|
|
On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? One of the reasons why the job market is lagging behind is that US labor is not competitive within the global market. The US has some of the most intelligent people in the world, but it also has a lot of uneducated labor. I do not think we will see a large increase in manufacturing as the Chinese Yuan being pegged to the dollar makes their labor far too competitive in comparison to US labor. I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced.
This is absolutely correct. The United States simply cannot compete with rising economies in unskilled labor. But in order for US labor to become more skilled, education needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. Republicans want to effectively neuter education and its funding. Primary and secondary education in the US is pretty shitty; teachers are very hard to come by since it's low pay for extremely high demands and little benefits. Higher education is already extremely hard to obtain due to ridiculously high costs and extremely high interest rates on student loans. Republicans wish to not only cut funding to primary and secondary education, but to also cut federal funding for higher education, as well.
The Republican (Romney's) party is pursuing policies that are extremely beneficial to those who are already successful, but are detrimental to those who aren't. Republicans are no longer the fiscal conservatives you're thinking of. They are the ultra-conservative elite who are actively campaigning to keep the ignorant ignorant, the poor poor, and the rich richer. Obama has some shitty policies and our rights have been restricted far more under him than Bush. But at the very least, him and his party isn't actively trying to fuck our chances of fixing our future over. He is, quite simply, the far lesser of the two evils.
|
The problem with investing in education is it only helps your children... who would want to do that???
|
On July 24 2012 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. Does this suggest that we should treat these entities differently in tax law? Do we? How many specialized skills can there really be? Do you feel there is an arbitrary amount of work to be done?
I think there should be a distinction between what the company's owner takes home at the end of the day and what is reinvested into the company but I believe corporate tax is taken as a percentage of revenue, not profits.
As to the specialized skills: not enough. China is simply too competitive with their manufacturing and I simply don't believe that the management of companies will provide enough jobs for all. The best markets are those that can't be outsourced, such as carpenters or plumbers or construction. This is where the high immigration numbers become an issue as there is a surplus of unskilled labor. If you study a STEM field though, there will always be jobs for you, one needs to acquire a skill that is in demand if one wants to succeed. Much of the worlds technological innovation still comes from the United States so there is that advantage.
On July 24 2012 16:14 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? One of the reasons why the job market is lagging behind is that US labor is not competitive within the global market. The US has some of the most intelligent people in the world, but it also has a lot of uneducated labor. I do not think we will see a large increase in manufacturing as the Chinese Yuan being pegged to the dollar makes their labor far too competitive in comparison to US labor. I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. This is absolutely correct. The United States simply cannot compete with rising economies in unskilled labor. But in order for US labor to become more skilled, education needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. Republicans want to effectively neuter education and its funding. Primary and secondary education in the US is pretty shitty; teachers are very hard to come by since it's low pay for extremely high demands and little benefits. Higher education is already extremely hard to obtain due to ridiculously high costs and extremely high interest rates on student loans. Republicans wish to not only cut funding to primary and secondary education, but to also cut federal funding for higher education, as well. The Republican (Romney's) party is pursuing policies that are extremely beneficial to those who are already successful, but are detrimental to those who aren't. Republicans are no longer the fiscal conservatives you're thinking of. They are the ultra-conservative elite who are actively campaigning to keep the ignorant ignorant, the poor poor, and the rich richer. Obama has some shitty policies and our rights have been restricted far more under him than Bush. But at the very least, him and his party isn't actively trying to fuck our chances of fixing our future over. He is, quite simply, the far lesser of the two evils.
I feel one of the issues is too many people are going to private schools instead of public and studying degrees that don't really have futures. While I am Swiss, I go to a US public university (JMU) and I do not understand why anybody would pay out of state tuition when they need to take students loans. I have the luck of winning the genetic lottery and having parents who can afford out of state, but if I had to pay for my own tuition I would certainly go for the cheapest options. From what I have observed, too many people live beyond their means, spend all the money they earn and refuse to save. I think there will be a major crisis within the next ten years similar to that of Greece where things will take a dramatic turn for the worse.
Like I said, I don't agree with all of Romney's policies, but I see one as a gamble where you may come out okay and the other as the path towards bankruptcy. You really don't have much choice this time around though.
|
On July 24 2012 16:21 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. Does this suggest that we should treat these entities differently in tax law? Do we? I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. How many specialized skills can there really be? Do you feel there is an arbitrary amount of work to be done? I think there should be a distinction between what the company's owner takes home at the end of the day and what is reinvested into the company but I believe corporate tax is taken as a percentage of revenue, not profits.
Oh, I meant on large vs. small companies. Should we tax large companies more? that seems nice. Get some of that small business everybody's always talking so much about.
As to the specialized skills: not enough. China is simply too competitive with their manufacturing and I simply don't believe that the management of companies will provide enough jobs for all.
Well, thank god for that.
The best markets are those that can't be outsourced, such as carpenters or plumbers or construction.
Yes, we will be retrofitting all of our cities for energy efficiency, so these should be good for the next couple of decades, at least.
This is where the high immigration numbers become an issue as there is a surplus of unskilled labor.
Think globally. Borders are imaginary. If the world has a problem, it will affect you too.
If you study a STEM field though, there will always be jobs for you, one needs to acquire a skill that is in demand if one wants to succeed.
A what now?
Much of the worlds technological innovation still comes from the United States so there is that advantage.
You foresee this state of affairs continuing into the near future, as more and more of the global population becomes technologically literate?
|
On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want.
Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress.
Gridlock a-hoy!
|
On July 24 2012 16:21 Blurry wrote:
degrees that don't really have futures.
By this I assume you are talking about the humanities? Because I think that is the most short sighted of all.
|
On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +This is simply false. If you look at any and all statistics, you will see that price inflation has far outpaced that of income inflation. Prices have not changed to account for people making the same (or less) amount of money. Prices have actually increased. Purchasing power will indeed decrease and people wont be able to afford fewer luxury goods such as TVs but the necessities to survive will see a drop in price, particularly in housing which is one of the main expenditures of low income households. If I own a flat in the Bronx that I rent out for lets say 300 dollars a month. If tenants can no longer afford this I will have to lower the price or have the place be left vacant. I do not know enough about the food market to comment on how this would affect it but I expect a similar decrease in price. Americans will take quality of living hits across the board but this is unavoidable. I also don't agree with all of Romney's ideas, such as an increase in defense spending, but some social programs do need to be scaled back a bit.
Iunno man. The banks and shit had no problem foreclosing on thousands of homes a few years back... Even if the bare necessities do adjust, a decrease in purchasing power in the vast majority of American families is bad for the economy. It's basic Econ 101. Lower purchasing power = lower economic growth since no one can buy the goods or services being produced.
I will definitely have to check the numbers on this, but it's something like every family that makes less than $250,000 for a family of four will see a noticeable decrease in purchasing power and standard of living by 2015~2020. That's basically 90% of the US population. I don't care how rich and how much $$$ the top 10% of the population have, but 10% of the population isn't going to spend enough to outweigh the fact that 90% of the population are now spending much less.
|
Ite I settled on my vote based on a shirt in South Dakota: O.M.G.: Obama Must Go! Had me laughing so hard Romney earned a vote.
|
On July 24 2012 16:27 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:21 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. Does this suggest that we should treat these entities differently in tax law? Do we? I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. How many specialized skills can there really be? Do you feel there is an arbitrary amount of work to be done? I think there should be a distinction between what the company's owner takes home at the end of the day and what is reinvested into the company but I believe corporate tax is taken as a percentage of revenue, not profits. Oh, I meant on large vs. small companies. Should we tax large companies more? that seems nice. Get some of that small business everybody's always talking so much about. Show nested quote +
Much of the worlds technological innovation still comes from the United States so there is that advantage.
You foresee this state of affairs continuing into the near future, as more and more of the global population becomes technologically literate?
Corporate tax is on a sliding scale with different tax brackets so larger companies already have to pay more, which is the way it should be.
I see the United States staying the leader in technological innovation over somewhere like china, simply because China does not have enough patent protection. Chinese business practices are far more ruthless and often times technology is blatantly copied. This is not an environment that promotes innovation.
The country that has the potential to eventually overtake the US is India, as they also have a large number of highly intelligent skilled individuals.
On July 24 2012 16:31 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:This is simply false. If you look at any and all statistics, you will see that price inflation has far outpaced that of income inflation. Prices have not changed to account for people making the same (or less) amount of money. Prices have actually increased. Purchasing power will indeed decrease and people wont be able to afford fewer luxury goods such as TVs but the necessities to survive will see a drop in price, particularly in housing which is one of the main expenditures of low income households. If I own a flat in the Bronx that I rent out for lets say 300 dollars a month. If tenants can no longer afford this I will have to lower the price or have the place be left vacant. I do not know enough about the food market to comment on how this would affect it but I expect a similar decrease in price. Americans will take quality of living hits across the board but this is unavoidable. I also don't agree with all of Romney's ideas, such as an increase in defense spending, but some social programs do need to be scaled back a bit. Iunno man. The banks and shit had no problem foreclosing on thousands of homes a few years back... Even if the bare necessities do adjust, a decrease in purchasing power in the vast majority of American families is bad for the economy. It's basic Econ 101. Lower purchasing power = lower economic growth since no one can buy the goods or services being produced. I will definitely have to check the numbers on this, but it's something like every family that makes less than $250,000 for a family of four will see a noticeable decrease in purchasing power and standard of living by 2015~2020. That's basically 90% of the US population. I don't care how rich and how much $$$ the top 10% of the population have, but 10% of the population isn't going to spend enough to outweigh the fact that 90% of the population are now spending much less.
Like I said, tough times ahead. At this point in time the government needs to increase revenue or cut social programs. Foreclosing was based on the fact that people took out loans to buy houses at a certain price, and then the housing market crashed, meaning that they were paying loan payments for a houses worth significantly less than what they were required to pay. In the end all we can do is speculate, and bet in one direction or the other.
|
I think the whole "trinkle down" theory only works somewhat for small-medium size businesses that offer prosperous jobs and have potential for growth. Definitely not for the multi-billion corporations like Apple or McDonalds that just likes to outsource, maximize profits for the fat cats at the top and at best creates minimum wage jobs along with a few grossly overpaid ones.
(Not to mention the shitfest that is the financial sector.)
I guess what America needs is to somehow encourage people to really use capitalism and make innovation and growth happen starting at the bottom instead of sucking corporate dicks, hoping that if the rich "job creators" would somehow donate every single cent of the extra 10 million they get from tax breaks into the economy instead of making themselves richer like every other reasonable human being would.
Honestly, neither parties seem to offer anything groundbreaking. Both candidates are just members of the political class playing the political game, dividing the common people, propping up their friends in Washington and Wall Street, and neither of them has any intention of repealing the Patriot Act to restore constitutional rights or stopping the pathetic "War on Terror".
Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but he has hurt the USA more than anyone could ever hope for, by striking down the basic founding values of liberty within the nation and dragging them down further in a endless, fruitless and unsustainable war. If Watergate happened today, Nixon could just call the whole thing secret and shut everything down using the post 9/11 "national security" excuse. Just look at how far things have come in 40 years, and the future doesn't look so good no matter who wins this election.
Obviously, things could have been a lot worse, and there are still reasons to be optimistic, but I can't help to feel that we live in interesting times, times of change, and overall the USA is heading into a trainwreck unless something extremely lucky happens.
Just my armchair general conspirary theorist etc 2 cents. /rant
|
On July 24 2012 16:27 sam!zdat wrote:
You foresee this state of affairs continuing into the near future, as more and more of the global population becomes technologically literate?
It's getting to the point that you can start outsourcing software engineering to China. They have a lot of talent over there ...
|
On July 24 2012 16:21 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:14 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? One of the reasons why the job market is lagging behind is that US labor is not competitive within the global market. The US has some of the most intelligent people in the world, but it also has a lot of uneducated labor. I do not think we will see a large increase in manufacturing as the Chinese Yuan being pegged to the dollar makes their labor far too competitive in comparison to US labor. I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. This is absolutely correct. The United States simply cannot compete with rising economies in unskilled labor. But in order for US labor to become more skilled, education needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. Republicans want to effectively neuter education and its funding. Primary and secondary education in the US is pretty shitty; teachers are very hard to come by since it's low pay for extremely high demands and little benefits. Higher education is already extremely hard to obtain due to ridiculously high costs and extremely high interest rates on student loans. Republicans wish to not only cut funding to primary and secondary education, but to also cut federal funding for higher education, as well. The Republican (Romney's) party is pursuing policies that are extremely beneficial to those who are already successful, but are detrimental to those who aren't. Republicans are no longer the fiscal conservatives you're thinking of. They are the ultra-conservative elite who are actively campaigning to keep the ignorant ignorant, the poor poor, and the rich richer. Obama has some shitty policies and our rights have been restricted far more under him than Bush. But at the very least, him and his party isn't actively trying to fuck our chances of fixing our future over. He is, quite simply, the far lesser of the two evils. I feel one of the issues is too many people are going to private schools instead of public and studying degrees that don't really have futures. While I am Swiss, I go to a US public university (JMU) and I do not understand why anybody would pay out of state tuition when they need to take students loans. I have the luck of winning the genetic lottery and having parents who can afford out of state, but if I had to pay for my own tuition I would certainly go for the cheapest options. From what I have observed, too many people live beyond their means, spend all the money they earn and refuse to save. I think there will be a major crisis within the next ten years similar to that of Greece where things will take a dramatic turn for the worse. Like I said, I don't agree with all of Romney's policies, but I see one as a gamble where you may come out okay and the other as the path towards bankruptcy. You really don't have much choice this time around though.
Public school tuition is increasing like mad. I currently go to UC Berkeley and I'm in my last year. In my first year, tuition was something like $15~$18 grand. For last year, tuition is fucking $26 grand. It's increasing at about 33% per year. Regardless of if you go to private or public university, unless you come from a well-off family, you will have to take out a loan. Student loan interest rates can go anywhere from 3% to 7%. Republicans want to reduce federal funding for student loans and effectively increase student interest rates. Speaking from personal experience, I originally wanted to go to NYU, but my parents can't afford paying $50 grand a year and I really don't want to be burdened with several hundred grand of debt before grad school so I ended up going to UCB even tho I hate the place. Also, ironically, the best private schools (like Harvard, Yale, etc...), which tend to cost the most, are also the schools that give the most and best financial aid out of all universities in the US. Public schools tend to give the shittiest aid (since everything is state or federal funded loans which have crazy high interest rates).
The one where we may come out okay is Obama. The one where we're fucked is Romney. To make it simple, both parties want to increase net spending across the board (they only differ in where to increase/decrease spending but at the end of the day, they both want to increase spending). But Republicans want to cut taxes on top of that, while Democrats want to increase taxes. It's a no brainer. You said it yourself multiple times. To dig ourselves out of this hole, the US needs to cut spending and/or increase revenue. Neither party will do the first, but only one party will do the second and that's the Democrats.
|
On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy!
If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock.
As for the likelihood of Romney pushing a Republican platform, it really depends on which one you're really referring to. I see a lot of lip service to limited government and spending cuts, but when push comes to shove, nobody's pet projects get cut and embattled RINO's still get their pork through. So I can trust him bare-minimum to talk tough on principles, but whether or not he carries out the tough fight is another story. I'm thinking Romney will pacify some of the more objectional parts of Obamacare but never get a repeal through of it in its entirety (so defund or amend but not uproot). The precise reason I wish there was a choice when primary season hit my state IS that I don't trust Romney to stand on his principles but to conform his actions to the swaying political opportunities.
|
On July 24 2012 16:34 Blurry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:27 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:21 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote:On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote:On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. Does this suggest that we should treat these entities differently in tax law? Do we? I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. How many specialized skills can there really be? Do you feel there is an arbitrary amount of work to be done? I think there should be a distinction between what the company's owner takes home at the end of the day and what is reinvested into the company but I believe corporate tax is taken as a percentage of revenue, not profits. Oh, I meant on large vs. small companies. Should we tax large companies more? that seems nice. Get some of that small business everybody's always talking so much about.
Much of the worlds technological innovation still comes from the United States so there is that advantage.
You foresee this state of affairs continuing into the near future, as more and more of the global population becomes technologically literate? Corporate tax is on a sliding scale with different tax brackets so larger companies already have to pay more, which is the way it should be.
Cool, good to know. Maybe more? And turn the police state on THOSE assholes to get em to pay their taxes? Like to see the IRS audit the fuck out of the top x whatever... do they do that? If they do, why does Romney wanna hide his shit so bad (he's still doing that, right?)?
I see the United States staying the leader in technological innovation over somewhere like china, simply because China does not have enough patent protection. Chinese business practices are far more ruthless and often times technology is blatantly copied. This is not an environment that promotes innovation.
I think you might find that the nature of "innovation" does not remain constant across epochs of history. Consider that the concept is a very recent one, and we have no long-term data of innovation-space to determine its macro characteristics, particularly not in an information age.
The country that has the potential to eventually overtake the US is India, as they also have a large number of highly intelligent skilled individuals.
Yeah, I mean, I would not buy a 100-year investment in the US of A
|
On July 24 2012 16:34 Blurry wrote:In the end all we can do is speculate, and bet in one direction or the other.
Or, you know, we could engage in collective action as a society to change things for the better.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock.
This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working.
|
On July 24 2012 16:37 RavenLoud wrote:
Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but he has hurt the USA more than anyone could ever hope for, by striking down the basic founding values of liberty within the nation and dragging them down further in a endless, fruitless and unsustainable war.
Yeah, I mean, the dude won.
|
On July 24 2012 16:47 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:37 RavenLoud wrote:
Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but he has hurt the USA more than anyone could ever hope for, by striking down the basic founding values of liberty within the nation and dragging them down further in a endless, fruitless and unsustainable war.
Yeah, I mean, the dude won.
In the war on terror, no one won except the Federal Government and Military of the United States of America. The terrorists, US citizens, and Middle Eastern bystanders, all lost.
|
On July 24 2012 16:50 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:47 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 16:37 RavenLoud wrote:
Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but he has hurt the USA more than anyone could ever hope for, by striking down the basic founding values of liberty within the nation and dragging them down further in a endless, fruitless and unsustainable war.
Yeah, I mean, the dude won. In the war on terror, no one won except the Federal Government and Military of the United States of America. The terrorists, US citizens, and Middle Eastern bystanders, all lost.
Nah they lose in the long run
American hegemony is on its way out.
|
On July 24 2012 16:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:41 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 16:10 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote:On July 24 2012 13:53 Blurry wrote:
While Romney's foreign policy is abysmal Obama's economics will run your country into the ground. You guys don't have any good choices. Personally, I would vote for Romney as he is far more competent on the economic front. Obama spends too much money on ineffective social programs and is unwilling to make the tough economic decisions that you guys need. While it is not guaranteed, I feel Romney would be more likely to do what is needed to save your country from a Greece moment in the next 10 years. Either way, good luck, you're in for tough times. Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. Yeah, that's entirely possible. Best case scenario IMO is a divided government - whoever wins the Presidency gets stuck with an opposition congress. Gridlock a-hoy! If I could spend my vote to get a veto-happy president of one party and a fiercely antithetical Congress of another party, I would have no dilemma whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gridlock. This is like, when you are the captain of a ship headed for an iceberg, to be pro-steering-wheel-not-working.
It's more like being on a road trip and getting rid of the back seat driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
