forces takes over (public or private), we're all in for a world of hurt. Look at US history all the way up to the 1950s, and all of the atrocities committed towards other human beings in the name of profit, for what happens when the private sector has no regulation and look at the USSR or Nazi Germany for what happens when the government controls everything. Neither of those system works. Like it or not, we thrive when put under competition. Obviously you need a balance. I never said the opposite. Do you think Republicans and other right wingers want any kind of balance? Now, I am a European leftist (I vote French socialist party), which is for a compromise that in my opinion doesn't let too much power to private interest and still let the good sides of a liberal society work at their best. I am not a Stalinist, and if it seems that I am advocating an all powerful state that controls everything, I really haven't been clear.
Of course they do, they're politicians after all. It's their job to keep themselves having a job. They just adopted the 'free market' tagline to gain their half of supporters and one can readily conclude that their main supporters are the wealthy, so they're the ones they need to appease (luckily for them they've also got a base in the fundamental religious crowd who are generally too stupid to realize they're being manipulated by the Republicans as they appeal to 'family values', and their positions on various controversial topics like gay marriage, abortion etc.).
If the Republicans win the next election, the first thing that will happen is that spending will go up. People will question why. Their excuse will be that "It takes time to reduce the momentum of such a large machine" or equivalent. After more time has passed, the excuse will be that "The economy is in a good state, so we're now in the process of stimulating it in order to regain our true prosperity!" or equivalent. If we haven't hit an economic crash by that point, which is something almost completely out of their control, they'll claim that they know the true path to economic prosperity and campaign on that. If they do hit a crash, they'll blame the policies enacted by Obama (in truth, enacted by Bush, refined and continued by Obama) and campaign on that instead. Politics is all smoke and mirrors. Politicians and truth is like oil and water. You can't force them to mix.
Meanwhile, I have only a slim hope that giving Obama a second term will give him more time to do what needs to be done. Every first-term president is predominantly occupied with capturing that second term. Only when they have it, do you see what kind of mettle they're made of. I wonder if we'd see less political inaction if we reduced the term-limits on every position in office, but fat chance they're going to vote in a bill that reduces each individual politicians power.
|
On September 23 2011 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human. Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids. I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results. For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy.
While I do agree with most of what you've said, I'm not quite sure a lack of democracy is the problem. For a democracy to function we really need educated people voting, and not these votes based on ignorance and/or biased speech spread by our media. Democracy is necessity and we do need a better and more robust democratic system, I will never argue against that, but I still believe that it is still not a core issue when it comes to our current economic crisis.
|
On September 22 2011 06:59 bre1010 wrote:Show nested quote +Everyone is equal under the law, if the ''super rich'' need to pay more taxes than the rest of the people, then you are basically saying ''hey, they are better than the rest''. Is it fair for everybody else, no, but if you start with taxes, what else will the '' better people'' have under the law that ''normal'' people can't have? That argument doesn't make any sense. By NOT taxing the rich, we're basically saying they're better people.
If they aren't being taxed anything (wich I dont think is the case) then I agree, they should be taxed their fair share like everybody else and thats it, if not, THATs saying they aare better.
|
While we're all arguing over tax rates and welfare and all sorts of social programs, let's take a quick look over at Michigan. Rick Snyder, elected as governor last January, has recently passed his "Emergency Financial Manager" laws. A pretty good example of conservative law, especially a lot of what's being discussed here. Tax breaks for corporations, paid for by massive welfare cuts, and small tax increases for the poor.
From: http://michiganwro.blogspot.com/2011/09/sacrificing-children-to-enrich.html
As of October 1, 2011: 11,000 people will be cut off from welfare benefits, and that will continue through until 40,000 people are eliminated from the system. 75% of these people are children, with the average age of 7 years old.
Unemployment insurance cut from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.
Anyone attending a college is no longer eligible for food aid.
Lifelong cap of 48 months for anyone receiving assistance.
This, (and more changes listed in the links) will save Michigan roughly $68 million.
And to boot, he's also passing tax cuts for corporations. (more info on the proposed laws can also be found here)
AND increasing tax rates for the poor.
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AsNvxPg2iXQ/TnUjfwGOVXI/AAAAAAAAATg/PVxNWd1VC58/s400/SnyderIncomeTaxProposals.png)
Raising taxes on low income brackets, slashing welfare benefits for children, taxing the pensions of retired workers, and *cutting* corporate taxes. For all their talk of creating jobs, all I see is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.
Is this what you guys had in mind when you talk about welfare and taxes?
edit: broken links, should work now
|
On September 20 2011 22:38 AdrianHealey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 22:30 Brotkrumen wrote:
It's the Bilderburgs again!
Also, care for data freely accessible on the web? Well, if it makes you feel any better, I do not believe that the Bilderbergs are taking over the world, do not believe 9/11 is an inside job, do not believe the world is run by Reptiles, do believe that Alex Jones is nuts and many, many more common sense ideas.
Interesting and possibly unrelated fact:
Alex Jones (The preacher of freedom, liberty, and the 1st amendment) blocks people who refute or debunk his claims from posting comments to his youtube videos. This even happened to me.
Moreover, its illogical to suggest groups like Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission have an agenda to take over the world. If you were even on the verge of being able to prove it, you'd be taking it to the courtrooms.
|
On September 22 2011 19:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself. I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this. By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.) This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained.
I am pretty sure he is giving his money to B&G Foundation because he believes that the people in Africa that can't even get clean water need his money more than the American Government. It isn't hypocritical at all.
|
On September 23 2011 08:02 Haemonculus wrote:While we're all arguing over tax rates and welfare and all sorts of social programs, let's take a quick look over at Michigan. Rick Snyder, elected as governor last January, has recently passed his "Emergency Financial Manager" laws. A pretty good example of conservative law, especially a lot of what's being discussed here. Tax breaks for corporations, paid for by massive welfare cuts, and small tax increases for the poor. From: http://michiganwro.blogspot.com/2011/09/sacrificing-children-to-enrich.htmlAs of October 1, 2011: 11,000 people will be cut off from welfare benefits, and that will continue through until 40,000 people are eliminated from the system. 75% of these people are children, with the average age of 7 years old.
Unemployment insurance cut from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.
Anyone attending a college is no longer eligible for food aid.
Lifelong cap of 48 months for anyone receiving assistance.
This, (and more changes listed in the links) will save Michigan roughly $68 million.
And to boot, he's also passing tax cuts for corporations. (more info on the proposed laws can also be found here) AND increasing tax rates for the poor.Raising taxes on low income brackets, slashing welfare benefits for children, taxing the pensions of retired workers, and *cutting* corporate taxes. For all their talk of creating jobs, all I see is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Is this what you guys had in mind when you talk about welfare and taxes? edit: broken links, should work now
That is just scary. Take money from the kids who need it and give it to the corporations who will only use the money to increase the pay of CEO's. It truly sickens me.
|
On September 22 2011 19:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 Djzapz wrote:Warren Buffet fightiiiing! Small times TL experts with their lack of an education have cute little opinions sometimes :D Come on guys. This guy is not an imbecile. On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. A government too incompetent tax him properly may not deserve his money. Plus, he's talking about the system, not just himself. I love reading over 57 pages of text and really seeing gems like this. By pretending that government knows how to spend his money better (tax me more!) and then willing it away privately (wait, on second thought, government might not spend money better than me.) This contradiction really hits at the core of it for me. The very same government that ought to take more of the money from the rich is the very last place you want the money going, as so much of it is spent unwisely. Which is why I say the attention needs to be on how the money is spent and not how the money is gained.
There's nothing wrong with what he is doing. If he decides to give the money that he believes the government deserves, it won't prove anything. He'll be the only one, removing a grain of sand from the beach that is the US debt. He says the rich is being under taxed, which not only includes him, but everyone else as well. He isn't asking for the rich to be donating money to the government, but for the tax code to be changed. Him paying the government won't accomplish that, and it will in fact do the opposite, since if he starts to spoon feed the government with money, they will never realize how broken the tax system is.
|
On September 23 2011 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:15 Bibdy wrote:On September 23 2011 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 00:11 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Elect a government that spends money wisely.
Ohhhh! If it were that simple a task to do! On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think money is spent very wisely in France, I don't see why it couldn't be the same anywhere else.
How about the EU in Brussels, Councils, Parliament, and Committee? Does that spend money wisely?? Then, take that same political body and give it 4 trillion dollars to spend. Does it improve its spending habits? On September 22 2011 19:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, this is your government, this is your State, which represent your society. If it's that bad, maybe something is wrong with all of you. Members of society are mostly selfish, mostly ego-centric, partly generous, social animals, and a spectrum of talent and ambitions. They are, in short, human. Although they lack imagination, I think most of our politicians are clever, genuinely interested by what they are doing and generally rather honest. I trust them way more than any bank CEO or any billionaire to take care of my health or to create an efficient education system for my kids. I don't think Europe is "wasting money". What I think is that European institutions lacks dramatically one thing: democracy. They are not transparent enough, not democratic enough, citizen don't have enough power on the decisions taken. If anything, Europe is mostly technocratic and bureaucratic. That doesn't give good results. For your third point, how could I disagree? What I am saying is that it is not a necessity that the State or the politicians suck. If I hated French State and thought all administration had an agenda against their own citizens, I would really reconsider the idea that I am living in a democracy. That's just plain naive. You should trust neither implicitly, but realize that you need both in a continuous power struggle if you, the little guy, is going to make any headway in society. The moment either of the big power forces takes over (public or private), we're all in for a world of hurt. Look at US history all the way up to the 1950s, and all of the atrocities committed towards other human beings in the name of profit, for what happens when the private sector has no regulation and look at the USSR or Nazi Germany for what happens when the government controls everything. Neither of those system works. Like it or not, we thrive when put under competition. Obviously you need a balance. I never said the opposite. Do you think Republicans and other right wingers want any kind of balance? Now, I am a European leftist (I vote French socialist party), which is for a compromise that in my opinion doesn't let too much power to private interest and still let the good sides of a liberal society work at their best. I am not a Stalinist, and if it seems that I am advocating an all powerful state that controls everything, I really haven't been clear.
The last thing this country needs is to be taking notes from europe. No offense but you guys are in an exceedingly worse situation than we are, that has largely resulted from poor policy and excessive debt incurred from over bloated entitlement programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
