HOME | DD
Ali-Radicali β MATH
Published: 2012-10-11 17:12:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 1858; Favourites: 27; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
Former US president Bill Clinton.What many US citizens seem to have forgotten over the past decade or so, is that it's possible to have the government spend money on welfare and still run a surplus. It's shocking, I know, but it appears to be the case that if you don't spend billions on wars and tax cuts, it's possible to run a balanced budget and create growth and prosperity for everyone.
It's only when you start using supply-side voodoo economics to justify tax cuts "that pay for themselves", that you end up with massive deficits.
So please people, if you're going to vote in november, don't vote for the guy who's proposing 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts with no specific plan to pay for all that. Obama has his flaws but at least he knows basic math.
3 layer stencil, spraypaint.
Related content
Comments: 53
If the Electorial College wouldn't completely disregard the public opinion, I'd certainly vote for Obama, despite his flaws. He's a hell of a lot better of a president than Mitt Fucking Romney will ever be!
π: 0 β©: 1
With Romney, it's hard to know what you'll get, since he changes his message according to whom he's speaking to, but the gist of it is probably George Bush with more radical tax cuts and even more fumbling and bumbling on foreign affairs.
π: 0 β©: 1
All the more reason NOT to vote for the guy!
π: 0 β©: 0
People need to stop listening to Hamilton. He's dead now. :I
π: 0 β©: 0
Your the third derivative of the position function!
π: 0 β©: 1
I get that you're trying to call me a 'jerk' in a clever way, but it's "you're", not "your".
I also am not entirely convinced by this ad hominem.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow you're the first liberal I've met that actually got that.
But the "your" "you're" thing is pure laziness, it has nothing to with my English being horrible. IT has all to do with me not giving a crap about you.
but past that now, lets all try to find the volume that Biden's brain takes up in his head.
π: 0 β©: 1
To be honest, the statement just didn't make sense to me until I looked up the english terminology. I know maths, but I'm not a native speaker.
For someone who purportss not to give a crap about me, you go to quite some lengths to convince me and/or debunk me.
I don't much care for your ideology, but I wouldn't say I don't care about PEOPLE who hold such beliefs. Good ideas are worth listening to, bad ideas are worth debunking, but there is no idea to which the appropriate response is to shun and ignore it. If that's how you deal with ideas that you don't agree with, it shows a lack of rational justification in your own worldview(yes even if you happen to be right!).
π: 0 β©: 1
I was actually studying for calculus and happened to check my messages on deviantart in the middle of it. I had calc on the mind so it was not to difficult to think of it.
and you actually took the time to look it up, well now you, and knowing is half the battle, G I Joe... wait where was I going with this?
π: 0 β©: 0
For the record, Bill Clinton inherited his economy from his predecessors: [link]
Itβs easy to have a surplus when you inherit a boom. It wasnβt because of his policies, least of which was his tax increase: [link]
And also the problem with the tax cuts werenβt the cuts themselves but rather the increased military spending that came afterwards due to the two wars. You canβt cut revenue and increase spending. You have to cut both. Otherwise bad things happen. The problem with Bush was his spending, not his cuts.
Also, you don't "pay" for tax cuts. With cuts, you give people their money back. You're not taking money from other people and giving it to others in return. That's a subsidy, not a cut. Cuts are more like tax returns or refunds.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nonsense. Reagan and Clinton were years apart, to act like clinton somehow lifted along on Reagan's coattails is absurd. The economy is cyclic, with periods of sustained growth periodically interrupted by recessions. Both Clinton and Reagan started off on a recession and finished their terms on a period of growth. The difference is that reagan doubled the state debt to do so, clinton cut the deficit. Tax increases are never popular, especially gas taxes. Of course people are going to want stuff for free, but that's clearly unrealistic. To act like democrats 1994 losses were somehow evidence that the tax policy was bad is simply ludicrous. Do you really believe the average voter is the best person to ask about the intricacies of fiscal policy?
Bush had no plan in place to pay for the tax cuts either way. His excuse was that these tax cuts "pay for themselves" by stimulating growth, which is soundly contradicted by evidence.
If you have a balanced budget and you want to give a tax cut, you need to to reduce spending to balance the budget. If you give tax cuts without budget cuts you're not "paying" for the tax cut. This isn't rocket science.
The government needs a certain amount of money to function. If you "give" the wealthy their money back via tax cuts, you're shifting the burden of government expenses onto the other taxpayers.
π: 0 β©: 0
If one spends on welfare, small entrepeneurs do not fear for going bankrupt, for if they do go bankrupt, there's a net to catch them. For that reason, spending on wellfare will increase over-all investment and thus increase internal demand.
On a sidenote, this Clinton looks great, and the message is rather clear.
π: 0 β©: 1
More importantly, if you spend on welfare, a lot more people have the opportunity to become small entrepeneurs, in two ways:
First of all, welfare means poor(ish) people have more money left over after they've finished paying for all the necessary expenses. The money that they keep, they can invest in measures that save time or money, or in a foundling enterprise, allowing them to gradually improve their lives.
Secondly, a wealthy middle-class creates a lot of job opportunities in various service sectors: soccer coaches, tutors, pool cleaners, car mechanics, garage-door repair people, etc. If the people around you have money to spend, it's a lot easier to start a succesful business venture because you have(or can create) demand, not just supply.
The idea that the wealthy 1% are the "job creators" is just not based in reality. Not everyone works in some billionaire's factory, and it would be a sorry state of affairs if that were the case. Most people are employed by small businesses and get paid by a community of middle-income families, not some disgustingly wealthy plutocrat.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, here's a person who gets it. In northern and western Europe, this model is pretty common. It seemed to soften the crisis a little bit for Scandinavian and Germanic countries. However, this model could use a little bit more of the English-speaking world, that is to say, more way for free enterprise. So I guess both need to integrate a bit more.
Also, the 1% are probably responsible for the major losses of jobs in America due to offshoring work, as well as responsible for the loss of real value of money, as they were the innitiators of modern speculation, which bears as a result that the flow of money is in no way related to the value of trade, but rather to interest and inflation rates.
Then again, they are responsible for about half of modern-day's technology and innovation, and their massive R&D-budgets allow them to mount projects that used to be only realisticly fundable for military purposes.
For example, while Internet and GPS were developed by the military, Wi-Fi was developed by companies as Nokia and Motorola. The traditional X-ray was developed by a military agency so they could find bullets in bodies more easily, nowadays companies such as Philips develop more advanced scanners and increase the efficiency of hospitals because there is money to be made in saving people and advancing medical science.
I just realised that the companies mentioned above are all non-american, but I think they serve as good examples of how the 1% are not just disgustingly wealthy, but also strong sources of innovation.
It should be said that in the past, starting a war was the perfect way to gain a technical advantage over other markets, as it was the only way to gather these high amounts of resources. We can still see this in our cars, which were advanced by the German WWII Volkswagen, and in our aero-travel, which are mainly cold war products.
However, I think that we can say that this reason for waging war is obsolete, as indipendent companies now are capable of gathering these resources themselves.
π: 0 β©: 0
Is that why the blue states are bankrupt while the red states are doing great? Because the Democrats know how to be fiscally responsible? Here's some "math" for you. Remember how Obama said he would cut the deficit in half? Well, according to Democrats 2+2=1. We're talking about the party that thinks that you can spend your way out of debt. Talk about voodoo economics.
π: 0 β©: 3
I study economics, and I can faithfully conclude that you talk bullshit.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sure you do. Good thing your opinion as a self proclaimed student of economics means next to nothing. How about substance the next time you reply. Thanks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why reply with substance to an argument without substance?
But hey, I'll bite, the theory goes that if a government spends more money, that money goes to people, those people will spend this money too, which will not only allow internal demand to rise, but also causes more transactions to tax.
A big increase in governmental spending can boost an economy, which often earns itsself back in time as a boosted economy will cough up more taxes.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Why reply with substance to an argument without substance?"
I think that's pretty self explanatory. You don't cure ignorance with more ignorance.
"But hey, I'll bite, the theory goes that if a government spends more money, that money goes to people, those people will spend this money too, which will not only allow internal demand to rise, but also causes more transactions to tax.
A big increase in governmental spending can boost an economy, which often earns itsself back in time as a boosted economy will cough up more taxes."
So basically you're saying that I'm full of shit because your theory isn't the same as mine... You do realize that there are a lot of theories out there right? Except the problem with yours is that we just tried that for the past 4 years and it didn't work.
π: 0 β©: 1
We in Western Europe have tried and tested it for ages. It worked pretty well and still works, as long as tax-levels are not too low, nor expenditure too high.
I know it is quite a radical change in the USA, but a change like this will have little effect in the first four or five years, it will take a while for people and the government to get used to it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Edit: It becomes a hilarious comparison however when you look at net contribution per capita though.
If you look at state tax revenue versus state expenses divided by the population of the state, blue states are profitable, red states create a net debt. On average (which is comparing apples and oranges, but still):
A person in a red state costs the government $1473.94 annually. A person in a blue state gains the government $1022.21
[link]
For a hilariously obvious representation of the differenc ein contribution/cost,look no further than this image: [link]
Tell me more about how the debt is all democrats' fault, please.
π: 0 β©: 2
I already talked about this and you're using the same link twice.
"Tell me more about how the debt is all democrats' fault, please."
I didn't say that it was all their fault. It's you people who say that it's all the Republicans' fault. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives take care of the problem and liberals complain and blame everyone else. Not once have I seen the Dems take ANY responsibility for this mess. It's the mind set and the logic of the immature, the greedy, and the self centered.
π: 0 β©: 1
A staggering amount of projection here. Democrats have proven in the past to be able to create and sustain growth without increasing the deficit.
When was the last time a republican president had a surplus? The sixties?
Both parties have their pet projects that they want to invest serious sums of money in, the democrats have social plans, infrastructure, education, welfare, the republicans have wars, subsidies and military spending. The difference is that the democrats feel it's OK to pay for all that spending via tax revenue, the republicans want to pay for their goodies by cutting the democrats social programs. Oh and tax cuts, because that always works out so well for the budget -__-
π: 0 β©: 1
"A staggering amount of projection here."
Actually, you're just in denial. Prove me wrong. Those chart only proved me right and I guarantee you didn't look into the numbers and the policies I pointed out to you.
"...the democrats have social plans, infrastructure, education, welfare, the republicans have wars, subsidies and military spending."
The Dems have started far more wars than the Republicans. Look it up. Republicans aren't the only ones that support subsidies or military spending and Dems aren't the only ones that care about infrastructure, education, and some welfare programs. Good try though.
"The difference is that the democrats feel it's OK to pay for all that spending via tax revenue, the republicans want to pay for their goodies by cutting the democrats social programs. Oh and tax cuts, because that always works out so well for the budget -__-"
The real difference is that the Dems feel like it's ok to pay for programs that A) the government shouldn't be paying for B) the country can't afford and C) programs that give more power to the government and make more people government dependents. The Republicans (conservative Republicans that is) want to cut spending in areas that the government shouldn't be spending, cut the waste and keep the necessities, and promote self reliance rather than government dependance; and they plan to pay for it by spending less than we bring in. The same way a family budget works. And yes, tax cuts because they promote more spending and create jobs which brings in more tax revenue. I've already illustrated to you in quite some detail how this all works. But you are such a partisan that you can't look past your own rhetoric and actually have an open mind. Trust me, I've been there. I grew up as a liberal.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Actually, you're just in denial. Prove me wrong. Those chart only proved me right and I guarantee you didn't look into the numbers and the policies I pointed out to you."
I did; look at the other long-ass post if you're still interested. It contains my rebuttal to your argument and a slew of data in favour of my position.
"The real difference is that the Dems feel like it's ok to pay for programs that A) the government shouldn't be paying for"
That's a pretty bold statement, but on what principle do you decide what the government "should" pay for? What's your standard for determining what the government ought to pay for?
For me, It's pretty simple: anything that results in prosperity and greater societal wellbeing( in the long run) is worth paying for with government money, even if it means having people pay (via taxes) for stuff that they personally do not directly benefit from.
"the country can't afford "
The country could easily afford these things if people paid their due taxes, hurr.
" programs that give more power to the government and make more people government dependents"
Everyone depends on the government. this argument about government dependency is asinine, since the whole POINT of government is to serve the people. If people don't receive help from the government, then WHAT THE FUCK is it for?
If a teacher who gets a tax break from the government is "government dependant", what does that make a GI? A government slave?
Republicans throw out this term "dependency" like it automatically wins them an argument, but why does it matter whether the government or a private entity pays your salary? how is that a moral issue?
A family budget is a horrible simile for the federal budget, precisely because the money a family spends effectively leaves their sphere of influence. A family budget is a tiny, open system within the larger US economy. The US economy is a semi-closed system wherein the money cycles back and forth between the various sub-systems and sinks.
When the government spends money in the US, unless they spend it on billionaires who take it overseas, that money STAYS in the US and a portion of it comes back into the federal coffers every time that money is being spent and respent.
Does it make sense to have a balanced budget? Of course it does. But it makes no sense to compare the US economy's interaction with the tax levels to something as simplistic as a family budget book.
If you want to use this terrible, tortured metaphor, then the republicans are the father who'd rather have mom buy the cheapest possible foods and have his children go to public school, rather than finding a better-paying job that allows him to afford a better lifestyle for his family. Oh but in the meantime he likes to spend his money on collecting guns, because that's superduper important to his family's safety, despite what they say.
You'v lillustrated with great detail how your model of supply side economics works. What you've utterly failed to do is prove that via data. The numbers you have produced only prove (unsurprisingly) that people don't like to pay taxes when they have the option not to. Golly, groudbreaking discovery. Comparing states would be fair if states expenditure were proportional to their taxation, but that would leave most red states in massive debt.
π: 0 β©: 1
"That's a pretty bold statement, but on what principle do you decide what the government "should" pay for? What's your standard for determining what the government ought to pay for?"
βThat the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.β (Art. 1, Sec. 35)
That is my standard.
"'the country can't afford'
The country could easily afford these things if people paid their due taxes, hurr."
Ya think? Hurr. So if I told the bum down the road that he can't afford a Ferrari, that would be a false statement because he COULD afford it if the government would just give him more money? That's a sound argument you've got there, buddy. Grow up.
"Everyone depends on the government. this argument about government dependency is asinine, since the whole POINT of government is to serve the people."
There's a difference between serving the people, and creating a situation where it's easier to sit on your ass, do nothing, and get a welfare check because it pays more than getting a job. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Dems would rather feed the man while the Republicans want to teach him to fish. That's why liberalism fails. You guys are myopic.
"If people don't receive help from the government, then WHAT THE FUCK is it for?"
Easy there, champ. Are you saying that only the government can help people? Who even said that the government SHOULDN'T help people? Yet another Straw man. You're creating a fictional world where saying that we shouldn't make it easy for people to stay on welfare is the same as saying that there should be no welfare at all. All of your arguments jump from one extreme to another because you really don't know what conservatives actually believe or want.
"...but why does it matter whether the government or a private entity pays your salary? how is that a moral issue?"
It doesn't, that's what you've told yourself as I just explained. A government employee works for their income a government dependent doesn't. I just told you about my cousin who gets welfare checks and is perfectly capable of working right? 99.99% of the time conservatives are referring to those kinds of people. Also remember how I told you that I was born and raised in California? I lived in the west side of LA and a good number of my friends' parents were doing the same thing. It's a goddamn problem supported by liberal policies and you're a fool if you don't see it. That's why it's a moral issue.
"A family budget is a horrible simile for the federal budget, precisely because the money a family spends effectively leaves their sphere of influence. A family budget is a tiny, open system within the larger US economy. The US economy is a semi-closed system wherein the money cycles back and forth between the various sub-systems and sinks."
Right.. so why create a budget at all? Why should we care what the national debt is? Why bitch about Bush's spending and justify Obama's? Why collect taxes? Why make any cuts at all? Maybe because like a family, you need a source of revenue? Maybe like a family, you have to plan out what you spend? Maybe like a family, the government can accrue debt and owe money to another entity? Maybe like a family, you shouldn't spend what you don't have? Maybe like a family, if you aren't making the money you should be making, you should cut out on the spending that isn't needed? Yeah you're right... They're totally unrelated.
"If you want to use this terrible, tortured metaphor, then the republicans are the father who'd rather have mom buy the cheapest possible foods and have his children go to public school, rather than finding a better-paying job that allows him to afford a better lifestyle for his family. Oh but in the meantime he likes to spend his money on collecting guns, because that's superduper important to his family's safety, despite what they say."
OR the Democrats are the dad that's going through a midlife crisis. Even though he only makes $25k a year, he buys a $75k car forgetting that he has already blown $100k. Yet, he "deserves" more so gives his wife a boob job, signs his kids up for basket weaving lessons, replaces everyone's wardrobes, and ends up with a yearly bill of $40k. But instead of getting his life together, and cutting out the excessive spending, he blames his boss for all of his troubles and for not just giving him a 75% raise even tough he is a terrible employee... because, you know, he "deserves" it.
"You'v lillustrated with great detail how your model of supply side economics works. What you've utterly failed to do is prove that via data."
[link]
"The numbers you have produced only prove (unsurprisingly) that people don't like to pay taxes when they have the option not to. Golly, groudbreaking discovery"
If you were actually paying attention, the point was that demonizing the rich while creating victims out of the poor and the middle class by saying that the rich should be paying more because it's unfair of them to have more than you is the liberal tactic to harvest votes. You're right, nobody wants to pay more taxes, so what's better than pitting the majority against the minority when you you're trying to win a popularity contest? Because that's not immoral at all and definitely compassionate and fair.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, I could see it for states like New York and Pennsylvania, but not California. California seems to have the worst education by far, is heavily polluted, the suburbs keep getting bigger with almost nobody living in them, the Del Webb communities are deader than it's inhabitants, mass-transit is seen as a mortal sin, highways are constantly getting bigger, and everything keeps getting uglier. I'm honestly convinced that So Cal is more like Texas than anywhere else I've been. Unless it's only because I'm not seeing all the facts being presented to me like they should, or I'm just simply living in the wrong part of the state...
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, California is large enough economically to be a country on its own. The differences in income and quality of life vary staggeringly from place to place.
I guess the large number of millionaires and billionaires evens out the impoverished who don't pay (income) tax. Still, California's state government has been on a spending binge under the governator, and I have no doubt that things could have been organised better with more competent management.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, I do tend to forget that California is a very large economy, made up of mostly tourism and agriculture (which makes sense, considering spring and summer are constant sunshine and fall and winter is the wet season).
That is also true, the governator did kind of bring us down (well, "dumb muscle" as they always say), and people want to blame Brown for everything (probably because they don't forgive him for the bridge he built in San Diego... But that city "doesn't exist" according to Hollywood, hurr hurr). Personally, I just feel if California invested more in its education, things would be a lot better, as well as developing a better transit system and realizing that private transportation is just making things worse for us in the end...
π: 0 β©: 0
What are you talking about? Both red and blue states have deficit problems to varying degrees. Yes, as a statistical trend, blue states have a bigger deficit than red states. They also have significantly higher tax revenues. But talking about average trends is quite meaningless when the differences between states are so huge.
When did obama ever say he'd cut the deficit in half? The guy inherited the worst recession since the great depression and two (count 'em, two!) wars that hadn't even been put on the books by bush. Of course he wasn't going to cut the deficit in half, how could he?
The rationale behind stimulus money is pretty solid: the idea is that people don't spend if they have no money. If you cut their funds during a recession, you initiate a vicious downward spiral whereby production slows down, which hurts revenue, which hurts production, etc. If anything, Obama did not spend enough money on stimulus and too much of it bailing out banks.
Spending your way out of depth: both parties have their ideas about this. Democrats believe in kenesian economics, whereby economic growth is initiated by consumption in the middle class. A big, wealthy middle class consumes a lot, driving production and creating jobs.
Republicans believe in trickle-down (supply-side) economics: tax the wealthjy as little as possible and they will (somehow) create jobs and wealth through the extra money they make.
One of these economic philosophies was responsible for the great expansion of US middle class post WW2. The other is an intellectually bankrupt idea, thoroughly debunked in principle, disproven in practice and violently contradicted by any data set you'd care to review.
Can you guess which is which?
π: 0 β©: 1
"Yes, as a statistical trend, blue states have a bigger deficit than red states. They also have significantly higher tax revenues."
Ergo, tax revenues =/= deficit reduction. You just made my point for me.
"When did obama ever say he'd cut the deficit in half?"
Right here: [link]
"The guy inherited the worst recession since the great depression and two (count 'em, two!) wars that hadn't even been put on the books by bush"
Yup, such is the typical talking point. Let's come up with some original thought shall we? He talked about that in the link I provided. The thing is, he knew exactly what he got himself into. Stop crying about this, the buck stops with the president.
"Of course he wasn't going to cut the deficit in half, how could he?"
Uh, you tell me. That was Obama's pledge... You know, the guy YOU support, not me.
"The rationale behind stimulus money is pretty solid: the idea is that people don't spend if they have no money."
So how is it all of a sudden a ridiculous notion to think business owners aren't going to spend as much if they are taxed higher and have less money to spend? Again, you're making my point for me.
"If you cut their funds during a recession, you initiate a vicious downward spiral whereby production slows down, which hurts revenue, which hurts production, etc."
Yup... raising taxes = cutting funds to the people who actually pay the taxes this country runs on.
"If anything, Obama did not spend enough money on stimulus and too much of it bailing out banks."
Because, you know, the government never wastes our money... The beacon of efficiency that it is, it would be ridiculous to think that. Maybe I should charge up all of my credit cards on pointless adventures (solyndra, bail outs, etc...) and hope my debt magically disappears. 2+2=1 I do agree that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out though... Nobody should have been bailed out. There's a reason why they are failing.
"Democrats believe in kenesian economics... Republicans believe in trickle-down (supply-side) economics"
I understand what each party believes to be the correct economic path.
"...they will (somehow) create jobs and wealth through the extra money they make."
See, this is what liberals don't understand. Do you even know what it takes to create a job? Money, not wishes and hope and rainbows. The more money an employer has to invest in their company and employees, the more jobs they are able to support "Somehow"? This isn't exactly rocket science.
"The other is an intellectually bankrupt idea, thoroughly debunked in principle, disproven in practice and violently contradicted by any data set you'd care to review."
I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Lamesian Schmeconomics. Do I need to point out examples such as California and Greece? Trickle down government is a failed policy that has been disproven time and time again.
You see, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives advocate what has been proven to work and Liberals prefer expirimental ideals that sound good on paper but have have been proven to be failures. Liberals prefer what sounds good, not what is good.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Ergo, tax revenues =/= deficit reduction. You just made my point for me."
Except, as I've just pointed out, blue states actually make a net profit per inhabitant, red states cost the government money.
Whether or not a state has a surplus or deficit isn't solely reliant on taxes vs expenditure, since the federal government takes in the tax money and redistributes it. As a general trend, the money is taken out of blue states and put into red states to spread the debt around. Again, refer to this image: [link]
"Right here: [link]"
OK, ridiculous and unrealistic promise. I can only imagine he means annual deficits, disregarding one-time sums like TARP, the stimulus and the two wars. Regardless, it's clearly not a realistic promise and II don't understand why he made it. Even if the republcans hadn't filibustered every proposition they could, he still couldn't have saved the economy AND cut the deficit by half.
"Yup, such is the typical talking point. Let's come up with some original thought shall we? He talked about that in the link I provided. The thing is, he knew exactly what he got himself into. Stop crying about this, the buck stops with the president."
Non argument. The fact that this is not a new argument doesn't mean it's not a VALID argument. Should the democrats not have chosen a presidential nominee at all? Should they have left the presidency to McCain/Palin to fix all the problems?
Obama might not have had the magic power to instantly solve all the problems in the world, but to say he knew what he was getting into, ergo he failed because he didn't solve EVERYTHING, is just preposterous. There's such a thing as realistic expectations.
"Uh, you tell me. That was Obama's pledge... You know, the guy YOU support, not me."
I support Obama over Romney. That doesn't take a lot. I don't worship the ground he walks on and I disagree with quite a lot of his policies. if anything, obama has been waaaay to centrist, waaay to eager to accomodate your party and it's mindnumbingly bad policies.
"So how is it all of a sudden a ridiculous notion to think business owners aren't going to spend as much if they are taxed higher and have less money to spend? Again, you're making my point for me."
Business is all about making a profit. Employing people COSTS money. Being a business is about producing as much as you can with as few employees as possible. The past 30 years clearly show us that giving the wealthy more money does not significantly improve job growth or overall economic growth.
The concept is ludicrously simple: if I'm a wealthy CEO, I might own 2 cars, or 20, but not 2000. I might own 200 socks, or 2000, bt not 200000. The point is: increasing the wealth of the very richest does not significantly affect their consumption or the amount and wealth of their employees.
Conversely, if the government gives all the workers a car subsidy or a tax cut, or some other cost-saving measure, they ALL have more money to spend, which they will, since poor/middle-class people spend a significantly higher part of their income.
'Yup... raising taxes = cutting funds to the people who actually pay the taxes this country runs on."
But not in a meaningful way. if you make billions, you probably pay a 15% tax rate. Whether your net income is 85% or 65% of billions of dollars is not significant to the level of consumption by these individuals.
Again, these guys are hoarders, they wouldn't be this rich if they spent every penny they earned.
"Because, you know, the government never wastes our money... The beacon of efficiency that it is, it would be ridiculous to think that. Maybe I should charge up all of my credit cards on pointless adventures (solyndra, bail outs, etc...) and hope my debt magically disappears. 2+2=1 I do agree that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out though... Nobody should have been bailed out. There's a reason why they are failing."
The answer to government waste is making sure the government spends its money exclusively on the things that don't benefit the people at all? Scratch scientific development, infrastructure and welfare, the only worthwhile governemtn expenditure is wars, tax cuts and subsidies. /sarcasm.
Bad investments happen, solyndra happens to be one made under Obama. Does that mean we get to demonise every single investment by the state ever? ridiculous. You want to talk about government waste, please take a look at the military industrial complex, and the billions of dollars that get spent on military hardware and RnD. Want to talk about a bad investment? Look no further than the V22 Osprey. If you think 500 million is a lot of money to spend on green technology, what about spending 35 Billion on military aircraft that just won't fly(safely)?
Your entire argument is "sometimes the government fucks up, so let's strip it of its power to fuck up by removing all its power". Great idea, let's also amputate our arms and legs to prevent bruises.... Let's never go outside to prevent skin cancer. etc. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
'See, this is what liberals don't understand. Do you even know what it takes to create a job? Money, not wishes and hope and rainbows. The more money an employer has to invest in their company and employees, the more jobs they are able to support "Somehow"? This isn't exactly rocket science."
I understand the "theory" it just doesn't work like that in "REALITY". Jobs in production require a factory and a factory owner, that's true enough, but they also require a DEMAND FOR PRODUCT. Cars don't buy themselves, you need people to buy them. T ford figured this out more than a century ago, when he made his cars affordable for his factory workers, setting up a nice supply-demand loop.
Furthermore, the vast majority of jobs in a 1st wordld country is not in primary or secondary production, it is in services. If you have a wealthy middle class family, chances are the children go to school, sports practice, art class, etc. providing work for teachers, coaches, tutors, etc. Mom and dad both have a car: twice as much work for the car mechanic. If they make enough money, they might visit the zoo, the movies, stores, etc. etc.etc.
The idea that the wealthy are the "job creators" is a gross mischaracterisation of reality, it's part of the deification of the rich that the republicans do to justify their kooky ideology. It isn't supported by facts, only "common sense" (I.E. making shit up when the numbers disagree).
"
I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Lamesian Schmeconomics. Do I need to point out examples such as California and Greece? Trickle down government is a failed policy that has been disproven time and time again."
Greece failed due to many factors. Clearly, they undertaxed, had a huge problem with tax evasion and waaaaay too lenient social programs. However, they also had triple A financial investments bought from US banks, which turned out to be disasterous subprime mortgage bundles. They also had Goldman and Sachs help them hide their debt from the world. You're quick to point fingers, but in the case of Greece a large portion of the blame is with greedy US bankers, not "socialism".
"You see, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives advocate what has been proven to work and Liberals prefer expirimental ideals that sound good on paper but have have been proven to be failures. Liberals prefer what sounds good, not what is good."
Except you HAVEN'T proven supply-side economics, AT ALL. If you want to make that claim, where's the evidence?
Here are the graphs that IMO clearly show that socialism, demand-side economics, clearly work:
[link]
First, there's the surplus/deficit over time. What should should be abundantly clear is that the US didn't have serious budgeting problems until late 70's/early 80's. I.E. Vietnam and Reagan.
[link]
Bush's job performance versus clinton.
Remember, Clinton started off with a recession and a deficit, turnd that around into a period of sustained growth and surpluses.
Bush inherited a period of growth and a surplus and turned that into a massive deficit through tax cuts. Did it create tons of jobs? Well? I don't see any trickling.
[link]
[link]
Here we see an interesting pattern, whereby both the great depression and the 2008 crash were preceded by a massive increase in debt. Where does this increase start? During reagan's term, when supply-side economics were implemented via massive tax cuts.
[link]
Here we see productivity versus compensation. Again a clear case of 80's (anti)social policy fucking things up. Until that point wages grew along with increased productivity. if that trend had continued, middle class families would be earning 40000 dollars more AFAIK. Good thing we gave all that money to billionaires though, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
"blue states actually make a net profit per inhabitant, red states cost the government money."
And that's why States like CA (the bluest state in the nation) are going bankrupt? Because they are managed so well and have all kinds of income? All that image shows is net federal revenue per capita. We've already established that they bring in more money thorough higher taxes and what not. The point is that if taxing the bejesus out of people worked, blue states, especially CA, would be at the top, not the bottom.
Why is it that in nearly all indicators, red states are doing better than blue states? If the red states cost more money to maintain, than they bring in, they would be going bankrupt as well. Job growth is higher [link] , unemployment is lower (same BLS link as the previous), housing prices are more stable [link] , and gas is lower [link] , and pay has increased [link] . The only place where blue states did better was in GDP growth. 2.5% in blue states compared to 2.2% in the red states.
Why? The experts say that it's because red states are more business friendly (less taxes, fewer hoops to jump through, fewer regulations, etc.) not because all of the money is being thrown into red states while blue states are being ignored. As a small business owner, I can attest to that. I wont even do business with California anymore because it's just too much of a hassle. I was born and raised there and I would love to return and base my business there instead, but it makes no financial sense to do so and I would probably lose my business. You know you have a problem when your state has Hollywood and no movies are made there anymore.
In 2011, Michael Medved said this while describing the demographic exodus from blue states:
"Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of 'residents lost to other states' were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey
β¦it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures
When it comes to income taxes, Californiaβs top rate recently crested to an appalling 10.3 percent (on top of federal tax burdens, sales tax, property tax, and much more). Washington, on the other hand, imposes no income tax at all, and ongoing growth makes Washington the only blue state (thatβs right, the only one) that added a congressional seat in the recent Census."
The bottom line is, red states are in a better overall economic, budget, and debt position because of the economic policies of the right, not because of benefits from the blue states.
"OK, ridiculous and unrealistic promise. I can only imagine he means annual deficits, disregarding one-time sums like TARP, the stimulus and the two wars."
the context is all right there. You don't have to imagine what he meant. You're right, it IS ridiculous and unrealistic, but that was his promise, not some expectation set on him.
"Even if the republcans hadn't filibustered every proposition they could, he still couldn't have saved the economy AND cut the deficit by half."
Yet, he still promised it and everyone bought it... and then conveniently forgot about it when it didn't happen. And give me a break, remember the super majority the Dems had once Al Franken was sworn in? Do you realize that a super majority made the Dems "filibuster proof"? They can and DID push whatever they wanted though.
"The fact that this is not a new argument doesn't mean it's not a VALID argument"
I'm not saying that because it's old, it isn't valid. I'm saying that it isn't valid because the Dems knew what they were getting into and they still made ridiculous promises they couldn't keep on almost every single economic issue (I can't think of one that they kept, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here)...
"ergo he failed because he didn't solve EVERYTHING, is just preposterous."
He failed because he didn't solve ANYTHING not everything. He is a failure because NOTHING he has promised about the economy has come true, and in many cases, things are worse. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
This is the point, let's pretend that it's ALL the Republican's fault even though the Democrats controlled congress though half of Bush's presidency (and Bush only vetoed 13 of their bills or some ridiculously small number like that) and voted for the wars and such that put us in this mess, the Democrats said they could fix the economy with their policies. They didn't. Not even close. They didn't even try.
"There's such a thing as realistic expectations."
Yup, and they set their own "realistic expectations" that they couldn't reach, or even come close to, not me, not the Republicans.
"if anything, obama has been waaaay to centrist, waaay to eager to accomodate your party and it's mindnumbingly bad policies"
Yeah hahaha ok. What fantasy land are you living in? You tell me where Obama has been eager to accommodate the Republicans in anything that they weren't already going to do. Let's not forget that the Democrats had ALL of the power in the government for the first two years of Obama's presidency. They could have done whatever they wanted. So instead of focusing on the economy, they decided to ram Obamacare through. They didn't do anything to reduce the deficit, in fact, they increased it during those two years. They didn't reduce the debt, they increased it. They could have set a budget, but they didn't, they could have done ANYTHING. Stop lying to yourself by saying that Obama is trying to work with the Republicans. I seem to remember him saying to the Republicans something to the effect of, "there are consequences to elections, you lost, sit in the back." That's quite the opposite of an eager attitude to work with the Republicans. Also, you didn't answer why he couldn't follow through with his promise to cut the deficit in half. Instead, you decided to wrap yourself in your delusions of Obama holding hands with the Republicans.
"Business is all about making a profit. Employing people COSTS money. Being a business is about producing as much as you can with as few employees as possible."
Exactly... employing people COSTS MONEY. If you don't have money to spend, YOU CAN'T EMPLOY ANYONE. Again, as a business owner with a number of employees, I am far more familiar with this than you are. Think of this from a "selfish" business owner's perspective, not through the liberal lens of rainbows and unicorns. I want to make more money, to make that money, I need employees to help out. The more money I make, the more employees I can hire to make ME more money. Also, the more money I have, the better I can pay my employees. In short, employers employ people to make them more money, not to help the economy. The bigger the business, the more money it makes and the more employees it needs. I live this every day... I doubt you do.
"The point is: increasing the wealth of the very richest does not significantly affect their consumption or the amount and wealth of their employees."
And this is where you are confused. Nobody is saying that the rich will sustain the economy single handedly. The rich employ people and the more people that are employed, the more . That's the bottom line. The government doesn't create jobs, it destroys them. Going back to the red vs blue topic, because of the government and liberal policies, businesses are failing in those states and people are losing their jobs, not getting them. If you don't have a job, you aren't buying stocks, or cars, or anything for that matter. You aren't paying taxes and you aren't contributing in any financial way to society. In fact, you're probably a drain. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
"The answer to government waste is making sure the government spends its money exclusively on the things that don't benefit the people at all? Scratch scientific development, infrastructure and welfare, the only worthwhile governemtn expenditure is wars, tax cuts and subsidies. /sarcasm."
Because that's what I said right? I said that research and development are examples of waste. I definitely said that we don't need roads, teachers, police, and fire fighters. I also said that war and subsidies are the only worth while expenditures... You're absolutely right. It's always nice to have people try to put words in my mouth and create straw man arguments... /sarcasm
"Bad investments happen, solyndra happens to be one made under Obama."
Seriously? Solyndra isn't the only example... Obama has only made bad investments! The list of Obama's sorry investment losses goes into the billions and has resulted in a meager few jobs, to be generous. Solyndra, Tesla, Raser Technologies, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power, First Solar, Abound Solar, Beacon Power... the list goes on and on. Once of the biggest "zings" in the presidential debate was when Romney said, "you don't pick winners and losers, you only pick losers" and all Obama could do is laugh. He didn't have a rebuttal for it because he knew it was true. And you want to know what the worse part is? Obama's advisors advised him AGAINST those investments BUT HE STILL DID IT and lost billions in tax payer money.
"You want to talk about government waste, please take a look at the military industrial complex, and the billions of dollars that get spent on military hardware and RnD. Want to talk about a bad investment? Look no further than the V22 Osprey. If you think 500 million is a lot of money to spend on green technology, what about spending 35 Billion on military aircraft that just won't fly(safely)?"
Thank you for yet again making my point for me. I don't care which party is making the wasteful decisions, the point is that the government is full of waste, period. These are my words exactly as I wrote them: "Because, you know, the government never wastes our money... The beacon of efficiency that it is, it would be ridiculous to think that." You quoted me yourself. It's time to work on your reading comprehension and stop trying to put words in my mouth.
"Your entire argument is 'sometimes the government fucks up, so let's strip it of its power to fuck up by removing all its power'. Great idea, let's also amputate our arms and legs to prevent bruises.... Let's never go outside to prevent skin cancer. etc. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
Really? That's my argument? Where did I say that? ...Or are you trying to put more words in my mouth, yet again. Let me remind you of the context of that comment. You said that Obama should have spent more. I said in all sarcasm that that was a great idea because the government never wastes our money. Not only were the spendings a huge waste of money and didn't help, you want to waste more? Yeah... fantastic idea. That's not saying that they should have all of their power taken away. Those are your words. We don't need bigger government, bigger spending, and special interests being served. And that's all the spending was for (which failed) and you want to fail again? I'm sure you've heard the clichΓ© about the definition of insanity right? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
"I understand the 'theory' it just doesn't work like that in 'REALITY'."
Actually, I live in the real world and I am an employer, so I actually know what I'm talking about and I'm not basing my opinion on talking points and theories... and it works exactly like that. Reality to you is the fiction you created to support your ideology, not the real world.
"...but they also require a DEMAND FOR PRODUCT. Cars don't buy themselves, you need people to buy them."
And where do these people get their money to by their cars? Their jobs. Where do these people get their jobs? Their employers. How are employers able to make jobs and pay them the money it takes to buy those cars? The employer's money. If the government takes more of the business owner's money, profits decrease, job creation slows down or stops, and that leaves fewer people without money to buy their cars. Money doesn't just make itself.
"Furthermore, the vast majority of jobs in a 1st wordld country is not in primary or secondary production, it is in services. If you have a wealthy middle class family, chances are the children go to school, sports practice, art class, etc. providing work for teachers, coaches, tutors, etc."
Exactly where does the government get its money? The private sector. If you have a thriving private sector, you have more tax revenue. If you have a thriving public sector, it's because the private sector is paying the bills. "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher. China practically owns us because we have run out of other people's money to spend here and we have to borrow from them now to pay the bills that a big government has created.
"The idea that the wealthy are the 'job creators' is a gross mischaracterisation of reality..."
Well... maybe YOUR reality. Are you saying that the poor are the job creators? Are you saying that the government actually employes the thousands and thousands of Walmart employees? The millions of other jobs in the private sector? Yeah, you really have a grasp on reality. Why are you so sure that it's not your beliefs that are a "mischaracterization of reality"? Keep in mind, I'm sure because because of experience... you're sure because that's what you want to believe and that's what you have been told by fellow liberals.
"it's part of the deification of the rich that the republicans do to justify their kooky ideology. It isn't supported by facts, only "common sense" (I.E. making shit up when the numbers disagree)."
Where are these numbers and facts that say that the wealthy don't create jobs? Where are these numbers that say that the less money the wealthy (or whatever imaginary entity you think creates jobs) have, the more jobs they create? "Kooky ideology"? "Making shit up when the numbers disagree"? Looks like someone is projecting.
"Greece failed due to many factors."
Yeah. Most of all, the fact that they spent more than they have and the people are rioting in the streets because they aren't getting what they are "entitled" to. Sounds like the direction Liberals would like to take us in. Spending far more than we have and creating more and more government dependance is practically the mantra of the left.
"They also had Goldman and Sachs help them hide their debt from the world. You're quick to point fingers, but in the case of Greece a large portion of the blame is with greedy US bankers, not 'socialism.'"
LOL are you seriously trying to say that's the reason the country of Greece failed? Do you even have ay proof to back this up that and says that was the major factor? Or is this just your own conclusion to explain the failures of socialism away?
"Except you HAVEN'T proven supply-side economics, AT ALL. If you want to make that claim, where's the evidence?"
The evidence is in the history of our country. Whenever we have done the best, it has been in time where people have payed less taxes and government wasn't in the way. Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets.
Your graph that you provided to support socialism clearly shows that. The deficit success of Clinton was because he straight up worked with the Republicans to make it happen or else he would have been voted out. Look at the deficits under Bush (that were improving before Obama came in) and then the astronomical leap right when Obama came into office right when the Democrats had ALL OF THE CONTROL and pushed through socialistic policies.
"[link] Bush's job performance versus clinton."
And what was it that made Clinton's years successful? You can cherry pick all you want, how about you compare Obama to Bush? At least Bush's trend was still positive. Let me help you out here. Clinton produced budgets that helped pay down the debt (something conservatives and capitalists want to do). Obama hasn't. Clinton said that he wouldn't let the Bush tax cuts expire (also conservative), Obama would. The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.
In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.
To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, you only need to look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.
Obama and the rest of the Democrat morons in office would let that expire to "generate revenue" for the government. Based on findings from Congress's own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire. Forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses. In other words, the Dems projected losses when history proved that there were gains and this is a trend of the Left. Remember how Obama projected that he could reduce the deficit in half? It seems as though we can count on the total opposite of liberal projections.
"[link] Here we see productivity versus compensation. Again a clear case of 80's (anti)social policy fucking things up. Until that point wages grew along with increased productivity. if that trend had continued, middle class families would be earning 40000 dollars more AFAIK."
So where in that link does it show all of the factors that contributed to it? What is the context of this chart? Does it take into account the growth and improvements of technology or the fact that people are able to do more things at a time now with greater ease? Are you even thinking about these kinds of things? Without context, this shows absolutely nothing.
"Good thing we gave all that money to billionaires though, right?"
Gave? That was theirs in the first place. You're just bitching about those billionaires not giving you more of his/her profits. You fail to realize that the business owners are the ones taking the financial risks and buying the equipment that allows you to do your job more effectively and easier. They are the ones that rent/buy the buildings for you to work in. They have all of the overhead cost and ALL of the risk. They stand to lose far more than you do if the business fails. If the business fails, he is out and owes thousands if not millions... you lose the next couple paychecks. The difference is, both people can go get a job at McDonald's after but the business owner is now in severe debt, you aren't.
But you know, they are the greedy ones even though you want their money without doing the work or shouldering the risk. Makes total sense.
π: 0 β©: 2
"And what was it that made Clinton's years successful?"
The fact that his budget added up: arithmatic. The fact that he didn't have to deal with 2 wars and the greatest recession in modern history also kinda helps.
"You can cherry pick all you want, how about you compare Obama to Bush? At least Bush's trend was still positive."
Hardly. He started off with a deficit and turned that into a deficit with his famous tax breaks, which he claimed more than once "would pay for themselves". Even without putting the wars on the books, he was running major deficits. And this was during a period of mild growth. That's a pretty bad record right there if you ask me.
"Let me help you out here. Clinton produced budgets that helped pay down the debt (something conservatives and capitalists want to do). Obama hasn't. Clinton said that he wouldn't let the Bush tax cuts expire (also conservative), Obama would. The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree."
Clinton said he wouldn't be against (temporarily) extending the bush tax cuts until the economy is more stable again. He has firmly stated that he wants them to expire, he's against making them permanent, his reasoning is that ending them right now for the top brackets might upset an already troubled economy.
The taxes were raised in 1993 and cut in 1997
[link]
[link]
As you can see, the economy was doing just fine even before the tax cut in '97.
"In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates."
A lovely portrayal, and technically true, but you're ignoring the fact that the deficit decreased progressively throughout the clinton era, and 1998 was simply the first year that the deficit had turned into a surplus:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000.
"To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, you only need to look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result."
And they DID. [link]
The national debt went up by 8% under bush, even without counting the war. No other president had lowered taxes during wartime until that point.
"Obama and the rest of the Democrat morons in office would let that expire to "generate revenue" for the government. Based on findings from Congress's own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire. Forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses. In other words, the Dems projected losses when history proved that there were gains and this is a trend of the Left. Remember how Obama projected that he could reduce the deficit in half? It seems as though we can count on the total opposite of liberal projections."
I think the previously posted charts pretty much make my point. Tax goes up, debt goes down. Tax goes down, debt goes up. Of course there are other factors to consider, but right now, if you're serious about the debt, you can't ignore the option of actually collecting money lol. The rich have had 30 decades to nurse themselves into a fat and happy state of decadence, it's about time the country takes its fair share from the people who profited so very dearly from it.
"So where in that link does it show all of the factors that contributed to it? What is the context of this chart? Does it take into account the growth and improvements of technology or the fact that people are able to do more things at a time now with greater ease? Are you even thinking about these kinds of things? Without context, this shows absolutely nothing."
The point of the chart is to demonstrate that as technology progresses, thus human productivity increases, normally compensation grows accordingly. Around the 1980's compensation ceases to grow along with production. This is clearly reflected by any other chart on wages that you'd care to dig up. There's not a single reason for this, but a big factor was a shift in business culture and etiquette, an increased emphasis on big, fast money over investing in human capital. This shift was aided and abetted by increasingly lax top tax rates and financial regulations, and the growing government entanglement with corporate america of that time.
"Gave? That was theirs in the first place. You're just bitching about those billionaires not giving you more of his/her profits. You fail to realize that the business owners are the ones taking the financial risks and buying the equipment that allows you to do your job more effectively and easier."
And you are forgetting that the employees are the ones ACTUALLY DOING THE JOB. I'm not saying they should earn more than the boss, but is it too much to ask for some semblance of fair compensation.
What you fail to realise is that the government helps the rich in a million different ways they don't seem to realise and certainly don't seem to appreciate. The government is the one upholding law and order, which OBVIOUSLY massively benefit the rich and the business owners. You can't run a business in a war zone. The government makes the food and water safe, not just for the company owner who can aford evian, but for the factory workers as well. The governemtn put all those workers through school. The government builds the roads and bridges that the employees use to get to work, that the company uses to ship its goods. The government invests in (some of) the science that allows the company to produce better, faster, more.
To ignore all that and whine about how the poor worker gets to pay no income tax, shows an almost immoral lack of consideration IMO, not to mention a lack of good business sense. For all their faults, old school capitalists like Ford and Rockefeller at least understood the merit in taking care of their employees. At the time there were hardly any welfare programs around, but these magnates built hospitals and schools. Ford in particular shocked the world by paying his workers double the normal rate, which gave him highly dedicated, highly qualified workers, who, not to put too fine a point on it, could afford to buy a ford car.
"They are the ones that rent/buy the buildings for you to work in. They have all of the overhead cost and ALL of the risk. They stand to lose far more than you do if the business fails."
The worker is hurt too when the company fails. Why should the worker carry the workload and part of the risk, but only the bare minimum of the profit? That makes no sense to me.
" If the business fails, he is out and owes thousands if not millions... you lose the next couple paychecks. The difference is, both people can go get a job at McDonald's after but the business owner is now in severe debt, you aren't."
Yes and the flipside is that if the business owner is any good and has good luck, timing, etc., he can make a big profit.
Furthermore, what you said isn't true of the higher end of the spectrum. When the really big companies fail, workers often end out in the streets without a pension, but the CEO's always make sure they end up retiring on a fat stash. I have no problem with small businesses (and that doesn't include hedge funds in my terminology) making a profit, god bless. I have an issue with the CEO's, bankers and financiers towering over the very large companies, draining off ludicrous profits while they skimp on every possible measure that might make their workers' jobs more bearable.
"But you know, they are the greedy ones even though you want their money without doing the work or shouldering the risk. Makes total sense."
Without doing the work? Really?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to skip through a large portion of this reply because all you've managed to do is produce your own set of numbers after I have provided you with numbers proving the opposite. You want to believe your numbers for whatever reason and I believe my numbers because I've lived them. You still didn't produce any context or any variables to your charts and findings though so, of course, that doesn't sway my opinion in the least bit and it shouldn't convince you that you are right either. There are a couple points that I wanted to hit but I think this will be my last message to you. I've spent far too much time looking up articles and evidence to support my position when all of the evidence in the world isn't going to convince you of anything because that's not what you want to believe nor is it something you are actually interested to learn. You can have the last word because I'm guessing that's what you really want.
"And you are forgetting that the employees are the ones ACTUALLY DOING THE JOB."
That may be true for the super rich in some cases where they have built up their businesses to the point where they run themselves, but certainly not for the small business owner like myself. I put in far more hours to make the company work than any single employee and I would wager that I work just as hard if not harder because I know that they depend on me to sign their checks. It's offensive to me, as someone who cares a lot about his employees and works very hard to keep money in their pockets, for someone like you who has probably never run a business and probably never will, to make those kinds of assertions. Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that every company is as dedicated to their employees as I am, and they certainly don't all compensate them as fairly as they should. But to make broad assumptions like that is ignorant at best. Try running a company. It's not all roses and luxury like you are trying to paint it to be.
"The government is the one upholding law and order, which OBVIOUSLY massively benefit the rich and the business owners. You can't run a business in a war zone. The government makes the food and water safe, not just for the company owner who can aford evian, but for the factory workers as well. The governemtn put all those workers through school. The government builds the roads and bridges that the employees use to get to work, that the company uses to ship its goods. The government invests in (some of) the science that allows the company to produce better, faster, more."
Nobody is arguing against the benefits of government. In fact, I already explained to you what the role of government was and those are legitimate.
"To ignore all that..."
I'm not, as I just explained. That's your own false assumption that you based on your beliefs of what conservatives think, not what we actually think. You should pay more attention to what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying through your liberal filter.
"...and whine about how the poor worker gets to pay no income tax, shows an almost immoral lack of consideration IMO, not to mention a lack of good business sense."
I'm not whining about them not paying taxes, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of them whining about the rich not paying more when they don't pay any. THAT is where the immorality truly lies IMO. And what does that have to do with business sense? You need to back those kinds of insults up instead of being passive aggressive about it. I've tried to be relatively civil to you and I've tried to keep the personal attacks and the character attacks out of this. You're pushing it.
"For all their faults, old school capitalists like Ford and Rockefeller at least understood the merit in taking care of their employees. At the time there were hardly any welfare programs around, but these magnates built hospitals and schools. Ford in particular shocked the world by paying his workers double the normal rate, which gave him highly dedicated, highly qualified workers, who, not to put too fine a point on it, could afford to buy a ford car."
The key phrase here is, "At the time there were hardly any welfare programs around, but these magnates built hospitals and schools." That's kind of a big case against big government. The government isn't what cares, it's the people. There are still people like that that donate millions to charities. Mitt Romney himself donates 30% of his income to charity which is far more than you and I will probably make in our entire lifetime combined, let alone give back to the community. Ford didn't do those things because the government forced him to (socialism), he did it because he could afford it and because he wanted to.
"The worker is hurt too when the company fails. Why should the worker carry the workload and part of the risk, but only the bare minimum of the profit? That makes no sense to me."
That makes no sense to you because you aren't using your head. You contradicted yourself in your next response because you know it's true that the worker isn't hurt NEARLY enough as the employer when the business fails. The worker doesn't carry the risk. If he leaves he doesn't take any risk with him. The worker doesn't carry all of the workload either, again, that's extremely ignorant of you to assume that a business owner doesn't do anything but sit back like a fat cat as he is showered with money. The worker shares the amount of profit that can be allotted in the budget that wont cost the company any money in most cases. Sometimes they are compensated more sometimes less depending on a thousand different variables. Again, your ignorance of how a company is actually run is blinding and all you've been doing is working off of stereotypes.
"Yes and the flipside is that if the business owner is any good and has good luck, timing, etc., he can make a big profit."
See. You don't even stick to your own rhetoric and you're only arguing for the sake of arguing. Again, this is why this will be my last response. I find it funny that you have a problem with someone being successful though. Being good at your job (being a business owner is still a job), having good luck, and timing which turns into profit seems like a good thing to me. I find that liberals have a huge problem with coveting and jealousy. This statement says it all, as well as the general resentment and hostility towards anyone successful that isn't yourself.
"Furthermore, what you said isn't true of the higher end of the spectrum. When the really big companies fail, workers often end out in the streets without a pension, but the CEO's always make sure they end up retiring on a fat stash."
More stereotypes and more demonization of the rich. Why does that not surprise me in the least? Of course some people HAVE done that. But how many of those people are actually on the streets? 'None' seems pretty close to the actual number. Shit happens, get over it. If the government failed, do you really think that it'll be any better for the people at the bottom or any worse for the people at the top? Haha yeah right.
"I have an issue with the CEO's, bankers and financiers towering over the very large companies, draining off ludicrous profits while they skimp on every possible measure that might make their workers' jobs more bearable."
Do you really think that you're the only one? Corruption bothers everyone. This isn't something that only liberals have a problem with, but again, government isn't any better. Tell my brother in the marines that he should be happy that he makes so little as he gets shot at while the politicians who control his salary gets everything payed for and collects huge salaries for the rest of their lives for sitting back and lying to their constituents. Not to mention all of the "perks" from unions and businesses that need some political favor. The river runs both ways here. People suck, man. No matter what sector you are in... Except politicians usually suck a little harder.
"Without doing the work? Really?"
Really. If you think you deserve their money when you aren't the one that pays for the building, the electricity, the water, the equipment, the product, everyone's salaries, their healthcare, the marketing, the rest of the overhead, matching their 401k, coming up with the ideas, putting up the initial investment, jumping through the hoops to get all of the permits, etc etc.... you fool yourself and you think too highly about your worth to the company. Unless you are doing all of that, no you didn't work for it just because you "flip the burgers." You are replaceable. If not, then you're probably getting compensated a lot more, and you should be.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've stated my reasons for dismissing intrastate numbers, namely that the tax burden doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of (financial) government representation in a given state. I think comparing nations, or looking at stats in a country over time is a much sounder way of assessing the impact of tax rates on economic growth and national debt. And i think these stats are clearly in my favour.
But I don't think I can convince you arguing from my position and against yours. I think you're a reasonable guy, and there might be quite a lot of middle ground, so instead of arguing from opposite sides of the spectrum, let's try to find something we agree on and see how we think that could best be achieved.
You say you're a small business owner; I take that to mean you're not a hedge-fund manager, something which does fall under the GOP's definition of small business. You mistakenly assume I'm somehow against you; I'm not. I think small businesses are very important in job creation, especially in an economically healthy society. Small businesses have a much greater level of fair compensation between owner and employee, mostly because of the much smaller profit margins compared to big companies, but also because of the personal interaction between owner and worker, the significantly higher investment in human capital, etc. Small businesses supply interesting, varied, rewarding jobs, instead of dreary conveyor belt stuff. Small businesses create competition and innovation, diversity and thus freedom of choice. Again, I have nothing against small businesses and don't think they should be taxed more.
But the game is rigged in favour of big businesses, just as it's rigged in favour of the extremely wealthy. For a large company employing 100.000 people, a $1 raise would translate into $1.2 million extra wages. It's clear to see how the very large companies, the behemoths, have a lot more to gain from keeping wages down than a small company does. And the more profit a big business makes, the more likely it is to apply for all sorts of tax loopholes, deductions and exemptions, which culminates in the very largest companies paying very little if any taxes at all.
In terms of profit margins, it's nearly impossible for most types of small business to compete with big businesses. Instead, they have to rely on quality of product/service to attract customers. An increase in poverty/income inequality hurts the small businesses by denying potential customers the choice of going for the better, more expensive service. It helps the very big companies by expanding their customer base and their pool of potential employees (due to unemployment/undereducation).
I think the shift toward bigger and bigger businesses had/has a very important part to play in the ever increasing income gap, and it's something that has been so prevalent due to a number of factors, the erosion of labour unions, the extreme cuts and wild loopholes in the high end of the tax code and a freeze on wage increases all have significant parts to play, and probably a lot more factors besides.
I am convinced that in many areas of business, large companies decrease competition (thus inevitably quality goes down or prices go up), hurt fair labour compensation and ultimately, overall employment. I am convinced that for small businesses to be economically viable in an age of giant multinationals, the corporate behemoths should shoulder a heavier tax burden than the small companies.
At this point, the best way to illustrate my argument is with a cheesy metaphor:
In a race between a big horse and a small one, if you want a "fair" race, you put a rider of equal weight on each horse.... and the big horse will probably win every time. If you wan an exciting competition, one in which the small horse has a shot to win sometimes, you give him the lighter burden.
A telling statistic is that between 2007 and 2008, the number businesses with 1-99000 employees went down. The number of businesses with over 100000 went, up during the crash. Only 1/12 of the labour force was employed by businesses between 1-4000 employees. More than half is employed by a company with over half a million workers.
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
"And that's why States like CA (the bluest state in the nation) are going bankrupt? Because they are managed so well and have all kinds of income? All that image shows is net federal revenue per capita. We've already established that they bring in more money thorough higher taxes and what not. The point is that if taxing the bejesus out of people worked, blue states, especially CA, would be at the top, not the bottom."
Look, the federal government collects the tax dollars and gives the states their funding. Now of course, the national government spends a bunch of cash directly, so the amount of state funds will always be less than the tax revenue that state brought in. However, let's take take a look at how much California pays in taxes:
$313.998.874.000
What is the state budget?
$93.005.000.000
That's right, california makes three times as much tax dollars as it spends on state government! Only 30% of its tax revenue goes to the state! What happens to the other 200 billion dollars? Part of it gets spent nationally, part of it GOES TO OTHER STATES.
Compare:
Louisiana tax revenue: $33.677.000.000. State budget: $25387788404, I.E. 75% of the tax revenue.
Texas? Tax revenue: $225.391.000.000 Sate budget: $173.500.000.000, 77% Notice something? Texas generates less tax revenue than Cali, and spends MORE on government! Isn't that amazing?
Blue states pay more taxes and see their tax dollars shipped to states that don't raise (enough) taxes. And then these republicans still have the audacity to say liberals are sucking the government teat. If California, got to spend 75% of its 300 billion dollar tax revenue on state governance, they'd have a 225 billion dollar budget, more than twice its current size. They'd have the biggest state surplus in the country.
Now I agree that Cali government could be more efficient,but to act as though they're squandering money hand over fist compared to other states is ludicrous when you look at actual numbers.
"Why is it that in nearly all indicators, red states are doing better than blue states? If the red states cost more money to maintain, than they bring in, they would be going bankrupt as well. Job growth is higher [link] , unemployment is lower (same BLS link as the previous), housing prices are more stable [link] , and gas is lower [link] , and pay has increased [link] . The only place where blue states did better was in GDP growth. 2.5% in blue states compared to 2.2% in the red states."
Well, since state governments have been imposing austerity measures left and right, it makes sense that the people living in blue states got hit harder, having had more to lose from cuts in welfare. Most of the new jobs created by obama were private sector jobs, while government employment went down.
"Why? The experts say that it's because red states are more business friendly (less taxes, fewer hoops to jump through, fewer regulations, etc.) not because all of the money is being thrown into red states while blue states are being ignored. As a small business owner, I can attest to that. I wont even do business with California anymore because it's just too much of a hassle. I was born and raised there and I would love to return and base my business there instead, but it makes no financial sense to do so and I would probably lose my business. You know you have a problem when your state has Hollywood and no movies are made there anymore."
Look, if you can move to texas and have the california taxpayers pick up the tab for you, why wouldn't you? The problem here is that the states get to charge whatever the fuck they want in taxes and beg the federal government to pay for the inbalance. It's unfair competition between the states.
If you're such an advocate of free enterprise, you should realise that in order for the states to have fair competition, their revenues and expenditures need to be proportional to one another. If you want a state that doesn't tax, you should get a state that doesn't SPEND. You can't have the other states pick up the tab for you.
'β¦it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures"
Look, if you want real competition between states, you need to level the playing field. States with incredibly low tax rates like Texas should not be allowed to exceed a certain porportion of their tax revenue in expenses. If Texas gets to spend 77% of its tax revenue on state governance, wouldn't it be fair to expect other states like california to do similar? And if Cali spent 225 billion, can you imagine how much more services they could provide everyone? Right now the states that undertax provide services that they couldn't possibly pay for if they were held to the same standards as blue states, which is why I'm not surprised that people are moving there out of economic considerations.
Living in a red state is having your cake (paid for by other people) and eating it too.
"Yet, he still promised it and everyone bought it... and then conveniently forgot about it when it didn't happen. And give me a break, remember the super majority the Dems had once Al Franken was sworn in? Do you realize that a super majority made the Dems "filibuster proof"? They can and DID push whatever they wanted though."
The democrats had a filibusterproof majority for two years and wasted it trying to be centrist and bipartisan. Afterwards, not even originally republican ideas with republican sponsors could pass without a filibuster.
Look, I disagree with some of the things Obama did or didn't do, so it doesn't make sense to try to get me to be his spokesperson in this debate because I'm not. I'm not advocating every single one of Obama's plans because I disagree with many of them, mostly because I feel they're still too centrist, too tame, too corporate friendly. All I'm advocating is sanity when it comes to fiscal policy, and that's something that I feel is absent a great deal MORE in conservative financial policy. I'm not saying democratic policy is perfect, it just beats the asinine money-squandering done by republicans.
"Yup, and they set their own "realistic expectations" that they couldn't reach, or even come close to, not me, not the Republicans."
Ok, what would YOU have done to "fix" the economy in 2009-2012? I'm very curious what kind of choices you would have made to turn around the impending depression without hurting the poor and middle class families (or are those fair game?).
"
He failed because he didn't solve ANYTHING not everything. He is a failure because NOTHING he has promised about the economy has come true, and in many cases, things are worse. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
This is the point, let's pretend that it's ALL the Republican's fault even though the Democrats controlled congress though half of Bush's presidency (and Bush only vetoed 13 of their bills or some ridiculously small number like that) and voted for the wars and such that put us in this mess, the Democrats said they could fix the economy with their policies. They didn't. Not even close. They didn't even try."
Obama fixed the banks' massive solvency issue, put an end to the economy's freefall and turned a steady decline into a (as of yet tiny) growth. Oh and he's ended that war your country fought for no apparent reason.
You cannot fix a deficit and a recession at the same time unless you cut out those parts of the state spending that don't create economic growth. Contrary to popular belief, that doesn't mean ending welfare and social security, it means ending massive subsidies(which should have been persued more vigorously) and extravagant military spending(which has gone down thanks to the end of the war in Iraq, but should go down a lot more. The US represents 47% of the world's defense spending, which is ludicrous).
"Yeah hahaha ok. What fantasy land are you living in? You tell me where Obama has been eager to accommodate the Republicans in anything that they weren't already going to do. Let's not forget that the Democrats had ALL of the power in the government for the first two years of Obama's presidency. They could have done whatever they wanted. So instead of focusing on the economy, they decided to ram Obamacare through."
The US spends significantly more on health care per capita than any other nation, yet it's ranked #27 in QUALITY of service. Furthermore huge amounts of people are uninsured. That's an abysmal record. Health reform was needed, not just to increase coverage and quality, but also to drive down costs. Part of the problem is that uninsured people suffer lasting consequences from ailments that could have been easily prevented or treated by timely treatment. Last year >3000 people died due to lack of health insurance, a comparable amount to 9/11, yet do you see people starting a billion-dollar war over THAT? Half of the people who lost their homes in foreclosure after to the 2008 crash went bankrupt due to some health-related problem. Of those people, 75% WAS INSURED at the onset of the problem.
Don't you think that a bloated, inefficient health system is a problem, not just to citizens but to the national interests? Don't you realise that the more uninsured people there are, the more expensive the US health problem becomes in the long run?
Furthermore, the democrats spent time on social( and other) bills which had been severely neglected in the previous 8 years. Equal pay for women act, various consumer protection acts, "Don't ask don't tell" repealed, Pay-as-you-go reinstated(!), and of course the 9/11 first responders bill, guaranteeing medical coverage for the people who risked life and health to help on that day, paid for by closing a corporate tax loophole, which the republicans, patriotic as they are, filibustered.
Should Obama have done more social legistlation? I think he should. Gay marriage for example would have been a feather in his cap. But as you clearly demonstrate, everything not directly related to economics is seen by republicans as an unnecessary distraction, even when it serves the national interest.
"They didn't do anything to reduce the deficit, in fact, they increased it during those two years. They didn't reduce the debt, they increased it. They could have set a budget, but they didn't, they could have done ANYTHING. Stop lying to yourself by saying that Obama is trying to work with the Republicans. I seem to remember him saying to the Republicans something to the effect of, "there are consequences to elections, you lost, sit in the back." That's quite the opposite of an eager attitude to work with the Republicans. Also, you didn't answer why he couldn't follow through with his promise to cut the deficit in half. Instead, you decided to wrap yourself in your delusions of Obama holding hands with the Republicans."
During a recession, austerity is the LAST thing you want to do. Instead of stimulating growth, making austerity cuts decreases consumption, thus economic growth, making it HARDER to get out the downward spiral. You want an example of republican legistlation that Obama was vetoed on? What about Obamacare, modeled on Mitt Romney's health care plan? What about Cap-and-Trade, originally a REPUBLICAN idea to deal with climate change (back when they stil believed in it?).
"Exactly... employing people COSTS MONEY. If you don't have money to spend, YOU CAN'T EMPLOY ANYONE. Again, as a business owner with a number of employees, I am far more familiar with this than you are. Think of this from a "selfish" business owner's perspective, not through the liberal lens of rainbows and unicorns. I want to make more money, to make that money, I need employees to help out. The more money I make, the more employees I can hire to make ME more money. Also, the more money I have, the better I can pay my employees. In short, employers employ people to make them more money, not to help the economy. The bigger the business, the more money it makes and the more employees it needs. I live this every day... I doubt you do."
If you own a factory with 200 workers, hiring twice as many workers to make twice as much product doesn't guarantee twice as much revenue. There is such a thing as supply-demand. Doubling the supply will likely reduce the value of the product without significantly improving demand.
If your business runs a record profit, do you pay your workers more? Do you give them better health coverage? This is the core flaw in supply-side nonsense. By giving CEO's tax cuts, you're ensuring that they have more money. What they do with that money is entirely dependent on circumstances, but rarely involves massive hirings or an increase in wages/benefits, instead it often involves another lamborghini or money sent down to the cayman islands. In modern day business models, employees are seen as a financial burden, not a source of revenue (lol).
If your goal is to improve the lives of poor and middle class, it's a lot more effective to give the money directly to those people rather than giving it to the top 1% and hoping that somehow, some part of that is going to trickle down.
"And this is where you are confused. Nobody is saying that the rich will sustain the economy single handedly. The rich employ people and the more people that are employed, the more . That's the bottom line. The government doesn't create jobs, it destroys them. Going back to the red vs blue topic, because of the government and liberal policies, businesses are failing in those states and people are losing their jobs, not getting them. If you don't have a job, you aren't buying stocks, or cars, or anything for that matter. You aren't paying taxes and you aren't contributing in any financial way to society. In fact, you're probably a drain. You simply don't know what you're talking about."
You insist that the government destroys jobs, but I don't see any data that specifically prove that. Your state by state comparison is flawed for the reasons given above, a much better indication would be nationally noticable trends, like this one: [link]
Even more damning, compare unemployment duration:
[link]
[link]
To the relative tax burden:
[link]
[link]
As corporate tax rates and top tax rates plummet, the unemployment (duration) INCREASES??! How is that possible when all these "job creators" are swimming in cash?
[link]
Very wealthy people are NOT the biggest job creators. Yes, they personally employ a lot of people, but when you look at the total amount of working people, the biggest employer is a massive pool of small, local businesses. The only way local businesses can be profitable is if they have a sufficiently broad customer base, logically consisting of mostly middle-income consumers (why, because a thousand dudes buying one car apiece is better for business than one guy buying twenty. Thus, a healthy middle class, NOT a wealthy aristocracy, is the best way to stimulate employment and economic growth.
"Because that's what I said right? I said that research and development are examples of waste. I definitely said that we don't need roads, teachers, police, and fire fighters. I also said that war and subsidies are the only worth while expenditures... You're absolutely right. It's always nice to have people try to put words in my mouth and create straw man arguments... /sarcasm"
You call it a strawman argument, but when you look at the republican platform, that's EXACTLY what they represent: low taxes, as little government as possible, privatisation of public services if possible.
"Seriously? Solyndra isn't the only example... Obama has only made bad investments! The list of Obama's sorry investment losses goes into the billions and has resulted in a meager few jobs, to be generous. Solyndra, Tesla, Raser Technologies, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power, First Solar, Abound Solar, Beacon Power... the list goes on and on. Once of the biggest "zings" in the presidential debate was when Romney said, "you don't pick winners and losers, you only pick losers" and all Obama could do is laugh. He didn't have a rebuttal for it because he knew it was true. And you want to know what the worse part is? Obama's advisors advised him AGAINST those investments BUT HE STILL DID IT and lost billions in tax payer money."
Starting up a new industry (alternative energy in this case) requires HUGE initial investments. You're blaming Obama for investing hundreds of millions in these new energy fotms, when your party is the most furious advocate of the BILLIONS of dollars (10-50 bln) that the fossil fuel industries have been receiving annually for years, in some cases over a century.
Even if the total amount of money spent of fossil fuel and green energy subsidies were comparable, I'd still argue that investing in green energy is the sensible investment. Oil, coal and gas are finite and harmful, eventually we will have to shift to other energy sources, and until then funding the guys trying to make the transition makes a hell of a lot more sense than funding the guys who want to keep us addicted to oil and coal.
"Thank you for yet again making my point for me. I don't care which party is making the wasteful decisions, the point is that the government is full of waste, period. These are my words exactly as I wrote them: "Because, you know, the government never wastes our money... The beacon of efficiency that it is, it would be ridiculous to think that." You quoted me yourself. It's time to work on your reading comprehension and stop trying to put words in my mouth."
Except that, once again, the party you're representing doesn't advocate restraint when it comes to certain kinds of spending. Look, I think the US government is one of the most financially corrupt institutions. If you want to tackle government waste, it's not so mucvh a democrats vs republicans issue, it's about getting corporate america out of the government. I just don't see how the policies you're proposing would fundamentally change that dynamic in the slightest, and in the mean time I do see how republican policies end up hurting poor and middle class families, thus ultimately america as a whole.
"Not only were the spendings a huge waste of money and didn't help, you want to waste more? "
Where is your evidence that the stimulus didn't help? Where is your evidence that it was a waste? The economists involved in the stimulus were well aware that more money would've been needed, they just realised they wouldn't get it. A small bandage to stop the bleeding is better than nothing.
You're arguing that democrats "wasted" money on the stimulus (for which you've yet to explain how/why it failed), therefore money they'd spend on other things, say, welfare, is a waste too. It's a massive equivocation fallacy.
"Actually, I live in the real world and I am an employer, so I actually know what I'm talking about and I'm not basing my opinion on talking points and theories... and it works exactly like that. Reality to you is the fiction you created to support your ideology, not the real world."
You base your ideas on your perception of the dynamics of running your business. Your "reality" is based on personal experience, which is clearly subjectve and biased.
I base my ideas on easily accessed facts. The twentieth cetury is full of glaringly obvious examples of keynesian economics at work, of big government leading to big economic growth. Look at the the success of the model T ford, the New Deal, and the Wirtschaftswunder.
If you look at the growth rates for the past 65 years [link] , you see a clear cyclic pattern of growth and recession, but beyond that, you see a downward trend setting in during the seventies, with each period of growth producing lower rates of growth than the previous one. For me, the mechanism is obvious: income enequality is hampering the growth of the US market. When you look at the GNI per capita, all the countries that score BETTER thean the US (and there aren't that many, it's true) are EITHER tax havens for millionaires or socialistic european countries. Go figure.
"And where do these people get their money to by their cars? Their jobs. Where do these people get their jobs? Their employers. How are employers able to make jobs and pay them the money it takes to buy those cars? The employer's money. If the government takes more of the business owner's money, profits decrease, job creation slows down or stops, and that leaves fewer people without money to buy their cars. Money doesn't just make itself."
The government can give people more money directly by employing them, lowering their taxes, providing other cost-of-living reducing benefits or increasing minimum wage.
The only way in which companies give people more money is by increasing their wages, something which clearly isn't in the best interest of the company's profit margin.
According to Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer of JPMorgan Chase, as of 2011, corporate βprofit margins have reached levels not seen in decades,β and βreductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement. ... US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."
Yet your answer is to give rich people more money. Look, I can't BECOME an employer if I have no customers to sell my product to. Welfare money doesn't disappear into a black hole, it goes right back into the economy for another spin.
"Exactly where does the government get its money? The private sector. If you have a thriving private sector, you have more tax revenue. If you have a thriving public sector, it's because the private sector is paying the bills. "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher. China practically owns us because we have run out of other people's money to spend here and we have to borrow from them now to pay the bills that a big government has created."
The government gets its money from everyone, whether they work in the private sector or in public office. Your quote and argument sound really nice, until you realise that the money "wasted" on paying the public sector's bills didn't get launched to the moon, it ends up flowing right back into the private economy and the government's tax collection box. The econoy runs best when money is changing hands rapidly. Having the government pump the money "down" to the bottom bracket means there's a bigger, more constant stream of money flowing back up to the top.
"Well... maybe YOUR reality. Are you saying that the poor are the job creators? Are you saying that the government actually employes the thousands and thousands of Walmart employees? The millions of other jobs in the private sector? Yeah, you really have a grasp on reality. Why are you so sure that it's not your beliefs that are a "mischaracterization of reality"? Keep in mind, I'm sure because because of experience... you're sure because that's what you want to believe and that's what you have been told by fellow liberals."
Wallmart is the perfect example of eveything that's wrong with the USA. Employees are being exploited and threatened with layoffs if they DARE to strike or try to unionise. Profit margins are ridiculously high, yet all the money goes to the top executives. Oh and let's not forget the fact that walmart breaks (financial) regulation on a daily basis.
But there is some merit to what you're sarcastically saying: who do you think SHOPS at walmart? The fabulously rich Walton heirs, or the poor schmucks making minimum wage? Given that fact, do you think increasing the wages of employees might improve Walmart's sales? I bet it would. Yes the poor may not directly employ everyone, but the poor and middle class are the biggest consumers, thus the biggest driving force behind the US economy. So yes, they ARE the job creators.
"Where are these numbers and facts that say that the wealthy don't create jobs? Where are these numbers that say that the less money the wealthy (or whatever imaginary entity you think creates jobs) have, the more jobs they create? "Kooky ideology"? "Making shit up when the numbers disagree"? Looks like someone is projecting."
[link]
Gini coefficients are a measure of income inequality. As you can see income inequality is going up.
[link]
This plot shows the correlation between GINI coefficients and social mobility. Clearly, a society that creates (and rewards) opportunities for individual succes is one with a GREATER level of social mobility.
[link]
This graph once again shows the relationship between top tax rates and economic growth.
'Yeah. Most of all, the fact that they spent more than they have and the people are rioting in the streets because they aren't getting what they are "entitled" to. Sounds like the direction Liberals would like to take us in. Spending far more than we have and creating more and more government dependance is practically the mantra of the left."
The people rioting in the streets are upset because they have to work with reduced pay or none at all. The people responsible for the mess greece is in are not the ones paying for it, much like the poor people in the US aren't the ones responsible for the 2008 crash.
This "blame the victims" mentality of conservatives is one of the most vile and naive things about the whole ideology. As much as you like to emphasise personal responsibility, no one is in complete control over his/her life and the things affecting it. No one gets to choose who they are born to or where, or with what talents. If you work hard, I think you deserve a comfortable, happy life, whether your daddy was a president or an assembly-line worker.
"LOL are you seriously trying to say that's the reason the country of Greece failed? Do you even have ay proof to back this up that and says that was the major factor? Or is this just your own conclusion to explain the failures of socialism away?"
Greece was already in dire financial straits due to widespread corruption and a shitty tax system with an idiotically high tax evasion rate. But they managed to get into the EU and the Euro thanks to Goldman&Sachs hiding their massive debt:
[link]
I don't HAVE to make up facts to get my "ideology" to work. Reality, you should try it once.
"The evidence is in the history of our country. Whenever we have done the best, it has been in time where people have payed less taxes and government wasn't in the way. Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets."
That's simply not true, and you're not providing sources or facts, only your assertion that what you're saying is true. Even at the time, proponents of supply-side economics never claimed that the tax revenue lost would be immediately made up for by short-term growth, that's just GW Bush's hyperbole. No, they were convinced that eventually, the extra growth created this way would be worth the short-term loss in revenue. well, as it turns out, the effects of supply-side on growth were disappointing at best, and here are 450 economists, including 10 nobel prize laureates, who agree with that: [link]
If you want to make the case that Reagan's tax cuts were revenue-neutral, how do you explain this?:
[link]
"Your graph that you provided to support socialism clearly shows that. The deficit success of Clinton was because he straight up worked with the Republicans to make it happen or else he would have been voted out. Look at the deficits under Bush (that were improving before Obama came in) and then the astronomical leap right when Obama came into office right when the Democrats had ALL OF THE CONTROL and pushed through socialistic policies."
The 'astronomical leap" is caused by:
1. market collapse and accompanying TARP, Stimulus and increased welfare costs.
2. The fact that Obama had to put Iraq and Afghanistan on the books. Bush had simply left out these expenditures from his accounting. It's derogatively called "fighting a war on a credit card" for a reason.
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm going to try to condense the points and not hit every one of them because I simply don't have the time and you and I both know that nobody is going to be changing anyone's mind here.
I don't have the exact numbers for the CA budget, deficit, and tax revenue so I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument. If you want to further discuss it, then please provide sources for your information. Actually, now that I think about it, you need to be more specific about those numbers anyways because we need to know how those taxes break down. (how much is state tax, how much is federal, social security, etc...) No matter what, they are obviously spending more than they can afford even if a disproportionate amount is going to other states or they wouldn't be going bankrupt and that's the very basic point.
I was under the impression that CA was working with about a $1.9 trillion economy with about a $87 billion budget, but those are probably old numbers now. At any rate, a huge problem with their spending and income problem is loopholes in the tax code (which is what the Republicans are proposing to fix as opposed to the Democrats who just want to raise taxes).
"Now I agree that Cali government could be more efficient,but to act as though they're squandering money hand over fist compared to other states is ludicrous when you look at actual numbers."
They are squandering money hand over fist though. I'm not saying that's the only reason why they're failing, but it's certainly a big factor. How is it ludicrous to think that you shouldn't waste money on things you shouldn't be paying for and can't pay for?
To break this down to the fundamentals we have the left that wants to spend more and pay for it by raising taxes because they prefer big government and handouts while demonizing the people who pay for these handouts (the rich). Then we have the right that wants to spend less and close the tax loopholes to keep the nation from having to borrow from countries like China just to support programs that we shouldn't be paying for anyways. Raising taxes on the wealthy straight up doesn't work because there aren't enough wealthy people in this nation to tax to make up for the spending. Romney's plan to cut taxes, close loopholes, and limit tax breaks is a plan that can work to generate revenue and has worked under Reagan and Kennedy, despite the lies from the left based in speculation calling it "voodoo" or "mathematically impossible"...
I'll let a much smarter man than you or I am explain the numbers, Martin Feldstein. He's a Harvard professor and a contributor to the Wall Street Journal. When it comes to finances, The Wall Street Journal is the #1 source. [link]
Thereβs something un-civic and wrong about the minority of Americans paying all of the taxes. Everybody should pay some tax, just as everybody should vote. As recent history shows, an untaxed majority is unlikely to reduce taxes on the taxed minority. In the 1970s and β80s, rate cuts were possible only because inflation pushed many lower-earning taxpayers into higher brackets. Then these lower earners endorsed cuts. Democrats play to this psychology because it gets them votes. They have far more to gain during a failing economy with more people depending on the government than Republicans. That's the evil behind the left, they flat out don't care about you, they care about your vote and keeping you under their thumb. The worse off you are, the better off they are.
"Oh poor you, come to the government and we will take care of all your troubles. It's not your fault, it's those mean old Republicans and the greedy rich who wont give you more of their money. Vote for us and we'll make them give you more of what you deserve... No no, you don't need to work, we'll stop handing you money if you have a job."
Prime example of this, my cousin. He's super liberal and gets about $2000 a month from the government... in Idaho... because he doesn't have a job. He can get one but he doesn't because why would he work 40 hours and make 320 to 400 a week if he can sit on his ass and make $500 a week? Even if he made $500 a week, that's $12.50 an hour AFTER taxes... like he's going to give that up to find a job that pays him that much when he can get by doing absolutely nothing. He will probably never change his political views and always support the people who give him something for nothing. And the conservatives are the greedy ones? And the rich are the ones that don't pay their fair share? Please.
I'll leave you with this video of JFK telling the American People that cutting taxes is what creates jobs and brings in more revenue: It was a good idea then, and it's a good idea now: [link]
"Most of the new jobs created by obama were private sector jobs, while government employment went down."
All jobs have gone down under Obama those private sector jobs that were created were in spite of Obama, not because of him. You're buying into the slight of hand accounting the Obama administration is frequently guilty of.
"The democrats had a filibusterproof majority for two years and wasted it trying to be centrist and bipartisan."
That's such a joke. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. They wasted it pushing through Obamacare. When did they ever try to be centrist about anything that they didn't already agree on? Who are you trying to fool?
"All I'm advocating is sanity when it comes to fiscal policy, and that's something that I feel is absent a great deal MORE in conservative financial policy. I'm not saying democratic policy is perfect, it just beats the asinine money-squandering done by republicans."
If you were actually advocating sanity when it comes to fiscal policy, you wouldn't be on the side of the Democrats who have no concept of fiscal responsibility. Maybe you have seen this analogy before, but look at it like a family budget:
- U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,418,000,000,000
- Fed. Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
- New Debt: $6,500,000,000,000
- National Debt: $16,000,000,000,000
- Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000
Remove 8 zeros and pretend this is a household budget.
- Annual family income: $24,180
- Money the family spends: $38,200
- New credit card debt: $65,000
- Outstanding balance on credit card: $160,000
- Total budget cuts their liberal accountant will allow them: $385
Hopefully this puts things into perspective for you. Keep in mind, those budget cuts were considered draconian by the left.
"Health reform was needed, not just to increase coverage and quality, but also to drive down costs."
So that's your answer to my question about how democrats were ever eager to accommodate the republicans? You totally blew off the point and went off about healthcare. This also seems to be one of your favorite talking points to explain away the fact that the Democrats wasted their first two years of essentially incontestable power pushing through a pet project instead of fixing the economy like they should have. To indulge your tangent, I know healthcare isn't where it should be and I know there are flaws, but like I mentioned in my comment just barely, that's not the number one priority. And you tout Obamacare like it actually fixed things? Not only is it major tax increase (which Obama said it wasn't and actually scoffed at the man who asked if it was a tax [link] ) but it takes out of medicare, it puts us into even further debt, greatly increases the deficit, and it is estimated that there aren't going to be enough doctors around to handle it. I could go on and on.
"Should Obama have done more social legistlation? I think he should. Gay marriage for example would have been a feather in his cap. But as you clearly demonstrate, everything not directly related to economics is seen by republicans as an unnecessary distraction, even when it serves the national interest."
Um, excuse my language but, no shit! If your house is on fire, you don't start changing the baby's diaper you get the hell out of there and try to put it out! Once you get the crisis taken care of, then you can start worrying about changing the baby's diaper and doing your hair. Are you seriously arguing that it's ok to let the house burn down because the dishes needed to be done as well? What kind of logic is that? Of course the republicans thought that they were unnecessary distractions. THEY WERE!
"During a recession, austerity is the LAST thing you want to do. Instead of stimulating growth, making austerity cuts decreases consumption, thus economic growth, making it HARDER to get out the downward spiral. You want an example of republican legistlation that Obama was vetoed on? What about Obamacare, modeled on Mitt Romney's health care plan? What about Cap-and-Trade, originally a REPUBLICAN idea to deal with climate change (back when they stil believed in it?)."
See the analogy of the family budget above. Those cuts were hardly a drop in the bucket. Your logic is that if your family is in ridiculous amounts of debt and you are going through a financial crisis the last thing you should do is tighten up your belt and stop paying for cable and stop going out to eat. Again, what kind of backwards logic is that?
"If you own a factory with 200 workers, hiring twice as many workers to make twice as much product doesn't guarantee twice as much revenue. There is such a thing as supply-demand. Doubling the supply will likely reduce the value of the product without significantly improving demand."
I love that you're trying to tell me how a business makes money and how a business grows as if I don't understand what supply and demand is. Do you run a company? If not, you should end the condescension. What you don't understand is that you CAN'T just hire 200 more workers unless you have that money already coming in because the demand is already there. If the government is taking a large portion of the profits, that creates a bottle neck and you aren't able to grow with the potential demand. Some businesses reach their peak sooner than others, but that's irrelevant because that business owner can save more of his/her income and expand into another area where there's a demand or invest it into another company. Either way, it creates more jobs. This is a ridiculously simple concept and I simply don't understand why liberals don't get it.
"If your business runs a record profit, do you pay your workers more? Do you give them better health coverage? This is the core flaw in supply-side nonsense."
That's up to the business owner. If I am making more money because of the direct efforts of my employee, I would absolutely give them more money because he or she is worth it to me. Again, think of it as a selfish greedy employer (like we all are to liberals). I stand to gain if my employee is happy. If I can afford to pay that employee more and I think that will encourage him/her to make more money for me, why the hell wouldn't I? Why do you think huge companies like Buckle work off of commissioned based sales? It motivates the employees to sell more because it puts more money in their pockets which in turn puts more money in the pockets of the owners. This really isn't rocket science. It isn't a flaw because you are working off of a straw man argument based not on experience but on what other liberals have told you... who probably also have no experience creating jobs.
"If your goal is to improve the lives of poor and middle class, it's a lot more effective to give the money directly to those people rather than giving it to the top 1% and hoping that somehow, some part of that is going to trickle down."
Ok so now that I've told you how I would run the country, you tell me how you would run a company under your policies that you suggest. Tell me how you would pay your employees, pay for their healthcare, pay for the overhead, and grow your business if the majority of your profits are taken by the government... And then, after all of those expenses, tell me how you would pay yourself. Then tell me why anybody would ever want to run a business under those conditions. Oh and don't forget the supply and demand ceiling that you will hit (if you're lucky).
"You insist that the government destroys jobs, but I don't see any data that specifically prove that."
Again, look at CA. They are destroying jobs and forcing them to go to different states because of all of their regulations, taxes, and fees. Ask any business owner and they will tell you that life wold be so much easier if the government would get off of their backs. I'm not saying that SOME regulations SOME taxes and SOME fees aren't needed, but CA is just ridiculous.
"Even more damning, compare unemployment duration:
[link]
[link]
To the relative tax burden:
[link]
[link]
As corporate tax rates and top tax rates plummet, the unemployment (duration) INCREASES??! How is that possible when all these "job creators" are swimming in cash?
[link]"
You need to give the source of all of these links to provide context to all of them. They aren't even labeled well enough for you to use them as a stand alone source. As you know, graphs can be made and distorted quite easily. Knowing where the information came from and what the variables are is kind of important.
"Very wealthy people are NOT the biggest job creators. Yes, they personally employ a lot of people, but when you look at the total amount of working people, the biggest employer is a massive pool of small, local businesses."
You are changing my words around to fit your narrative. I never singled out the "very wealthy" and said that they are the biggest job creators. I know that small businesses are the biggest employers. In the eyes of most people, those people are also rich. With that said, keep in mind that a lot of small businesses get their start because of a "very wealthy" investor.
"The only way local businesses can be profitable is if they have a sufficiently broad customer base, logically consisting of mostly middle-income consumers (why, because a thousand dudes buying one car apiece is better for business than one guy buying twenty. Thus, a healthy middle class, NOT a wealthy aristocracy, is the best way to stimulate employment and economic growth."
I understand this. You don't seem to understand where the money comes from. A healthy middle class isn't the result of the government. If you are in the middle class, chances are, you aren't receiving any government assistance. In fact, you're starting to pay more to the government than you are receiving. The middle class are there because they have jobs and they are doing well because they are making enough to sustain themselves. They are making enough money because their employers are able to pay them that much money. The employers are able to pay them that much money because they have made enough profit to do so. IF THE GOVERNMENT TOOK MORE MONEY AWAY FROM THE BUSINESS'S PROFITS, THE BUSINESS WOULD PAY THE EMPLOYEE LESS (or lay them off) AND THE EMPLOYEE WOULDN'T BE AS FINANCIALLY HEALTHY. Just follow the flow of money and that will cure all of your liberal theories.
"You call it a strawman argument, but when you look at the republican platform, that's EXACTLY what they represent: low taxes, as little government as possible, privatisation of public services if possible."
It IS a straw man! Low taxes, small government, and privatization of public services does not equate to NO research, NO funding for roads, NO teachers and firefighters and such. That's the kool-aid talking. Go ahead and point out t me where the plan is to get rid of funding for roads. While you're at it, show me where it says that the republicans want to get rid of teachers and firefighters. And then point to where it says that the republicans plan to get rid of research. I'll wait. It'll give you a chance to actually read what the platform really is, not what your friends tell you.
"Starting up a new industry (alternative energy in this case) requires HUGE initial investments. You're blaming Obama for investing hundreds of millions in these new energy fotms, when your party is the most furious advocate of the BILLIONS of dollars (10-50 bln) that the fossil fuel industries have been receiving annually for years, in some cases over a century."
Yes, I'm blaming Obama for wasting BILLIONS not millions of tax payer dollars because A) they all failed and B) His advisors TOLD HIM THEY WOULD FAIL. And no, I don't agree with all of the fossil fuel industry SUBSIDIES... not investments... There's a big difference, and at least they haven't all failed and they have become a asset to the country, not a failure. But you know what we call those Republicans who spend like Democrats? RINOs... And they are being voted out pretty fast and you will see another round of RINOs and Democrats losing their jobs to actually conservative republicans next month.
"Even if the total amount of money spent of fossil fuel and green energy subsidies were comparable, I'd still argue that investing in green energy is the sensible investment. Oil, coal and gas are finite and harmful, eventually we will have to shift to other energy sources, and until then funding the guys trying to make the transition makes a hell of a lot more sense than funding the guys who want to keep us addicted to oil and coal."
Yes, eventually we will have to shift and by that time (in a few hundred years) we will have the right tools and technology needed to switch and be a financially viable option. We will probably get their well before we even come close to running out and we won't need the government to rush it along. Why do you think Obama was wisely advised against investing in those companies? Better yet, maybe you should look at the hand crony capitalism (which isn't real capitalism) played in Obama's decision to fund his buddies with our taxes. I find it hilarious that you people think that electric energy is any better. You know where that electricity comes from right? Also, do you even realize that those pious electric cars create more of a ecological footprint than your standard gas vehicle before it even drives off the lot with all of the materials in the batteries and the shipping and so forth? If you actually cared about clean energy, why do you only support the plans that don't work and oppose natural gas and nuclear? Those are both safe, clean, easy, and cheap. I think of all the delusional talking points, the green ones are the most irritating. Don't get me wrong, I would throw down money for a Fisker Karma any day, but there's a reason why they are going out of business already like Tesla and there's a reason why all of the car companies are dropping their electric cars. They simply aren't financially viable and they only appeal to the self righteous pricks who want to seem like they care about the environment. If you haven't already, you should see the episode of South Park about "Smug" it's priceless.
"Except that, once again, the party you're representing doesn't advocate restraint when it comes to certain kinds of spending."
I'm not advocating a particular party, per se. I'm pointing out the idiocy of thinking that the government knows how to spend our money better than we do. I'm arguing against letting the government borrow more money just so they can throw it in the garbage again and fund more projects that will fail. It's just ridiculous. This all started because you are saying the government didn't spend (waste) enough money the first time so you think they need to spend (waste) more.
"Look, I think the US government is one of the most financially corrupt institutions. If you want to tackle government waste, it's not so mucvh a democrats vs republicans issue, it's about getting corporate america out of the government."
I agree. But agin, why would you give them more money of you know they will mismanage it?
"I just don't see how the policies you're proposing would fundamentally change that dynamic in the slightest..."
It's simple. We don't give them more money for them to squander on special interests and pet projects. We keep more money in the hands of the people who earned it, rich or poor, and we let the people decide what company/bank/product they want to support. We DON'T let the government take more of our money and pick winners and losers (all of which have been losers lately) and we don't let them destroy businesses and jobs by stripping away profits.
"...and in the mean time I do see how republican policies end up hurting poor and middle class families, thus ultimately america as a whole."
No, you WANT to see that because that's what you WANT to believe will be the result if liberals don't get their way and businesses are able to keep most of their profits.
"Where is your evidence that the stimulus didn't help? Where is your evidence that it was a waste? The economists involved in the stimulus were well aware that more money would've been needed, they just realised they wouldn't get it. A small bandage to stop the bleeding is better than nothing."
How about the fact that we have fewer jobs, not more. Maybe because unemployment isn't where the Dems promised it would be. Probably because We are in a worse position now than we were 4 years ago. Or we could look at the fact that people are making less now than they did 4 years ago. "A small bandage to stop the bleeding" is the wrong analogy, it was a large bandage made of money and lined with gold to fix the broken arm. It wasn't even the right treatment.
"You're arguing that democrats "wasted" money on the stimulus (for which you've yet to explain how/why it failed), therefore money they'd spend on other things, say, welfare, is a waste too. It's a massive equivocation fallacy."
Are you kidding me? I said, "Not only were the spendings a huge waste of money and didn't help, you want to waste more?" It's the same topic. I'm not talking about the stimulus in the first half and welfare in the second half. You need to start actually reading what Im saying to understand it, not read it just enough to say, "NU UH!!" That wasn't an equivocation fallacy at all, but your rebuttal is.
"You base your ideas on your perception of the dynamics of running your business. Your "reality" is based on personal experience, which is clearly subjectve and biased."
Maybe you should try reading what you just said... You're trying to tell me that since I have experienced it, that makes my reality subjective and biased? What kind of bull shit are you trying to feed me? Are you trying to say that theory is a preferable gage of reality than actual experience? Or that theory is unbiased and objective while experience is the opposite? We would still think the earth is the center of the universe with that kind of logic. I literally laughed out loud. Remember how I told you that liberals prefer theories that sound good but aren't sustainable over theories that have been proven but don't sound as fluffy? Well, there you go.
"I base my ideas on easily accessed facts. The twentieth cetury is full of glaringly obvious examples of keynesian economics at work, of big government leading to big economic growth. Look at the the success of the model T ford, the New Deal, and the Wirtschaftswunder."
Model T Ford? You mean the production line? You mean capitalism? I'm fairly certain Ford wasn't successful because it was run by the government. The New Deal? You mean the plan that failed to create jobs? Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury, said, βWe have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!β Sound familiar? It will in 4 years if Obama is reelected.
"The government can give people more money directly by employing them, lowering their taxes, providing other cost-of-living reducing benefits or increasing minimum wage. The only way in which companies give people more money is by increasing their wages, something which clearly isn't in the best interest of the company's profit margin."
So you're basically saying that government is better because they have the power to do what the conservatives want them to do anyways, i.e. lower taxes, let companies have more money to pay their employees, and create a market that allows low costs? Weird how that works... Supply and demand, remember? When the government takes more away from the companies, supply goes down, demand goes up and so do the prices.
"The government gets its money from everyone, whether they work in the private sector or in public office."
You're avoiding my question. The government isn't a self perpetuating entity. It requires the money from the private sector which goes through the waste machine that is the government and then whats left goes back to the private sector because that's where people prefer to spend their money because they get the biggest bang for their buck.
"Wallmart is the perfect example of eveything that's wrong with the USA. Employees are being exploited and threatened with layoffs if they DARE to strike or try to unionise."
I'm not a fan of Walmart either, but you know what's so great about Walmart? You don't HAVE to work there OR shop there. Unions are garbage anyways, speaking of corruption, and they only serve to line the pockets of the union bosses and the democrats they support. They served their purpose a while back, and now, like the Al Sharpton, they are struggling to be relevant to keep the money coming their way. But this conversation has gone too far into the weeds as it is so that's all I'm going to say about unions.
"Profit margins are ridiculously high, yet all the money goes to the top executives."
That will never change. Do you think the government is any better? Give me a break. It doesn't take a genius to see how corrupt and greedy the leaders of our government are. The difference is, we HAVE to support them with our taxes whether we like it or not.
"who do you think SHOPS at walmart?"
Everyone. You'll find that many of the wealthy are frugal and unsurprisingly cheap. On one hand you paint them as greedy penny pinchers but on the other you are trying to paint them as lavish spenders. Most of the time, the rich get that way because they know how to save money. My in-laws are very well off and they are always at Walmart. It's not a class thing, it's a money saving thing and we can all relate to that. The only reason why more of the poor shop there is because there are more poor people. It's basic math.
"Yes the poor may not directly employ everyone, but the poor and middle class are the biggest consumers, thus the biggest driving force behind the US economy. So yes, they ARE the job creators."
That's like saying the pencil created the artwork, not the artist; thus, the pencil is actually the artist. ....right.
"[link]
Gini coefficients are a measure of income inequality. As you can see income inequality is going up.
[link]
This plot shows the correlation between GINI coefficients and social mobility. Clearly, a society that creates (and rewards) opportunities for individual succes is one with a GREATER level of social mobility.
[link]"
Again, you need to provide the source and the context, not just the picture. Those links don't mean anything and you seem to be getting every one of them from the same (probably biased?) source.
"I don't HAVE to make up facts to get my "ideology" to work. Reality, you should try it once."
Except that's all you've been doing while simultaneously disregarding real world experiences because they don't fit your narrative. According to you, the real world is subjective and has a conservative bias.
And the rest of what you said has already been covered. So I'll end this novel right here.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm going to answer this one first in it's own reply and then move on to the rest of your comment
"Ok, what would YOU have done to 'fix' the economy in 2009-2012? I'm very curious what kind of choices you would have made to turn around the impending depression without hurting the poor and middle class families (or are those fair game?)"
I would have to answer this question by writing a book. But suffice it to say, that I believe in very little government intervention. That's not the government's role. They are to help facilitate an environment for people to be prosperous, not try to control the free market. Least of all, the government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers or bailing out any companies. Here are the bullet points:
- I wouldn't have given any bailouts to any company that was failing and certainly not to any banks just because they were "too big to fail". No company is too big to fail, if they are failing it's because they are doing something wrong. It's natural selection for the business world.
- I would restructure the tax code so that everyone pays the same amount of taxes across the board. That's the actual definition of fair, not the poor pay nothing while the rich pay everything. If you pay nothing in taxes, better yet, if you pay nothing in taxes and receive government checks like so many liberals I know do, you have no room telling the man that pays more in taxes in one year than you will make in a lifetime that he doesn't pay his fair share.
- I would cut all of the unnecessary spending out of the budget and leave it up to the states to decide if it is an investment worth making.
- I would restructure the welfare system to make it so that people have to earn what they receive in one way or another based on their skill sets and preferences. No free rides. Of course there are some people that can't work because of physical or mental disabilities and there can/should be exceptions for those people and their care takers. Within the welfare system, I would try to organize a system that helps them find a new job or teach them a trade so that they can support themselves like a lot of work programs out there. I would probably reduce the amount of time you can receive welfare to 2 years as an incentive for them to find a job. For the next year after, I would offer the business that hired him/her half of what they were receiving in welfare to subsidize their checks. Basically weening them off of the government.
- I would make us energy independent, streamlined regulations to help, and I would have approved the Keystone Pipeline on the spot.
- I would fix the education system by making the public school systems competitive with private schools by taking a page out of their books and seeing how they do it. Or I would give offer the money that would have been spent on that student to the school that they chose to go to as an incentive for the public schools to step up their game. Part of fixing education would be getting rid of the teachers' unions that do nothing but act as a money pit for Democrats while making it next to impossible to fire bad teachers. If you haven't seen "Waiting for Superman", you should.
- I would cut all of the worthless taxes and regulations to promote small business.
I'm sure I've missed a couple things but that's the basics. Healthcare is important, but it certainly isn't and shouldn't be first priority. If you don't have an economy that can sustain it, it doesn't matter what you do for healthcare. You have to take care of the fundamentals first.
π: 0 β©: 0
Saw him at a political rally last night, and he threw out facts like candy, it was fantastic
π: 0 β©: 1
That must have been a shockingly new experience. US politics is governed by politicians who like to keep things as vague and abstract as possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
It was, I'm too used to abstract bullshit.
π: 0 β©: 0
Unfortunately, if you want to solve the deficit, you have to raise taxes and not have tax cuts and borrow money from China to pay it off (seriously, how does that work?).
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, at this point it's unrealistic to say that the budget can be fixed just by increasing tax revenue, considering the billions(trillions at this point?) of dollars of annual deficit. However, I think austerity when it comes to social safetynets would be a terrible way to fix that gap. The interest rates are extremelt low right now, people are practically paying the US to borrow their money, so I honestly don't have a problem with the US borrowing more, as long as they invest it in stuff that actually gets the economy roaring again. The problem I see is that all this excessive borrowing by the US seems to be going directly to the pockets of CEOs and billionnaires, ending up in foreign bank accounts and invested in foreign countries, where it does NOTHING to further the US economy.
Seriously, if Obama borrowed a 4 trillion dollars and paid every person in the poorest half of america ~26000 dollars, it'd probably do the economy more good than any tax cuts for the wealthy, and it'd be CHEAPER than Romney's proposed tax cuts. Imagine the huge boost in consumption a 26 thousand dollar handout would produce....... The US has tried 3 decades of supply-side economics, to no avail. I think it's high time for some rational, Keynesian demand-side economics.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love the poster, but that should say "Arithmetic" XD
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought about it, but it was too long compared to "hope" and "change".
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>