# As of today I'm no longer an Obama supporter



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2010)

Not because of the compromise - although that totally sucks - but because he added fuel to the foul ideology that's responsible for the financial crisis we're in. And now he's making it worse by selling this as a job creation package.

Hopefully the Democrats in the legislature will stand tough.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 8, 2010)

Took you a while! I bailed out even before watching Inside Job.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 8, 2010)

try not to fall over, but I was pretty disappointed as well.

From a political perspective the only rational I can find is that it is an olive branch of some kind, and yeah, he needs an olive branch, but this wasn't the best choice, I think. It weakens his position on future issues. I don't get it.

From an economic perspective, well, I'm still on the fence, both sides are playing with the numbers to make their case, and I don't know if anyone knows what the real numbers are anymore. Maintaining the current levels of taxation for those groups currently referred to as the lower and middle classes is essential. 

There probably is a threshold above which raising the tax rate has no significant impact on the folks affected by the increase. Again, I don't know what it is, and I do think $250K is probably on the low side.

Now before you fire up your flame throwers...
1) I said think, I really do not know where the threshold is
2) I spent five years working for a Big-5 consulting firm. The partners earned annual bonuses that were north of that (their salaries were $2K/month - they lived for, and on, their bonuses, fairly common practice in a partnership.) Most of the partners that I knew did own really large homes, not mansions by any stretch, but larger than I'll ever own. And they drove reasonably nice cars, but again, nothing ostentatious (well, one woman bought herself a Bentley, but it was scratched in the parking lot, and she promptly sold it<G>).

For the most part they positioned themselves financially so that they had no mortgage, no car payments, and trust accounts set up for their spouses and children so that they did not need life insurance. I think that'd be a fairly nice way to live, just haven't figured out how to get there yet.

The main driver was not to amass wealth, but rather to set themselves up so that if one day they were "counseled" to find employment elsewhere they would not be in a world of hurt.

Do I live like that? No!

Do I know lots of folks that do? Not any more<G>.

Do I think that it is over the top irresponsible, or greedy?

No. They are doing what most of us strive to do, which is create a level of financial security for their families that lets them not sweat the bills each month, or college in the future.

Do they absolutely need to live like that? Probably not, but if they are willing to spend half their lives away from home, and work 12-16 hours a day six days a week to reach that level of security then I think they've earned it.

I wasn't willing to spend the time traveling, nor was I willing to spend most of my waking hours working for them. So I left, and now I deal with that decision. But I also appreciate the sacrifices they make to earn that level of income, and I don't think that they need to be penalized for the choices they made.

Now, above a certain point I'll admit, I do not get it. How many homes do you need to own? How many cars? How many yachts?

I think at some point your greed gets the better of you, and it becomes all bout the scorecard called wealth... and I think that's a shame.

Will increasing the tax rate for these individuals really deprive them of that new personal jet? Even if it sets them back a couple of weeks on delivery I think that's OK.

But you know what... most of the members of the Senate, and a lot of the members of the House fall into that category, and maybe... just maybe, it really does affect their lifestyles. I don't know, I do not hang out in that circle.

Maybe I am being hypocritical or illogical or unfair to think that taxing people based on their income level is fair. (I do actually believe that a consumption based tax system if far fairer, but that's not going to happen any time soon!)

What I know, based on really simple math that even our government can not obscure, is that:
a) raising the tax rate for the super rich generates a LOT more cash than raising the tax rate for the middle class.
b) we need to do something about the current financial situation, and dropping programs that assist the poor is not a solution
c) the super rich ought to feel grateful, at some level, for the fact that they live in a country that supports a marketplace that let them get super rich!

I know that I am grateful for all the blessings that I have received, or earned. I don't get why the most fortunate of all seem so opposed to paying a bit more. At my income level it doesn't seem unfair at all.

OK, done ranting, raving, and rambling...


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 8, 2010)

I will say this: if you live in LA and you make $250,000, you are not rich. You are obviously far from poor, but I you will not be buying an expensive house or boat or driving a Maserati.

If Obama handles working with the Republicans, as he now MUST, half as well as Bill Clinton did in similar circumstances, the country will be better off for it.

But I dont think Obama is a Bill Clinton. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Dec 8, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> But I dont think Obama is a Bill Clinton. I hope I am wrong.



I don't think it's the same GOP as it was 15 years ago either.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> I will say this: if you live in LA and you make $250,000, you are not rich. You are obviously far from poor, but I you will not be buying an expensive house or boat or driving a Maserati.


Excellent point!

Here's the other really strange thing about my time at the partnership... they adjusted salaries (but not bonuses) based on where you lived. If you moved from Philadelphia to e.g. Manhattan, or LA (and I'm sure other cities), and you weren't yet a partner, you would get a bump in salary so that your standard of living remained roughly the same. I always thought that was pretty cool, but since the offices in Manhattan and LA were among the largest, and busiest, and they needed to attract and retain talent there, it was in their interest to do so. The funny part was that if you then moved back to an area with a lower cost of living they could (but seldom did) re-adjust your salary. Generally you just didn't get an increase for a couple of years till things equalized.

As a guess, partners in those offices were among the most senior, and therefore received larger bonuses (all partners were equal, just some were more equal than others<G>). Since I left before making partner I don't know for certain how they made that work.



Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> If Obama handles working with the Republicans, as he now MUST, half as well as Bill Clinton did in similar circumstances, the country will be better off for it.


This is true. And it may be the reason behind this particular decision. I still think it's a poor decision, but since I am not a member of Congress I may not have all the information. Sitting where I do, I think the tax rates for those of us that aren't super rich need to stay the same, and I can't imagine that raising the tax rates for the super rich is really a big deal. But it won't be happening anytime soon.

An example of the golden rule perhaps? (those that have the gold make the rules!)


----------



## Mike Connelly (Dec 8, 2010)

One thing that's often missed in the tax discussion is that the higher tax rate only applies to the amount of money over that particular threshold. So if someone makes $251,000, the amount of tax on the first $250k stays the same and only that last $1000 gets a higher rate.

If you do the math, letting the rate for those above $250k expire doesn't seem like it
would really be penalizing people. I believe the increase on the top bracket would be 3.6% so someone making $300k would pay an extra $1800 per year, which is .6% of their total income. I don't see how that would be a hardship nor do I see how it would stifle the economy, especially compared to the alternative of giving that $1800 break to someone in a lower income bracket who is more likely to spend that money.

Not to mention that the 250k threshold is *taxable* income. There are plenty of loopholes that make it possible for people making more than that to stay in the lower bracket.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hey Mike,

Both really good points, and I think that those who wish to leave things as-is purposefully obscure them... which is too bad for everyone!

I don't live in LA, so maybe I would be crying in my (would I be forced to drink domestic) beer if they made me give up some extra cash.

We all benefit from loopholes, and I think many people also miss the fact that they'd be better off with the cash instead of the deduction. But that's a different topic<G>.

The thing that bothers me most about the current deduction system is that it is really a way to try to influence behavior through legislation.

Well, that and the fact that it takes me about 3 minutes to fill in my local tax return - flat rate, how much did you make, give us this much of that - and hours to complete my federal return. At least my state lets me use the federal schedules, so that's not quite as annoying as it might be.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 07 said:


> Not because of the compromise - although that totally sucks - but because he added fuel to the foul ideology that's responsible for the financial crisis we're in. And now he's making it worse by selling this as a job creation package.
> 
> Hopefully the Democrats in the legislature will stand tough.


Welcome back. Obama told us already during the fight for a public option to get lost and that he wasn't our President. He is not even his own President - he never honors the positions he held in the Presidential campaign. He is good at one thing: calling those who fought for him derogatory names. He is losing his support Internationally as well: My niece in Sweden wrote him a tribute song when he was newly elected. Now she says she doesn't want to be his "elf" any more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Hans - yup. What you're saying is exactly the point: this isn't a compromise, it's a total betrayal of everything we know is right.

And of course none of the points Mike or Jay or anyone else has made were lost on me before this!

Jay, you're looking at this through a debate framed by conservative ideologues and political sports commentators. The idea of a progressive tax system is NOT to make people pay for being rich. Of course $250K is not rich.

We are in a financial crisis that was ultimately caused by a tax structure that allowed so much of the income to flow to the top. That's what this is about, not being Clinton or compromise or centrism or anything else in the political game.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 8, 2010)

i dont know what anyone thought was going to happen when he lost the house. he was always going to lose the house. this is what happens when kids get on the internet and believe platitudes. now weve gotten into 2 years of a lame duck labor president. no good to anyone.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 8, 2010)

Palin 2012!!


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 8, 2010)

My cousin is a Station Fire Chief in Yonkers and his wife is a retired Nurse.
I am sure they are happy to be called wealthy now....... =o 
Fortunately to avoid being wealthy me and the old lady have taken time off.
We will see the family, and actually enjoy ourselves. Then I can go to CES and NAMM, and start programming LASS and all of the other new Instruments I bought this week.
So thanks for the uncertainty and confusion Washington........... :lol: 

I'd rather pay developers here than the lying beggars in DC.
They want to fix what they screwed up........??
Pony up your own cash.

And Jose, Palin will mark the Mayan Calender prediction of Armageddon, she cannot be allowed to run.
But I do enjoy watching the elites fall to peices as they watch her climbing Mountains and wresting Grizzlies or whatever nonsense she does.
Jeez they even follow her daughter around........

Anyone want to see what real leadership is.......
Watch Nancy P., Bernie S. and a few other unshakable career players.
I would never vote for them personally, but they dont waffle around, and fight like Lions gaurding their Cubs.
There's a few GOP guys too, but they are so boring I cant remember their names.

Dont worry guys, I am quite sure the elites will put up more smoke screens and sideshows, and in the end the people will suffer as the elites have their grapes fed to them as they fly in their jets and have trees planted in Bolivia to offset their carbon use.

God Bless The USA............ /\~O


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 8, 2010)

Methinks if you are unhappy about a tax raise over 250 k/anno you are suffering on a very high level.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Dec 8, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Palin 2012!!



:D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Hannes - das stimmt. But I think you understand why this is about much more than the actual policy, right?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Ned, I'm with you.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 8, 2010)

Tax cuts for the wealthy will not improve the job situation. Why? *Because we have a crisis of demand, not supply.*

When few people own shoes and there isn't enough capacity from the shoe factories, that would be a crisis of supply. Helping people amass capital would make sense in that situation. The wealthy could buy stock in shoe companies, factories could be built or expanded, and people would be hired to make shoes - and would also have the cash to buy them.

Our situation is the opposite today. We have a wealth of supply. We have overcapacity. And since there isn't enough demand, workers are let go, factories fail, and demand continues to drop.

It doesn't help that China is producing much more than it consumes. China's monetary policy helps maintain that imbalance.

Go to a local restaurant on a weekday. Is it crowded? Probably not. Let's say that the owner of a small local chain has enough employees to serve his customers, and that the chain is in the black. And lets say that this well-to-do owner gets a tax break. *Does he hire one more employee? No.* Why not? He doesn't need to. The money just goes to some investment fund - which again is on the supply side.

What would make the restaurant owner hire more people? More customers. More demand.

Giving a large amount of money to a small number of people won't bring more customers to the restaurant. More money - and/or more security - for the middle class is the ticket. If the middle class is financially secure, we will go out to eat, the restaurant owner will hire more people, and demand will fuel the creation of more jobs.

And, yes, the wealthy will make more money. But only if they serve the growing demand.

Right now, the wealthy should be taxed MORE to help pay down the debt and reduce the gap between rich and poor. And the day that we foresee a lack of supply, we should cut taxes on the wealthy once again.

Why is it so hard for Obama to make the case for *demand-side economics*?


----------



## rgames (Dec 8, 2010)

Jon,

What you have described is probably a fair assessment of the situation (but economics is based on human behavior, so nobody can actually be sure). However, you have shown only one possible solution: increasing taxes. The exact same effect can be had by reducing government spending.

So the argument boils down to which you prefer.

Keep in mind, we already had huge increases in government spending and unemployment is still very high - do you really think we should keep doing the same thing?

Also, simply giving more money to the government has never (at least not in the last 75 or so years) reduced the size of the debt. Even in the glory days of the Clinton surpluses the national debt increased every single year. So giving more money to the government will allow more government spending but how does that put money back in the pockets of the middle class?

But the magnitude of the debt doesn't actually matter - it's the relative amount of the debt compared to the size of the US economy. That's where things are scary. During the Reagan and Bush I presidency, it sat around a very managable 30 - 40%. Then under Clinton it went up to the 60% - 70% range and stayed there through Bush II. Since Obama took office it has gone to nearly 100%. That's the real problem - debt as a percentage of GDP is now approaching levels not seen since WWII.

So the focus needs to be on that ratio, not necessarily the actual magnitude of the debt. Changing the ratio can be done one of two ways: decrease the debt (not likely because it hasn't happened in 75 years) or grow the GDP. You are certainly correct that the growth in GDP won't happen until the middle class gets more spending power but I disagree that increasing taxes is the only way to achieve that goal. Increasing taxes might be the best way to reduce the debt but reducing the debt/GDP ratio can be achieved by spurring economic activity through continued tax breaks.

Of course, you are also correct that the trick is to get folks with the money to start spending it. But that's a problem of psychology - I don't think tax policy will have much effect there.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard, 

You changed the topic. The national debt is secondary. The primary goal is to increase employment and that requires an increase in demand, not supply.

I don't see how cutting government spending will increase demand - especially if it cuts money in the hands of the lower and middle classes. This includes those employed by the armed services, government contractors, teachers, those in medical fields (serving people on medicare, etc), road and bridge builders, and on and on. Government workers (aside from Senators) don't tend to be millionaires.

By cutting government spending, we would reduce or eliminate income for working people and increase the unemployment rate. That would reduce demand. And so the spiral continues.

Consider the housing market today. Do we need millionaires to have more money to invest in building more new homes? Or do we need more people working and secure, so they can buy the excess homes on the market and make zombie neighborhoods whole again?

We live in a world of oversupply and under-demand. That's part of why all that investment cash was floating around looking for get-rich-quick schemes like credit default swaps and other worthless garbage. There was enough excess capital that banks were loaning it to people who couldn't pay it back. (And that's not limited to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.)

If demand were great and clear, there is more than enough capitol available. Even after the crash, Capital swamps demand.

Giving tax breaks to those at the top just doesn't make sense today. It's time to restore balance with more cash in the real economy and less swirling around in the casino.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard, you're making the case for Keynesian economics: increase the money supply when the economy is down (as opposed to the monetary base, i.e. quantitative easing) in order to increase the GDP.

However, the main point to raising the marginal tax rates - modest as the current proposal was- is that we have this incredible concentration of income at the top, at the expense of the middle class. That's why there's no demand: the middle class can't send more women out to work or borrow any more. So increasing the taxes at the top would indeed increase growth, prevent this from happening again, and redistribute the wealth - Obama's famous socialist communist extreme radical insane line that offended all the perverts during the campaign.

Getting people with the money to spend is NOT psychology. You keep saying that, but we could have had 24 hours a day of positive economic news for the past three years and it would have had no effect. The only thing that will get people with money to spend it is customers.

And this is why I'm so upset with Obama - not because of the terrible, terrible policy move, but because he's making the case for shit ideology. That will ensure that the country stays in the toilet, because these "deficit hawks" (code for getting rid of all social spending) are going to ensure that the economy shrinks at the bottom and creates more bubbles at the top. It's already happening.

Jon certainly gets it.


----------



## midphase (Dec 8, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> I will say this: if you live in LA and you make $250,000, you are not rich. You are obviously far from poor, but I you will not be buying an expensive house or boat or driving a Maserati.



Meh, I disagree. One thing is for sure...if you're making over $250k/year...you're probably bitching that life is tough.

Want to know what the median household income is for greater LA? Care to guess? It's ok...most people won't. The median income for a family in Los Angeles is $39,942 (as of 2009). I would think that $250k by those standards is pretty damn rich.

I think a lot of it depends on your standards of living, you might not drive a Maserati, but perhaps you're riding a nice BMW or Audi which is still way better than a beat up Kia.

The other misconception (one that apparently Chimuelo is also not aware of) is that your tax % hike past the $250k only applies to anything over $250k. So if you make $251k, you're only paying the higher rate on $1k of the total, not the entire thing. The idea that someone is supposed to take time off and turn down work just so that they don't go beyond the $250k limit seems without merit and perhaps it's time to change accountant.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 8, 2010)

The problem with GOP ideology is that it's the same regardless of the situation: cut taxes, cut services, and cut regulation. It all favors capital.

If unemployment were low and inflation were rising, it would be a great time to cut services - but not to the quick. There are places where the private market fails to meet human needs. But if the debt is too high, that would be part of the reason for rising interest.

If unemployment were high, yet factories working at capacity, it would be a great time to cut taxes on the wealthy to spur investment and free up capital. 

But right now capacity is high, interest rates are low, and employment is low. The debt isn't such a big concern with such low rates. Available capital isn't the issue. The issue is demand.

If somebody can show me how GOP policy _directly_ increases demand and brings money from the fake economy back into the real economy, I'm all ears. As far as I can see, tax cuts for the wealthy increase capital and unless you own Tiffany's demand for your products and services won't increase.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Dec 8, 2010)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Tax cuts for the wealthy will not improve the job situation. Why? *Because we have a crisis of demand, not supply.*



Exactly. Tax breaks for people most likely to spend it make sense, while tax breaks for people who will probably just save it or pay off existing debt is money that will increase the deficit while doing little if anything to help the economy, it's just a giveaway with no benefit.

Great posts on this topic, I wish the topic of supply versus demand and the related issues were mentioned by the media.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 8, 2010)

I don't really even think that it's as complex as Jon makes it out to be. Tax cuts for the rich have simply never been stimulative. Ever. They are the most inefficient use of government money - eg. they have the worst multiplier effect. Meanwhile, things like food stamps have a very high multiplier effect. Worse yet, tax cuts for the rich can have an almost NEGATIVE multiplier effect if they take their new money and invest overseas... which is exactly what happened during the Bush years, where over $1 trillion went back to the rich, and an even great figure was invested in other countries (eg. out of our economy.)

It's tempting to just give up, but we can't do that. I've been calling my state representatives and making my voice very clear. ANYONE who thinks tax cuts for the rich are good policy is out of their mind, and I will prove it to them.

To the argument that "we spent a lot of money, and it didn't work"... at the time that the stimulus was being discussed, even LEFT-leaning economists were saying "this isn't going to work." People like Paul Krugman (nobel-prize winner) said that it was not big enough as a percentage of GDP to have a tangible effect, not to mention some aspects of it were simply not set up to be as stimulative as possible. Two years ago, he (and others like him) predicted correctly that we would pass this half-hearted stimulus package, and that when the economy didn't magically bounce back, the president (and the Democrats) would be blamed - "look, their way didn't work! time to try our way!"


----------



## José Herring (Dec 8, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Dec 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Palin 2012!!
> ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBi_Hb23meM

Screw Obama. Palin all the way!


----------



## rgames (Dec 8, 2010)

zircon_st @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> the Bush years, where over $1 trillion went back to the rich


Are you referring to the same Bush years where we had historically low unemployment rates? I'm guessing a huge percentage of Americans would be happy to go back to those times, so maybe we should send another $1 trillion to the rich. Obama's stimulus spent nearly the same amount and (probably) did little for unemployment.

So, summary:

1. Bush stimulus: $1 trillion back to the rich. Result: historically low unemployment and manageable debt-to-GDP ratio.
2. Obama stimulus: $700 billion in government spending. Result: umm.....


I think we're all in agreement that we need to get spending power back to the middle class. The question is how to do that. You basically have two options:

1. Give the money to the government (by increasing taxes on the wealthy) who then re-distributes it to the middle class.
2. Bypass the government and let businesses to do the redistribution.

The problem with option 1 is that it's inefficient - using the government as a middle-man incurs a lot of unnecessary cost. Also, it's not a sustainable solution: much better to get the economy to take care of itself.

It may be true that tax breaks for the rich do make them richer - but who cares if it also drives down unemployment and improves the standard of living for the middle class? Rather than discussing how tax breaks affect distribution of wealth (which, frankly, is basically a sour grapes argument), how about discussing how it affects unemployment or other basic standard of living metrics? 

Think of the quote above: we already spent nearly $1 trillion in a stimulus that did nothing. If we could have done as stated in the quote and given it straight to the rich, and it got us back to 4% unemployment, then wasn't that a better use of the money? Sure, the rich would get richer, but, again, who cares if it empowers the middle class, as well?

Jon - I mentioned the debt because you gave it as a reason to increase taxes on the wealthy. 

rgames


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 8, 2010)

Oh boy, here we go again :roll: 

How easily you tend to wipe out Bush 2006-2008.
When did the economy totally tank again?
Short term memory?

You can suck the life force out of a country for quite a while, with no telling signs of eminent collapse, until it becomes obvious that the end is near.

Parasites.

That's what you are suggesting we go back to.

Aren't you tired of the small minority getting all the spoils?
And with no justified untitlement, but for the fact that they lucked out (which in the grand scheme of things will remain to be seen in the end)

In your views, the army should control the education of this country, we should let the insanely rich without any taxation. Bush was a great president, and I am the Queen of England... =o


----------



## EthanStoller (Dec 8, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> 2. Obama stimulus: $700 billion in government spending. Result: umm....



Over 36% of the "Obama stimulus" was tax cuts. And to blame whatever deficiencies there are in today's economy as a result is a specious argument. For anyone to say with any certainty what the economy would have looked like today without the stimulus is pure speculation, but I'd venture to say that most reputable economists would opine that without the stimulus the economy would be in worse shape today.


----------



## midphase (Dec 8, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> 1. Give the money to the government (by increasing taxes on the wealthy) who then re-distributes it to the middle class.
> 2. Bypass the government and let businesses to do the redistribution.



You still haven't explained what makes you so sure that the businesses will redistribute. So far what we have seen in the past decade or so is that businesses either stock up on the $$$ (Apple is a good example of that), or redistribute to other countries like Asia.

At least with the government, however inefficient it may be, the emphasis is truly on redistribution.


----------



## rgames (Dec 8, 2010)

EthanStoller @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> to blame whatever deficiencies there are in today's economy as a result is a specious argument


I agree - establishing cause and effect in economics is, indeed, difficult. However, it is certainly the case that we have seen periods in history where the rich get richer and the middle class do quite well, also. So simply trying to keep the rich from getting richer does not, in itself, necessarily do anything for the not-so-rich.

Kays - you're right - if you put more money in the hands of the rich, they might just keep stashing their cash. I disagree that the entire last decade is an example - see the note about unemployment during the Bush years. However, I will agree that has been the case over the last couple years. One thing is for certain, though: they're certainly *less* willing to redistribute the wealth when they have less to distribute.

And you don't want to create that mentality right now: things are looking up. Corporate profits are up, the overall economy is growing, businesses just need to get their confidence back and they'll increase their tolerance for risk and start unloading that cash. The last thing you want to do in that situation is add another deterrent to business investment, and that's what the tax hike would do.

Let's say we did pass the tax hike. What happens next? How does all that money get back to the middle class? Do we suddenly create a bunch of federal jobs and hire like crazy? Or does the government just start sending out checks? Either of those outcomes in non-sustainable. We need to create the jobs *outside* the government, and the odds of that happening are improved by leaving the tax burden at a lower rate.

And, again, you're right: I said odds. Nobody knows for cretain what will happen.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Dec 8, 2010)

Actually for the most part, I find rich people far more generous and far more giving by nature than the middle class. Even poor people are far more giving than the middle class. As a matter of fact, having grown up middle class and then having hung around a lot of rich people and poor people (there are only two kinds in NYC), I find the so called "middle class" to be the most stingy. My dad is a good case an point. 

In all honesty I would have liked to have seen taxes go up on the middle class with huge tax breaks for the wealthy and poor. The poor because they need it. The wealthy because they've proven for the most part that they can handle money well. Tax the middle class making it just a little harder for them to get out multiple loans on gas hogging SUV's and a little harder for them to pay their 30 year subprime mortgages. 

People want to blame the financial down fall on the rich. I blame it on a bunch of middle class people trying to impress their neighbors by buying a house they could ill afford.

You think I can run for office on that?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 8, 2010)

You can try, but I doubt that you'd be popular with such a view.

Anyway, the middle class is a dwindling group.

I have nothing against the rich.
Only the insanely rich. That very select club that calls all the shots.

I don't think that tax break for the rich is constitutional.
Period.
Why wouldn't they support the nation they made a fortune upon?
Leave it to them to re-distribute!?

I think that we're much better off managing tax revenue collectively, rather that hope someone throws us a bone from the top of their ivory tower ...


----------



## P.T. (Dec 8, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Palin 2012!!



Hillary 2012!!



Hillary vs Palin.


I won't vote for either of them.
The answer isn't Democrats and Republicans.
We won't get past our problems until we get past Democrats and Republicans.

You don't fix things by reinstalling the bums you thew out last time and doing it over and over again.
This is a simple definition of mental illness.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Patrick is right on all accounts.

And Richard, the fact that you don't read enough about economics to see cause and effect doesn't give you license to make stuff up. Well, you can, but the result is the silly stuff you've posted in this thread. What you're doing is making arguments about things you clearly haven't thought through. It's very frustrating to read.

***
I want to shout really loudly that this has NOTHING to do with whether rich people are nice or not. It is NOT class warfare, it's a matter of what's best for our society.

Nobody is better off when all the money gets concentrated at the top. We all live in the same economy!


----------



## midphase (Dec 8, 2010)

P.T. @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> You don't fix things by reinstalling the bums you thew out last time and doing it over and over again.
> This is a simple definition of mental illness.



Unfortunately each and every time that a new candidate comes forth with the right attitude and the right words...they get shunned by the media, community, and ultimately the voters.

It's beyond me why people like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich don't get more attention....hell I'll even throw Ron Paul in that bunch.


Time after time after time, the public rejects these guys and keeps on electing the same old same old...you tell me what is the problem?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Ralph Nader is Satan.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Patrick is right on all accounts.
> 
> And Richard, the fact that you don't read enough about economics to see cause and effect doesn't give you license to make stuff up. Well, you can, but the result is the silly stuff you've posted in this thread. What you're doing is making arguments about things you clearly haven't thought through. It's very frustrating to read.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with that. Honestly if I were rich, I'd accept higher taxes if I thought it would help. Being top heavy in this society creates a kind of class warfare in itself.

I'm not ready to abandon Obama over the issue, but it's pretty disappointing to see him flip flop on this issue. Honestly I thought he was made of tougher stuff than this. He feels like he's got to win at all cost. I don't care if he goes down in flames fighting for what he believes in. I think people would respect him more if he did just that. Funny thing is that I expect that his poll numbers are going to clime by his track to the center. Honestly I think he's more positioning himself as an independent these days than a dem.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

http://robertreich.org/post/2147754943


----------



## rgames (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> And Richard, the fact that you don't read enough about economics to see cause and effect doesn't give you license to make stuff up.


Reading about economics has no bearing on whether or not it can actually be understood and predicted. History is littered with Nobel-winning economists who are proven wrong over and over.

Yes, there is benefit to studying economic theory (of which there are many, by the way, many that compete, none that can ever be proved) but it's not a science. As such, establishing cause-effect relationships is impossible. It's more like religion than science.

If economics is so clear-cut in your mind, how do you reconcile the many times that award-winning economists are proven dead wrong? And how do you explain the fact that we have liberal economists and conservative economists? Do we have liberal physicists and conservative physicists? Of course not - they're just physicists. Though they may be liberal or conservative, that fact has no bearing on the physics. Not so for economics.

Why is that? The answer is that economic theory is part science and part ideology. It has to be - human behavior basically dictates how economies work. And any time you throw human behavior in the mix, science goes out the door and ideology comes in.

Nothing based on human behavior can be understood in a predictive cause-effect relationship because there are no fundamental limitations on how people make decisions. Since economics is inherently tied to human decision making, it follows that it, too, can never be understood in an absolute cause-effect relationship. QED.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 8, 2010)

The problem with the GOP economic policy is that it's not based on economics. It's based on a view of fairness that is slanted towards the haves over the have-nots. Communists have a different view of fairness: everybody gets the same amount.

Neither extreme: "I get whatever I can take", or "Nobody gets more than anybody else" has anything to do with optimizing an economy. Both views are ideological.

I learned about another theory recently. (Sorry, I can't recall the author.) The idea is that there is an optimum gap between rich and poor that raises the least well off among us to the highest level possible at that time. 

If we had no concentration of capital, we would have no investment for factories, and no loans available for homes. It would be economic anarchy with everybody scrapping from day to day. Look to some of the poorest rural areas in Africa for a view of a world without capital investment.

And you can look a corrupt kingdoms for an idea of what happens when you concentrate the maximum wealth in the fewest hands. In this case, the general populace might have a touch more wealth at the price of being enslaved. Every subject exists for the purpose of serving the king, not one's self, family, or community. And the King can hire an army to keep you in line. 

In 1929, the concentration of wealth made us top heavy. We are top heavy once again, though things aren't nearly as bad as they were in the Great Depression. The symptoms are similar though. This is more akin to the Panic of 1893. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

We can work to normalize supply and demand, or we can allow the supply side to keep sucking the life out of the economy. If we choose the latter, expect more booms and more, bigger busts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard, economic analysis is asexual. Policy response is often ideological - in fact the more I read, the more I see that the history of the world is the story of economics - but that doesn't mean cause and effect are meaningless.

What we're hearing now from the Republican side is pure economic bullshit. Trickle-down does not work, and that has been shown: cause and effect.

Read that link to Robert Reich's blog. He has the excellent sense to agree with everything I've been saying in this thread.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 8, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> P.T. @ Wed Dec 08 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't fix things by reinstalling the bums you thew out last time and doing it over and over again.
> ...



I don't agree with what seems to be your premise that Nader and Kucinich have "the right attitude and the right words." I think that "they get shunned by the media, community, and ultimately the voters" because all of the above correctly see their ideas as totally unrealistic as they are.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> http://robertreich.org/post/2147754943



I tend to agree with most of what I hear from him when he has his little spots on Market Watch on PBS. That's a good show by the way and worth the 1/2 hour.

He would make a better president than all the rest of the bunch that is bothering us to vote for them.

Reich also said that we could completely fix the funding issues with social security by simply lifting the cap on the tax for the wealthy.
Not even eliminating the cap, but just raising it from $50,000 to $100,000 or $150,000.

Interestingly, very few people I talk to this even know that the cap exists. They think everyone pays the tax on their entire income.

When you consider that low and middle income people can least afford to pay it and the wealthy can most easily afford it and that lower income people who really need the benefits get the lowest benefits and the wealthy who really don't need the benefits get the largest benefits, you realize how criminal the soc sec system is.

Oddly enough, when Bush the Younger was president he said he wanted to reform soc sec and that everything, including means testing for benefits, would be on the table.
The democrats said, no. That there was no reason to change soc sec.
I wondered how they could say that considering how evil the system currently is and how regressive it is. So, do they represent the working people or the wealthy?

We need a huge shake out in this country.

The original revolution was fought over much smaller issues than we currently face.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> http://robertreich.org/post/2147754943



I tend to agree with most of what I hear from him when he has his little spots on Market Watch on PBS. That's a good show by the way and worth the 1/2 hour.

He would make a better president than all the rest of the bunch that is bothering us to vote for them.

Reich also said that we could completely fix the funding issues with social security by simply lifting the cap on the tax for the wealthy.
Not even eliminating the cap, but just raising it from $50,000 to $100,000 or $150,000.

Interestingly, very few people I talk to this even know that the cap exists. They think everyone pays the tax on their entire income.

When you consider that low and middle income people can least afford to pay it and the wealthy can most easily afford it and that lower income people who really need the benefits get the lowest benefits and the wealthy who really don't need the benefits get the largest benefits, you realize how criminal the soc sec system is.

Oddly enough, when Bush the Younger was president he said he wanted to reform soc sec and that everything, including means testing for benefits, would be on the table.
The democrats said, no. That there was no reason to change soc sec.
I wondered how they could say that considering how evil the system currently is and how regressive it is. So, do they represent the working people or the wealthy?

We need a huge shake out in this country.

The original revolution was fought over much smaller issues than we currently face.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 8, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> P.T. @ Wed Dec 08 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't fix things by reinstalling the bums you thew out last time and doing it over and over again.
> ...



The people are stupid?
They are totally indoctrinated?
There minds are owned by the media which is owned by...?
All things need to ripen, but may spoil first?
There's something in the water?
The military has a big mind control ray gun?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 8, 2010)

> Oddly enough, when Bush the Younger was president he said he wanted to reform soc sec and that everything, including means testing for benefits, would be on the table.
> The democrats said, no. That there was no reason to change soc sec.



He wanted to privatize Social Security, in other words begin the process of dismantling it. The Democrats - and many Republicans - were absolutely right to reject that idea!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 9, 2010)

Exactly right. He wanted to take our most fundamental security program and throw the money into the casino. Nuts!


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 9, 2010)

chimuelo @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> My cousin is a Station Fire Chief in Yonkers



does he get over to Westport?


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 9, 2010)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Communists have a different view of fairness: everybody gets the same amount.



is that right? thats the theory huh? 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

P.T. @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> The people are stupid?
> They are totally indoctrinated?
> There minds are owned by the media which is owned by...?
> All things need to ripen, but may spoil first?
> ...




The way I see the problem with voters is as follows:

First of all, too few show up at the polls. Not enough incentive for people to go and vote, and also in many cases too many hurdles to the process, especially if they're busy with work or school. This could (should) be solved by instituting a penalty for not voting like in AU, and also by holding elections on week-ends.

Secondly, candidates with good heads on their shoulders will more than likely have logical and rational ideas which probably means they would be fine with gays marrying and in the military, they'd be fine with clear separation of church and state, and on and on. Unfortunately the people who do tend to vote most consistently (elderly and ultra religious) show up in force to oppose these candidates which would actually have a positive impact on their lives despite the (unimportant) ideological differences.

Thirdly, level headed and rational candidates are also pretty boring. Kerry is a good example of this (and Obama runs dangerously close to that). It's unfortunate that in this age of people being entertained by seeing kids setting their nuts on fire on YouTube, the vast majority of the public can't get past that in order to follow the best qualified candidate. This is why people like Christine O'Donnel got so much attention...she was perfect for the YouTube generation.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 9, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> P.T. @ Wed Dec 08 said:
> 
> 
> > The people are stupid?
> ...



I would argue that too MANY go to the polls and vote, even when they are admittedly not knowledgeable on the candidates or issues.

Interesting that you seem to define "candidates with good heads on their shoulders will more than likely have logical and rational ideas " as those who share your positions on the issues. Why do people have a hard time accepting the idea that equally intelligent and knowledgeable people can reach very different conclusions?

I agree with your third point.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 9, 2010)

> Are you referring to the same Bush years where we had historically low unemployment rates? I'm guessing a huge percentage of Americans would be happy to go back to those times, so maybe we should send another $1 trillion to the rich. Obama's stimulus spent nearly the same amount and (probably) did little for unemployment.



Sorry to break it to you, but from 2003-2007 (the height of the Bush years) the average American income went DOWN while the rich got substantially richer - and of course, invested their money overseas instead of back into our economy. This much isn't even a debate. The statistics are black-and-white. Most Americans saw their income decrease. Trillions of dollars went into the hands of the rich, and they invested it overseas rather than putting it back into our economy.

Do I need to remind you that what little "growth" we had (which was all focused into the top 1%) was demolished by the banking/real-estate crisis? Or that our deficit + debt spiraled out of control well before Obama came into office, all as a result of these terrible economic policies, which have been proved ineffective over and over again? The exact same thing happened during Reagan's presidency. The debt went WAY out of control, the rich got the lion's share of tax cuts, the lower 2/5ths of Americans got poorer, etc. 

What good is employment growth if it's on a bubble? And if incomes go down, and the economy shrinks? You can't focus on a single metric (employment) and say that all the other insanely terrible metrics don't matter because that ONE THING grew (and promptly took a nosedive before Obama came in.)


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

BTW....Republicans show once again their true face (i.e. full of shit) when it comes to wanting to cut spending:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46172.html

For all their posturing on government waste, they are now trying to figure out ways to get their beloved earmarks back...disgusting.

Once again, I ask...if the teabaggers are really truly concerned about government spending, why do they keep on supporting Republicans???


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

> Why do people have a hard time accepting the idea that equally intelligent and knowledgeable people can reach very different conclusions?



What I have a hard time accepting is your insistence that totally vile opinions are worthy of respect!


----------



## rgames (Dec 9, 2010)

zircon_st @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but from 2003-2007 (the height of the Bush years) the average American income went DOWN while the rich got substantially richer


You seem to be implying that I said something contrary - I did not. Yes, the wealth gap (probably) increased.

But do you think people would rather have that scenario or the one we have now? Again, this notion of "fair distribution of wealth" is insignificant when people have no jobs. Do you really think people are saying "Yes, I'd like to have a job, but only if it involves fair distribution of wealth." I don't think so...



> The exact same thing happened during Reagan's presidency. The debt went WAY out of control, the rich got the lion's share of tax cuts, the lower 2/5ths of Americans got poorer, etc.


Why do you think the debt was out of control during the Reagan presidency? Debt to GDP was in the 30% - 40% range while Reagan and Bush I held office. Clinton basically doubled it to the 60% - 70% range. Bush II held it there and Obama has bumped it up close to 100%. So, actually, the Reagan/Bush I years are the best we've had in recent history.

And, again, yes: the wealth gap (probably) increased. But, again, unemployment was pretty low.

I'll say it one more time since it doesn't seem to be getting through: who cares if the wealth gap grows if it allows a decent standard of living for the middle class. Which do you think the middle class prefers: increasing wealth gap or high unemployment?

rgames


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

BTW, I want to specify something about me (if you care):

Many of my friends are Republicans, I respect their views and opinions and generally the ones I know seem to have a rational way of thinking about things and probably agree with more centrist ideals if nothing else.

The Republicans which I have so much distaste for are the vocal jerks who go on the airwaves with nothing useful to say other than spew misinformation and blatant lies. 

Unfortunately, the government seems to be made up pretty much exclusively out of those (bad) Republicans. They all speak and act as one, which leads me to believe that the rational ones either don't exist, or are completely spineless when it comes to going against the grain.

I would have much more respect for the party if every once in a while I would see some dissent among themselves like I see with Democrats (too much in that case). To me, the uniformity in the Republican party is what bothers me the most, it makes me feel like they are all way too concerned about getting re-elected than to do what is right. The fact that-- despite a majority of Americans (including many Conservatives) being against continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- Republicans have uniformly decided to not budge on the issue makes me sick to my stomach and sad.


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> But do you think people would rather have that scenario or the one we have now? Again, this notion of "fair distribution of wealth" is insignificant when people have no jobs. Do you really think people are saying "Yes, I'd like to have a job, but only if it involves fair distribution of wealth." I don't think so...



We disagree (surprise)!

I think there are plenty of jobs available, except for the most part they're shitty! 

Factory workers used to a decent salary with decent benefits are unwilling to simply go and work for Wal Marts (which are actually hiring).

So, yes...I think for most people, fair distribution of wealth in the way of better paying jobs is more important that simply having (shitty) jobs.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

> Yes, the wealth gap (probably) increased.
> 
> But do you think people would rather have that scenario or the one we have now? Again, this notion of "fair distribution of wealth" is insignificant when people have no jobs. Do you really think people are saying "Yes, I'd like to have a job, but only if it involves fair distribution of wealth." I don't think so...



What you don't get is that the unfair distribution of wealth is precisely what led to the current scenario!

I've already explained why I say that in this very thread.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 9, 2010)

George Caplan @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Wed Dec 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Communists have a different view of fairness: everybody gets the same amount.
> ...



Obviously not.
There's just as much abuse on the other side of the mirror.
Totalitarian regimes are not what we aspire for.
Thing are more balanced in the center 
But here, the balance is tilted the other way.
No good either...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 9, 2010)

I think Communism tries to justify itself with the belief that it is fair. But it has fundamental flaws: a) it is only achieved through violent revolution, and b) it is enforced by taking away all economic freedom. And, as we have seen, it tends to be governed by the privileged few with an iron fist.

In other words, it totally sucks!

But if you were to ask a true believer why they supported it, they would probably give you their fairness argument.

So when I hear people whining about how it's unfair for billionaires not to be able to keep every penny their "earned", I find the position to be hollow and meaningless.

The only real meaning of "fair" would be when two or more parties enter into an agreement and all involved believe that the deal is fair. Until we reach that point, the negotiation continues...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

Negotiation. Right. We're not arguing failed ideologies of the 20th century, we're talking about how to tweak the US tax structure so we can have a middle class with money to spend in order to keep our economy going.

CM, I'm not sure what you're proposing. People will always be divided into classes in some ways! Don't you hang around people with whom you have certain things in common?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

I wrote @ rgames:



> What you don't get is that the unfair distribution of wealth is precisely what led to the current scenario!
> 
> I've already explained why I say that in this very thread.



Actually "fair" is not the right word, because the morality is not really important. Is it fair that the CEOs and finance people get so stinking rich? Who cares. I certainly have nothing against people doing well, in fact I admire people who do well. What I care about is the overall good of our world, and the current policy isn't working.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Dec 9, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> 1. Bush stimulus: $1 trillion back to the rich. Result: historically low unemployment and manageable debt-to-GDP ratio.



"historically low unemployment" seems like a questionable claim when you look at the actual historic numbers, especially considering the giant spike just before the end of Bush's term.

Bush came into office with extremely low unemployment so I'm not sure his situation is really comparable to Obama who was handed what's probably the worst mess since the great depression. And much of the stimulus was tax cuts, in fact most economists admit that the proposed compromise plan is another stimulus but nobody wants to use that word any more.

In 2008, the country lost 2.6 million jobs, the biggest number since 1945. Really, even with that awful number we're supposed to believe "historically low unemployment"?



rgames @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> It may be true that tax breaks for the rich do make them richer - but who cares if it also drives down unemployment and improves the standard of living for the middle class?



But where's the evidence that it actually does drive down unemployment? Clinton raised taxes a bit and unemployment steadily dropped over the course of his administration. Bush lowered them and unemployment basically zigzagged with a big spike up at the end.



rgames @ Wed Dec 08 said:


> Think of the quote above: we already spent nearly $1 trillion in a stimulus that did nothing. If we could have done as stated in the quote and given it straight to the rich, and it got us back to 4% unemployment, then wasn't that a better use of the money?



Many disagree with the notion that the stimulus did nothing (and there's much talk that the reason it didn't do enough was because it wasn't big enough, which was argued at the time the stimulus happened). And the notion that giving that money to the rich would somehow magically drop unemployment that low doesn't seem to have any real world evidence to back it up.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 9, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> zircon_st @ Thu Dec 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to break it to you, but from 2003-2007 (the height of the Bush years) the average American income went DOWN while the rich got substantially richer
> ...



1. If the AVERAGE AMERICAN is losing income and money, then that means any economic growth we might have had during the Bush years was, at best, concentrated in the top 1% - and artificial. Even if people were employed, they were losing money every year, and by the end of the Bush years, they lost their jobs too. However, the rich - who received the vast majority of this country's economic growth - invested their money elsewhere, meaning the middle and lower classes got doubly screwed.

Once again, you're insisting that employment is the only important metric of growth. It isn't. By every other measure, even the best years of Bush (2003-2007) were a failure, as what growth we had was highly concentrated to the richest people, and any jobs created were lost by the end. Failure of policy.

2. You are simply incorrect about Reagan, Clinton and debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Reagan came into office with a 32.5% debt/GDP ratio. He left with a 53.1% ratio, having increased the debt by over $1 trillion. Why did this occur? Bad economic policy. "Trickle down" did not generate enough jobs + new tax receipts to cover the loss in government income. This is because, as I've said, tax cuts for the rich have the worst multiplier effect. They result in a loss of money to the government and only further concentrate growth in the highest bracket.

Meanwhile, Clinton started out with astronomic debt (66.1%) as a result of these failed policies, and by the end, thanks to sound economic policy, reduced it to 56.4%. Bush Jr. then increased it from 56.4% to 83.4%, once again thanks to failed economic policy.

Also, scroll down a little further on the page. What do you see? Why, is it a chart showing that Democratic presidents from 1978-2005 presided over SMALLER federal spending increases than Republican presidents?



> So, actually, the Reagan/Bush I years are the best we've had in recent history.



So, to reiterate, this is actually the opposite of reality. The Reagan/Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnating or lowered income for the Average American, increased outflow of capital from the U.S. to abroad, and ballooning national debt.


----------



## rgames (Dec 9, 2010)

zircon_st @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> 2. You are simply incorrect about Reagan, Clinton and debt.


Again, you're not addressing what I said. I gave a range of debt-to-GDP values. Here's a summary of average annual debt-to-GDP ratio over these presidencies:

Reagan: 42.2%
Clinton: 63.9%
Bush II: 62.2%
Obama: 88.8% (skewed because it includes only 2 years of data, it better go down...)

So, yes, the ratio went down a bit for Clinton, but the average was higher than Bush II and a LOT higher than Reagan. The ratio increased for the first three years under Clinton, then started to go down. The highest point in Clinton's presidency (three years in) was about the same as when Bush II left office.

By the way, the 83.4% number you gave belongs to Obama - that's the number for 2009. Bush II left it at 69.2% in 2008.

As ever with statistics, I think we have proved that you can draw whatever conclusion you want. That's the great things about economics: there are no absolutes, so you can argue for hours without ever getting anywhere...



> The Reagan/Bush tax cuts resulted in stagnating or lowered income for the Average American


OK - last time I say it then I'm done: at least they had some income! Sure, maybe the distribution of wealth was not fair by your standards, but I'm willing to bet most folks will take uneven distribution of wealth over no distribution of wealth.

EDIT: maybe this will make it more clear:

The tax cuts might have resulted in unfair distribution in wealth, but they did correspond with very low unemployment. So would you tell the huge number of people unemployed right now that we should hold out on generating more jobs until we're sure it'll be done in a "fair" distribution of wealth? So you'll tell them "Sure - we could get jobs back, but you'd be making only $40k a year. You really deserve $45k a year, so we're going to hold out until we get that." How does that make sense?

rgames


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

Richard,

How come you're not addressing my point that the jobs are available right now, but they're so crappy that nobody wants them. Every time I go to the mall I constantly see "For Hire" signs, the problem is that if you're used to pulling in $60k/year....you'd rather remain unemployed than waste your time on a $15k/year job.

People don't want crappy income, the current unemployment numbers reflect that...yet you choose to overlook this factor and insist that some income is better than no income...not true.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

What on earth makes you think that low unemployment has anything to do with tax cuts?

You are totally wrong!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

Kays, actually a lot of people can't even find the crap jobs. There are now between four and five willing workers for every opening.

In other words there are no jobs.


----------



## midphase (Dec 9, 2010)

http://www.baskinrobbins.com/About/Employment.aspx


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 9, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> zircon_st @ Thu Dec 09 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. You are simply incorrect about Reagan, Clinton and debt.
> ...



You are having some trouble reading the chart. It makes no sense to AVERAGE the debt-to-GDP ratio because that does not reflect what policies that president presided over. You have to look at where they started and where they finished - this shows the effect that their presidency had (more or less.)

If a theoretical president started with 150% debt-to-gdp and brought it to 1%, their average would be about 75%, which is quite high. Obviously it makes no sense to use that metric because it does not reflect the TREND and the effect of policy (eg. sharply down.)

Bush's END GDP of his second term, AS listed in the chart, was 83.4%.Obama INHERITED that ratio. That's what he started with before he did anything at all.



> The tax cuts might have resulted in unfair distribution in wealth, but they did correspond with very low unemployment. So would you tell the huge number of people unemployed right now that we should hold out on generating more jobs until we're sure it'll be done in a "fair" distribution of wealth? So you'll tell them "Sure - we could get jobs back, but you'd be making only $40k a year. You really deserve $45k a year, so we're going to hold out until we get that." How does that make sense?



What I've been trying to say is that the paltry gains in employment under Bush were short-lived. What little gain we had was lost very quickly, as would be expected. Yes, giving tax cuts to everybody may have a nominal effect on employment and economic growth. But that growth is feeble, because as I've said, the multiplier effect of tax cuts for the rich is very weak. The money doesn't circulate through the economy much.

In return for this weak multiplier effect, we get massively increased income inequality (which is VERY BAD for LONG-TERM, sustainable growth) and huge debt + deficit increases. It is simply not worth it. The bang-for-the-buck is absolutely terrible. 

Meanwhile, if we were to spend the same amount of money on, say, improving our national infrastructure, the boost to our economic growth and employment would increase far more, and the effect would be sustainable. Cheaper, faster internet, more widely available internet, better cellular networks, better/cheaper public transportation... all of these things are tremendously good for the vast majority of the country, and ULTIMATELY, the rich as well. 

Let's look at this from another angle. Giving, say, $1000 to a poor farmer in South America will have a tremendous effect. They could buy several cattle, and start milking the cattle. They could sell the milk. They could breed the cattle and sell the calves. Or, they could start raising some of the cattle for meat and sell that. Either way, the stimulative effect is tremendous. Meanwhile, giving $1000 to a billionaire will do virtually nothing, something that is fairly self-explanatory. Obviously I don't advocate literal handouts where possible (I believe infrastructure + education is far more crucial) but you see the parallel. Spending on the rich simply has a weak multiplier effect.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 9, 2010)

Andrew, I agree with you - but you're too conciliatory. 

We had massive growth and employment most recently in the late '90s following tax increases!


----------



## rgames (Dec 10, 2010)

zircon_st @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> You are having some trouble reading the chart. It makes no sense to AVERAGE the debt-to-GDP ratio because that does not reflect what policies that president presided over. You have to look at where they started and where they finished - this shows the effect that their presidency had (more or less.)


OK let's do a thought experiment on that statement. Consider two 8-year presidents and take the following for the debt-to-GDP ratios over their terms:

President A: 
60%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 70%
Differnce at end: +10%
Average = 46.3%

President B:
60%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 50%
Difference at end: -10%
Average = 66.3%

By your assessment, the ratio was more favorable under President B because it finished 10% less than where it started.

By my assessment, the ratio was much more favorable under President A because the average was much lower.

It makes perfect sense to average the ratio. Otherwise you're looking at only 2 years worth of data in an 8 year period.

Why ignore the other 6 years?

You really think it's better to have a one year drop rather than six years of low debt-to-GDP?

If so, I've get a great deal on a mortgage for you: the first payment is average, the last payment is really low, but everything in between is ridiculously high.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Dec 10, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> How come you're not addressing my point that the jobs are available right now, but they're so crappy that nobody wants them.


I'm not sure about that - it might be true. But those weren't the jobs that people had when we had near full-employment (when the wealth gap was increasing). The pouint is that there have been periods in history where the wealth gap increased and the middle class had very comfortable lifestyles.



> What on earth makes you think that low unemployment has anything to do with tax cuts?


Well, we already had the discussion where I stated that I don't think we can ever say anything about economics with absolute certainty. However, we're seeing a lot of good economic indicators, so the last thing we want to do is add a burden (i.e. taxes) to the businesses that are likely to do the hiring. Unless, of course, you want that "business" to be the federal government - I do not!

rgames


----------



## Mike Connelly (Dec 10, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> Again, you're not addressing what I said. I gave a range of debt-to-GDP values. Here's a summary of average annual debt-to-GDP ratio over these presidencies:



Why would you use the average amount to judge a presidency? Someone who starts at 60% and ends at 40 would have the same average as someone who started at 40 and ended at 60 - are those really equally good records?

If you're going to look at these numbers, I wouldn't even use absolute values at all. Compare the delta, the amount that it increased or decreased during their term.



rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> The tax cuts might have resulted in unfair distribution in wealth, but they did correspond with very low unemployment.



In 2008, 2.6 million jobs were lost, the worst year since 1945 - did you miss that are just ignoring it? I just don't see how that awful number squares with "very low unemployment". I'd argue the exact opposite conclusion as you, that particular financial policy was in place when unemployment became extremely high.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

Stockman was also on Fareed Zakaria last week. He's about the only Republican I've heard in the past ten years who isn't totally insane. And a lot of Democrats are pretty close these days.

Stockman makes no bones about identifying the problem exactly as I and all the exceptionally bright people who agree with me have said in this thread. He may have some different opinions about what to do about it, being Republican, but he stands alone in a party of useless idiots.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 10, 2010)

CM is totally right imo. The whole model of the economy is heading in a different direction than creating jobs. I think that politicians don't understand that.

Just look what happened to our industry. Computers came in an have all but practically eliminated any need for musicians, engineers, recording studios ect... This has been happening for a while here, but now it's happening all over.

Take facebook, myspace, google, ect... these are some of the biggest revenue generating companies in the US right now. But, look at how many people they employ. They don't need too many people.

We've carefully over the years have crafted an economic system that is bent on not creating jobs. It started with the Reagan administrations efforts to turn the economy into a "service" based economy. So instead of creating products which takes man power, we're creating services, cable tv, internet, accountants, lawyers, ect.... But, we've tossed under the buss the actual production base of the economy, coal, steel, rubber, plastics, auto, and electronic components. Most of this stuff is almost 100% outsourced to other countries now. We've now become the biggest employer of Chinese labor in the world. Shame.

I actually thought out a way that Palin could beat Obama in 2012. I doubt if she's smart enough to figure it out. And she won't be getting the help of the few people in the Rep party that are smart enough to figure it out. 

Palin is stupid on just about every issue, but she's a genius on a couple of issues. She's very, very, smart about 2 things. The first is energy production. If you've ever heard her speak about this it's like another person. She's lucid, knowledgeable, and extremely convincing. She has this issue down coming from Alaska. She could steal all the union votes from the dems by tossing aside this notion of "green" energy and promising to bring back the traditional employers of the masses. Coal, mining and steel manufacturing. Stuff the liberal dems hate, but the stuff that the bulk of dems have depended on to fee their families. 

The other thing is that Palin is pretty uncorrupted. She's shown a remarkable ability to say fuck you to the powers that be. If she can create a platform on these issues she'll pick up the union vote especially these days as Obama is doing almost all he can to alienate the dem base. She could position herself as the "people's" candidate quite easily. If she can get over high self righteous more conservative than thou mentality she could be effective. But, I doubt that she will. Blinded as most conservatives are these days by their ideology, it will be tough for her to figure out how to actually win. And there will be nobody who isn't a conservative wacko helping her. 

At any rate Obama's problems aren't high unemployment. I think most people realize (except for rgames) that it was mostly a problem that wasn't created by him. Obama's biggest problem is the fact that he's trying to appease. Makes him look wishy washy. He won't stand up and say what he believes in. Caves in on key issues. Thinks that dems lost the house because he broke is campaign promise to be "bipartisan". Ha, they lost the house because they were chickenshit and didn't stand up for what they believed. The dems that did actually survived rather well. The dems that waffled got swallowed up.

Dems need to not be so weak. I'd rather that Obama stood up and said, "look, we have a problem. We got no money. I need to raise taxes for a few years to make up the budget gap. May not get me reelected but I'm not governing based on that." Personally I think a lot of people could respect that. Somebody willing to do the right thing.

But this tax cut compromise is just going too far.

But I still have hope. Fading, but I do. Obama needs to stop being an "uncle Tom" trying to appease his masters. 

best,

Jose


----------



## rgames (Dec 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Why would you use the average amount to judge a presidency? Someone who starts at 60% and ends at 40 would have the same average as someone who started at 40 and ended at 60 - are those really equally good records?


Wrong average. You need to look at the *annual* average, i.e. the average of all annual values over the term. See the example above. You are correct that the average you described is pointless, but that's not what I gave.

Think about it this way: say you want to know how well a baseball team is hitting. Do you take the average of the best guy and the worst guy? No - you take the average of all the guys on the team because you might have one guy hitting 0.500 and twenty guys hitting 0.000; in that case, the average hitting performance definitely is *not* 0.250. Same thing with the debt-to-GDP ratio: the values for any two individual years don't really matter, it's the average of all the annual values that is a better indicator of performance.



> I just don't see how that awful number squares with "very low unemployment". I'd argue the exact opposite conclusion as you, that particular financial policy was in place when unemployment became extremely high.


Average annual unemployment was essentially the same under Clinton and Bush II. Both had several years where the unemployment rate was well under 5%. So if you want to say that Clinton's policies led to low unemployment, then you have to say the same for Bush's policies.

Clinton did show a steady drop whereas Bush fluctuated up then brought it back down, so if you want to make an argument for Clinton's policies, that's a better one than just looking at the average annual numbers.

I'll also point out another *major* difference between the Bush and Clinton years: psychology. Think that played a role? Sorry Nick...

We once again get back to the fundamental problem in debating economics: there's no way to draw conclusions with any real certainty.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

Richard, I'm sorry. You're pulling this stuff out of your ass. Neither policy led to low unemployment. That's the point: you're trying to say that trickle-down leads to employment. It doesn't.

And of course psychology is a factor. That's what the consumer confidence statistic is all about. But it's not the problem right now; we are facing a problem of DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND. There's nothing psychological about people not being able to spend when they owe lots of money, don't have jobs, or are afraid of losing the ones they have.

CM and Jose, what CM is talking about is an argument going on right now: whether the crisis is structural or not. We do have structural issues and need to invest in education and infrastructure to compete (as Obama just said even while putting through a disastrous policy that will drop a shit bomb on the prospect of doing that).

But the immediate problem we're facing is financial, not structural. Our economy could be producing and consuming much more than it is, but people are unable to spend the money to do that.

The economy needs government support until the engines get back up to speed.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 10, 2010)

Fortunately, demand has picked up smartly outside the US since the trough of the recession. And the US dollar, if it were to get actually "debased" (quite an exaggeration, in my view), instead of just rhetorically debased by some, would make our exports that much more competitive.

It's certainly confusing out there.


----------



## rgames (Dec 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Richard, I'm sorry. You're pulling this stuff out of your ass. Neither policy led to low unemployment. That's the point: you're trying to say that trickle-down leads to employment. It doesn't.


Maybe I am pulling it out of my ass, but your beloved liberal economists are doing the same thing. It all comes down to who's ass you like better. I do like Reich, btw - entertaining and informative at the same time! But he can be wrong.

The second part of your statement irks me: haven't I made it clear that I am *not* claiming any type of certainty about a cause-effect relationship? I'm simply saying that different approaches can, in fact, have the same result. I understand and appreciate what you and Reich are saying - it does make sense. But, again, it's an odds game and I think the odds right now favor the tax cut approach. Am I certain that it will work? Of course not - you're the only one who seems to have certainty about cause-effect relationships in economics. 

EDIT: of course, what we're discussing is keeping the tax structure the same, not cutting taxes. So I'm not saying we should cut taxes, rather let things ride for a while like they currently are because economic indicators are looking better. Hopefully employment will follow...

rgames


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 10, 2010)

All of this is the result of the corrupt, plutocratic government we have. Is anyone really that shocked? 

We now have the greatest disparity of income between the super wealthy and the working class than ever before in our country. Even during the Great Depression, the post-Gilded age, and post-Civil War. 

When Reagan came into office, he rode the ideals of Milton Friedman and Art Laffer who said if taxes on the wealthy were cut in half (from 70% to 35%) there would be a huge economic boom greater than the country had ever seen. "I guarantee it" Laffer said. It only boomed for the top 1%, and really boomed for the top .1%. Bush repeated the same idea. The same, tired supply-side economic fantasy that giving money to the rich will make them magically hire people at good wages. But real wages for working people have been flat now for 30 years, and now unemployment is staggering, and has been for three years. The wealthy aren't all risky venture capitalists helping start businesses. Mostly they hoard their money, buy more goods for themselves - 3rd, 4th houses, private jets, fine art and jewelry, the riverfront property where we played as kids. And they put their money in safe investments (many of which are overseas) and pay a low tax rate on it. 

Does anyone honestly think giving the wealthy another tax break is going to change this? 

There's also the issue how you're only taxed on the first $100k of income for Social Security. Beyond that, you don't pay a penny. So someone making $100,000 a year has all of their income taxed for SS. While someone making $10 million only has 1% taxed. They both pay the same exact dollar amount. And no, SS isn't an annuity like people pretend it is. Your SS tax money isn't going into a fund with your name on it. How fair is this? 

No one seems to even wish to mention for a second that we should try taxing the wealthy at 70% again (or 90% like during the American Dream years). Why? For the same reason Social Security taxes heavily favor the very wealthy - they own the politicians.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

Richard, it's not a matter of which ass you prefer to surf in. Either tax cuts at the top are stimulative or they're not (or they're very minimally stimulative).

And history shows very clearly that not only do tax cuts at the top not have a stimulative effect on the economy, they eventually result in a crash.

Cases in point: 1929, 2008.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

Plus what you're arguing is exactly trickle-down.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Dec 10, 2010)

rgames @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Wrong average. You need to look at the *annual* average, i.e. the average of all annual values over the term. See the example above. You are correct that the average you described is pointless, but that's not what I gave.



My example was an oversimplification but the point still stands. An average doesn't take into account improvement (or things getting worse). And the example you gave is an irrelevant one since none of the recent administrations fit those patterns. For the most part, the high and low points for debt are at the start and ends of the terms, generally with the trend heading steadily in one direction.



rgames @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Think about it this way: say you want to know how well a baseball team is hitting. Do you take the average of the best guy and the worst guy?



Terrible analogy, there's no relation between two different players, and each player has control of their own performance unlike something like the debt where each administration inherits all the rates and laws of previous ones and has to fix the mistakes of the past (or break the successes of the past). Looking at one measure of performance, it makes much more sense to look at the trend than an average. At least if you insist on doing an average of each year, average the yearly change in the metric so you're actually measuring performance instead of having the measurement heavily skewed by the situation the president inherited.

Here's a better analogy for how you're measuring performance. Two personal trainers, the first has a guy come in at 300 hundred pounds and leave at 250, the second has a guy come in at 200 pounds and leave at 245. By your logic the second did a better job since the guy's average weight was lower. How does something like that pass even basic common sense?



rgames @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Average annual unemployment was essentially the same under Clinton and Bush II.



Again, using an average where it's a poor measurement. Might as well say that when you took a long bus trip and the driver did a great job for 99% of it but then drove it off a cliff and killed all the passengers, on average he did a good job driving.



rgames @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> Clinton did show a steady drop whereas Bush fluctuated up then brought it back down...



Again, you ignore the end of Bush's term where it had the greatest annual increase in decades. Sure, any president looks great if you ignore the bad chunks of data.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

I'm down wit what you're saying about devaluing the dollar, John. But as you know, the problem is that other countries would respond in kind, and then we'd all be back where we are now.

That's what Japan is doing against China right now.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 10, 2010)

JohnG @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> But Americans just voted in candidates espousing that exact contradiction, so it's the electorate's fault.



That's not exactly right.

The tea party said, "Cut, cut, cut. The deficit will kill us. We hate the stimulus package. Government spending is going to destroy us. It's fiscally irresponsible." 

Well, the next Congress might cut, cut, cut and they might not. In the meantime, extending tax cuts for the rich isn't urgent. It's not like they'll starve. But it is fiscally irresponsible, if you're a deficit hawk.

If they believed what they were preaching, they would let the tax cuts lapse, get the new blood into office, cut spending as much as they are able, and set tax policy to responsibly pay for that level of government.

The day the Republicans are willing to cut military spending and increase taxes is the day I'll believe that they give a hoot about the deficit.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 10, 2010)

Well, for what it's worth, Bill Clinton appeared at the White House today and together with Obama held a press briefing in which he endorsed the Obama/Republican plan.

The story is on Yahoo finance.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bills-Back-Clinton-commands-apf-4065249916.html?x=0 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bills-Bac ... 6.html?x=0)


----------



## P.T. (Dec 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> I'm down wit what you're saying about devaluing the dollar, John. But as you know, the problem is that other countries would respond in kind, and then we'd all be back where we are now.
> 
> That's what Japan is doing against China right now.



If the goal is to keep jobs here then the gov't needs to pass legislation or impose stiff taxation on exported jobs or taxation on the importation of the goods of american companies that are manufactured overseas.

If they don't want to do any of that then we need to lower the cost of living drastically in this Country so that we will be paid the same as they are paid in China and so that we will be able to live on that amount of money.

I have heard that the Chinese save a larger percent of their earning than americans do, so things can't be all that bad over there.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 10, 2010)

Doesn't that Clinton guy have a conflict of interest? He's probably just trying to please the wife's boss.

But seriously, when Clinton lost Congress, he triangulated. When Truman lost Congress, he trumpeted his agenda. Both approaches can work for a president. Clearly, Clinton believes that Obama should triangulate.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> I'm down wit what you're saying about devaluing the dollar, John. But as you know, the problem is that other countries would respond in kind, and then we'd all be back where we are now.
> 
> That's what Japan is doing against China right now.



If the goal is to keep jobs here then the gov't needs to pass legislation or impose stiff taxation on exported jobs or taxation on the importation of the goods of american companies that are manufactured overseas.

If they don't want to do any of that then we need to lower the cost of living drastically in this Country so that we will be paid the same as they are paid in China and so that we will be able to live on that amount of money.

I have heard that the Chinese save a larger percent of their earning than americans do, so things can't be all that bad over there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2010)

> I have heard that the Chinese save a larger percent of their earning than americans do, so things can't be all that bad over there.



They are. Not for 300 million of them, but when you get away from the eastern coastal cities things are still really bad.

Anyway, savings don't necessarily equate to prosperity. The Soviets had about a 40% personal savings rate at the time of their collapse.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 11, 2010)

C M Dess @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> There's no reason for new jobs, there are already too many pointless jobs. Why would think you can just up and "create" jobs. That just creates more pollution. Literally.
> 
> Job creation is not what business efficiency is all about. It's about consolidating jobs to worker ratios. That is capitalism. 2 die so one can absorb their positions. It's just a question of how. And how many lawyers it will take.
> 
> ...



Isn't this a bit silly?

Of course there is job consolidation. It's been going om since the Industrial Revolution.

There are millions upon millions of american jobs that americans no longer have access to because they have been sent overseas, and that's the issue.

These are not crappy or undesirable jobs. In truth, much of what has been left behind are the crap jobs.

We have lost manufacturing (which is arguably the basis of wealth), engineering jobs, computer programming jobs, film jobs, probably at least some film composition jobs, actually anything can be shipped overseas that doesn't have to be done here. They can't ship your plumbing problems overseas to be fixed of the bus driving job.

They sent all of the jobs away and then stand in amazement at the high unemployment numbers and wonder about the jobless recovery.

There is no such thing as a jobless recovery.
It's just US based companies improving their bottom line by shipping the jobs overseas.
If the american people have no jobs or poor jobs there is no recovery and the gov't has sold us out to corporate profits and globalism.

If you think terrorists are the enemy...look again.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 11, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 10 said:


> > I have heard that the Chinese save a larger percent of their earning than americans do, so things can't be all that bad over there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am under the impression that the great majority of the Chinese population lives in those eastern coastal cities.

I don't know what % of the population has the high savings rates.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 11, 2010)

"What the fuk to do with the rest of the people is the question / dilemma."

CM Dess;

If your view is the future, and I have thought that technology would eventually bring us there, there are only a few answers.

Do as an old song suggested, tax the rich until there are no rich anymore, and give the money to the people there are no jobs for, or kill the people there are no jobs for, or find a way to make all the things in society free for everyone or put people on rotating work schedules and balance the cost of living so that people can survive with just a part time job.

Possibly the time of capitalism is at an end and managed economies and society is the future.

China has moved away from it's former version of communism, but they have not moved towards capitalism as so many seem to think. 

It's still a heavily gov't managed nation and the system that it seems most similar to is fascism.

Which is fairly ironic considering how Mao hated what he called Bureaucratic Capitalism by which I think he meant fascism.
_________

Oh, and if we don't need new jobs, and there is all this redundancy, and technology is making jobs obsolete and there are all these americans that don't have jobs...exactly why do we need more immigrants?
What are they for?
We need the cheap labor?
But it doesn't drive wages down?
But americans don't want the jobs because they are crappy low salary jobs?
Immigrants do the jobs that americans don't want to do?

I'm not ranting against the immigrants.
I'm looking at those clowns in DC and the media.

I'm just wondering about all of the conflicting nonsense that I hear everyday about this, that and those other issues.

How much BS are we supposed to swallow?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 11, 2010)

> I am under the impression that the great majority of the Chinese population lives in those eastern coastal cities



It's the rural Chinese I'm talking about. They have unbelievable poverty. It's not as bad as it was when they were eating each other, but it's still bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_China


----------



## Animus (Dec 11, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> > Oddly enough, when Bush the Younger was president he said he wanted to reform soc sec and that everything, including means testing for benefits, would be on the table.
> > The democrats said, no. That there was no reason to change soc sec.
> 
> 
> ...



Social Security is absolutely worthless and broke, and a ponzi scheme on mass scale. Take a case study for example. I think the average life expectancy for a black male has him living 3 years past retirement. He pays all his life into Social Security and only collects for a very few years before he dies. I call that injustice. Whereas, if that money was invested into the private market he would have amassed wealth he could pass on to his kids. Social Security is nothing but a tax (and national piggy bank to dip into) and the government is banking on you dying fast for the system to work because it is not sustainable.


----------



## Animus (Dec 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> rgames @ Thu Dec 09 said:
> 
> 
> > But do you think people would rather have that scenario or the one we have now? Again, this notion of "fair distribution of wealth" is insignificant when people have no jobs. Do you really think people are saying "Yes, I'd like to have a job, but only if it involves fair distribution of wealth." I don't think so...
> ...



And you think higher income tax is going to solve any of that? lol The super rich don't really pay income tax (they have already amassed the wealth) so the only thing you will be affecting is the job creation engine. To effectively hit the rich you need to look at raising capital gains, inheritance tax, real estate tax, etc. 

The real problem in this country is we have steadily lost our manufacturing and industry. We have become a import nation. You should be against things like NAFTA and other free trade programs, which the Democrats themselves have supported too. Wealth is going overseas due to excessive regulation and high taxes; businesses need to so they can stay competitive.


So how many jobs did Obama's stimulus create? Try zero! 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... s_zer.html



> A study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, suggests that the net job creation from the $814 billion stimulus bill passed in February, 2009, was zero by August 2010. In the first year, the stimulus "saved or created" 2 million jobs (not 4 million as repeatedly claimed by the Administration), but this number proved to be short lived, paying for temporary jobs, at a very high cost of $400,000 per job "saved or created."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 11, 2010)

Animus, you're wrong about every single thing you've posted yet again.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 11, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 11 said:


> Animus, you're wrong about every single thing you've posted yet again.



I don't think he is all that wrong in his cynical view of social security.
When it was established, the retirement age was set very close to the average death age.
In other words, people were not expected to collect.
It does look like it was set up as a way to increase tax revenue while appearing to be giving people help with retirement.

It was also set up to greatly benefit the wealthy at the expense of the lower income people, at least for the ones that actually got to collect.
This can be seen by the inequitable way that the tax and benefits were set up.

I think, however that it can be made into a workable system, though I won't hold my breath waiting for the clowns and demons in DC to fix it.

After all, they are going to raise the retirement age and increase the soc sec tax rather than raise the cap on the tax for the wealthy. And that includes the democrats.


----------



## Animus (Dec 11, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Animus, you're wrong about every single thing you've posted yet again.
> ...



Bingo. You got it exactly right.


----------



## Animus (Dec 11, 2010)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> There is a MAJOR problem with saving for retirement individually.
> 
> Let's say that the average person retires at 65 and lives until 75. (I have no idea if those are the real numbers, but follow me here...)
> 
> ...



What you do is invest in real retirement plans--401Ks, Mutual Funds, Roths,, buying real estate etc. If you are solely relying on Social Security you will be poor and destitute in your golden years.


----------



## Animus (Dec 11, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 11 said:


> Animus, you're wrong about every single thing you've posted yet again.



Show me how I am wrong then and just don't resort to liberal demagogery. How does the black male in my example benefit from Social Security? All his wealth went to the government and he had nothing to give to his family upon his death. THis is how you keep generations of people down.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 11, 2010)

I never resort to demagogery, you typical right-wing elitist.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 12, 2010)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Dec 11 said:


> The guy who dies at 65 gets ripped off. The woman who lives to 120 gets a great deal. _Death_ has never been about fairness.



it is called mortality drag versus mortality gain.



Animus @ Sat Dec 11 said:


> What you do is invest in real retirement plans--401Ks, Mutual Funds, Roths,, buying real estate etc. If you are solely relying on Social Security you will be poor and destitute in your golden years.



real estate as and for a gain should be taxed out of existence. needs to stop.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 12, 2010)

Funny how the elites in DC scream that insurance companies have had record profits for decades, and what a scam the industry is.
It is based on healthy people not needing their benefits and paying into the program for those who actually need it and will use it later on.
Sounds like Social Security to me.

The Sicilians who started this program 100 years ago never figured on thier idea being so widespread. Instead of a Molotov Cocktail coming through your window when you pass up the program, you get fined and taxed by a group of failed lawyers with wealthy families and sponsors.

Hedge funds are set up around the unused funds that must be fought for once eligibility has been met, Politicians use the SS funds to dip into for pet projects.
Another similarity.

Now it becomes evident why the Feds want Cap & Trade and to take care of us poor helpless commoners. And provide our Health Care. 

Just like our Local Police are trained for the creation of revenue while they serve and protect, the politicians are always looking for new ways to help create even more revenue streams to siphen funds from.
But they really care about us and want to protect us.

Everything we see in this country stems from the laws passed, bought and sold by the elites in DC. That's the bottom line.

Face the facts guys.
We are commoners, we have zero power to change anything, so vote for your favorite issue if it makes you feel better, but you are not represented.
Just rest assured the guy you like is stealing tons of cash and having sex with interns, but still making it to Church with the family on Sunday.

You can steal as much as you want, the more the better, you don't have to give it back when you're caught, and your best friends are the judges, it never even goes to court.
So how can we blame these guys.

I thought Clinton was a great guy because he had good taste in women like Jennifer Flowers, what a hottie, but Monica Lewinsky...............???? Please.
He must have been mad at his Penis.

I gave up on everything and realize I will get screwed and lied to by software developers, politicians and even my own kids.
So why keep getting mad, just roll with it, have sex more and get buzzed and enjoy the better things in life since this 2 party Dog and Pony show has been around longer than me, and will still be pretending long after I am gone.

I voted for these guys for change, and we don't even have sex scandals or anything exciting.
Judging by Obamas lack of leadership skills I assume that Pelosi is the juice in DC, or was.
I shall await the pictures of her as a Dominatrix as she whipped and beat Eric Holder and Obama, but Leather doesn't suit Nance very well.
I would really like to see her in a Civil War type of Teddy with a General Custer 9th Cavalry Cap and some of those escape proof high heels.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 12, 2010)

The word "elitist" is getting thrown around in so many threads by people on both sides of arguments that it is becoming farcical.. First, of all, calling someone am "elitist" does NOTHING to undermine their argument or strengthen yours so why bother, folks?

All societies are dominated by an elite. It is what makes them the elite that count. It would be nice if it was knowledge but usually it is power.


----------



## rJames (Dec 12, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> I gave up on everything and realize I will get screwed and lied to by software developers, politicians and even my own kids.
> So why keep getting mad, just roll with it, have sex more and get buzzed and enjoy the better things in life since this 2 party Dog and Pony show has been around longer than me, and will still be pretending long after I am gone.


*"Turn on, tune in, drop out"* Sorry but the 60's are long gone. Its time to stay involved, vote and call out "specifics" when we see lies, corruption, bad government and extremism.

Generalities don't help anything. The framework for the people to actually control their destiny is here but we need an electorate that doesn't depend on radio talk show hosts or celebrities to provide them with their mantras.

It will be a long battle but worth pursuing.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 12, 2010)

If you don't like what you see, do something about it:
http://pol.moveon.org/phone_in_filibuster/index.html


----------



## Animus (Dec 12, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> I never resort to demagogery, you typical right-wing elitist.



lol. I am not a Republican dude. I am a social libertarian--I am for gay marriage, gays openly in the military, pro-choice etc; I just happen to be fiscally conservative and believe in personal freedom, which both the Demoncraps and Repugnicans have trampled on.

I'd like to see more exposition from you, less supposition. I mostly see you say "The right is wrong on everything, I am right on everything" with nothing substantive to back up those statements, as if you say "I am right" enough people will start to believe you are right.. I gave you an exposition why I think Social Security is terrible, let's hear why Social Security is so great in your eyes?

Another problem is the government raiding the Social Security lockbox, which both Bushes did and Clinton as well! Social Security is just another tax, welfare for the government, not the people. I'd much rather put that money into my 401k.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2010)

Jay, you are an elitist.

No, worse: a Celtics fan.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2010)

Animus, I've backed up every single thing I've said many, many times, inside out.

Now don't piss me off. That stuff you're posting is too silly to bother arguing with, and that's the only reason I haven't bothered tearing it apart.

Social Security is great because lots of old people would be starving without it. Period.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 12, 2010)

:lol: 
I don't want to waste my time voting for anyone going to DC. They will just show up and take orders from the top down like I have seen for the last decade. There's just too much money changing hands. This causes postitions to change. Case in point is the topic of this thread.

I have always been active locally and actually have learned a great deal by watching the Carpenters Union ( which carries Musicians Health Care ) that broke ranks with the AFL-CIO years ago.
They take their 10,000,000 USD of organizational funds to Carson City and Sacramento. It seems the politicians there sell laws for a little cheaper than they do in DC...

By all means I encourage all folks to be involved, but personally I cannot waste my time voting for national elections anymore.
I really wish the International Gangsters that run our country would fold their tents, but I think they are really financing the wars we are in, so the recent trillions they got were just a payback.
At least here in Nevada if someone steals from us they have to consider that people here might know of their whereabouts, so it might give them pause.
But in DC its just a giant feast where the thieves have Secret Service protection.
Anyone ever read the book by the Secret Service guy that was on Clintons detail....?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... apes_N.htm

Great entertainment.
FWIW, Bush's daughters were a Secret Service nightmare as they ditched their gaurds to go have fun shopping, etc.
These are much more fun and entertaining than watching these poor actors struggling with their scripts............


----------



## robh (Dec 13, 2010)

Hey! What's wrong with the Celtics?!?  (Other than Shaq is on the team.)

Rob


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 09 said:


> Ralph Nader is Satan.



I blame Nader for Iraq. Directly.


----------



## Animus (Dec 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> Animus, I've backed up every single thing I've said many, many times, inside out.
> 
> Now don't piss me off. That stuff you're posting is too silly to bother arguing with, and that's the only reason I haven't bothered tearing it apart.
> 
> Social Security is great because lots of old people would be starving without it. Period.



You are right!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2010)

> Hey! What's wrong with the Celtics?!?



Larry Bird, ML Carr and his fricking towel, whiny Danny Ainge, Kevin McHale knocking over Kurt Rambis, their commentator Tommy Heinsohn, Red Auerbach's cigars that still smell all the way over here in Los Angeles....face it, they just suck.


----------



## robh (Dec 13, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 13 said:


> > Hey! What's wrong with the Celtics?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Bird, ML Carr and his fricking towel, whiny Danny Ainge, Kevin McHale knocking over Kurt Rambis, their commentator Tommy Heinsohn, Red Auerbach's cigars that still smell all the way over here in Los Angeles....face it, they just suck.


 Oh yeah. You're in L.A. Completely missed that! That explains E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!  

Rob


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2010)

Magic, Kareem, James Worthy, Kurt Rambis, Michael Cooper, Byron Scott....those guys can play.

Man, this poodle hair mousse is starting to drop on the shoulder pads of my rolled-up linen jacket sleeves.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 22, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun Dec 12 said:


> Funny how the elites in DC scream that insurance companies have had record profits for decades, and what a scam the industry is.
> It is based on healthy people not needing their benefits and paying into the program for those who actually need it and will use it later on.
> Sounds like Social Security to me.
> 
> ...



Sadly this is the best advice I have read in this thread. 

A couple of things to ponder:

1) Timing is everything for a President. Clinton road the technology bubble. Rmember when you were forking out cash month after month upgrading your 32k modem for the latest and greatest 56k one? Remember Iomega? Silicon Graphics? The average computer user now doesn't need any more ram, or CPU. We musicians do, 3D artists do, but Joe Blow is happily surfing porn on a dual core pc with 2 gigs of ram. The only thing that makes him go out and buy a new machine is when a new OS comes out or his porn gets him a virus that he can't figure out. So there goes our last great domestic economic push.

2) Social Security, as mentioned, works great when you die just after you retire. So stop exercising and eating healthy and start slamming down the bacon and cigarrettes.

3) Redistibuting welath is bullsh%t. Take all of the money in the country and divvy it up between the 330+ million peeps here. I bet, you'll have less than you do now. Plus my crap compositions will be worth the same as your really good compositions so you eventually won't try as hard and all music will suck. Kind of like rap 

4) Dances With Wolves. Remember the nice Indian Tribe that lived off the land , only killed a few tatonkas so that the rest could make new babies for them to eat next year? Maybe we should have stopped evolving at that time? There's too many people on good old mother earth and every one of us wants more and more. That's human nature and I'm proud to be part of it 

5) Omnisphere rules! (nuff said)

6) I would happily pay more taxes IF... and only IF... I can give the money to an honest little blue haired farm lady from Iowa who will distribute it fairly. Past history has proven that giving our money to the government is like lighting it on fire. (except you don't get a temporary warmth)


Love this thread gents!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 22, 2010)

1. Absolutely true about the tech revolution - which became a bubble - being responsible more than anything else for the boom. But among other things they also raised taxes during that time, and that (not because of Newt F-ing Gingrich shutting down the govt.) was a big part of why they had a budget surplus. It was a combination of timing and effective leadership.

2. Even though SS isn't enough to live well on, we'd have lots of starving old people without it. It's still a great program.

3. What Obama said about distributing the wealth is not bullshit. Nobody is saying we should take all the money and divvy it up.

This is what I wrote earlier in this thread: "We are in a financial crisis that was ultimately caused by a tax structure that allowed so much of the income to flow to the top." The same thing happened in 1929, and it's no coincidence.

That's why we have a progressive tax system, and why it needs tweaking so that the CEO types don't make 350x what their workers make. All that does is leave a middle class without the spending power to keep our economy growing.


4. And that's the argument for capitalism. Yes, we all work hard for money.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 22, 2010)

"1. Absolutely true about the tech revolution - which became a bubble - being responsible more than anything else for the boom. But among other things they also raised taxes during that time, and that (not because of Newt F-ing Gingrich shutting down the govt.) was a big part of why they had a budget surplus. It was a combination of timing and effective leadership."

And, a lot of the later part of the tech boom was "Year 2000" problem generated.
I still think that was largely BS meant to get people to buy new stuff.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 22, 2010)

Why don't we just have a Lame Duck every 2 months, and pay them according to their achievements.
The last month has been great IMHO.
Comprimises don't always work first time out, but they lead to refinements where eventually the guys who pay their way actually get a bone or two.
Poor people and rich people have been getting all of the goodies, thankfully us working folks got something this year.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 22, 2010)

chimuelo @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> Why don't we just have a Lame Duck every 2 months, and pay them according to their achievements.
> The last month has been great IMHO.
> Comprimises don't always work first time out, but they lead to refinements where eventually the guys who pay their way actually get a bone or two.
> Poor people and rich people have been getting all of the goodies, thankfully us working folks got something this year.



I agree, Jesus man! Best lame duck session ever. As of today, I'm an Obama supporter again.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 22, 2010)

I vote for the lame duck every two months without the tax sell-out.

And I too am feeling a little better right now, but that agreement is going to come back and bite him even harder in the balls before the next election.

***

Edit: you know, it's worse than just the politics. This was an absolutely terrible move in the wrong direction for the future of the country.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 23, 2010)

I would rather have lower corporate taxes to spur more domestic and foreign investment, than seeing the already wealthy private citizens to continue prospering.

When I hear Bachman and others griping about how we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, she's is right, but she fails to mention that this is the land of milk and honey as far as grossing revenues. 

We should be more competitive and lower the rates, but it's like California.
Sure you get hit hard there, but it's the gross revenue that counts. Nowhere else in the world is there such a large Middle Class. So don't give it away, but keep jobs here and entice investment.
Venture capitalists have left California in droves, but due to its massive port facilities and high tech sector, it could be as powerful economically as we saw in the 80's and 90's again. I know JBrown is a Liberal, but he has executive and administrative experience and knows what needs to be done.
Couple that with Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosis power to bring home the bacon that's a winning team. Fiorino and Whitman sent more jobs overseas from California than any one before them, that's good for the CEO salary and shareholders bottom line, but Governing is not the same. You have to balance social programs, pensions, etc.
No Union would ever negotaite with X-CEO's.

That's why I prefer conservativism during the good times and paying down the deficit, and a more liberal spending approach when demand is down and tough times occur. It's an acceptable balance. 

I chose to stay home alone this CHristmas and sent everyone else away. I am re doing my entire rig and have zero interuptions, but as I take breaks and watch the tube it's no wonder people are so worried and nervous.
Imagine the effect of watching Glenn Beck, then the history channel has Mayan Doomsday 2012 predictions, or Hitlers bodyguard, Hitlers finacee, Hitlers history, the Luftwaffe ME 109's, etc.etc. I can't believe how depressed I was after seeing whats really available 24/7.........
I thought Obama was a Communist, and Hitler was being resurected, and Asteroids were heading our way.......WTF.^(*(*

I am so happy LASS has an excellent manual, as Kontakt does too, and I can just chug pots of Java and tweak my hardware/software at 400 watts..........YEAH !!!!!

Happy Holidays To All.... o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 23, 2010)

"That's why I prefer conservativism during the good times and paying down the deficit, and a more liberal spending approach when demand is down and tough times occur. It's an acceptable balance."

And that's exactly what Keynes said: run deficits when the economy is down in order to keep the economy moving, then back off when it's moving and the government would be crowding out the private sector.

It's what Jay Asher calls the radical left.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 23, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> "That's why I prefer conservativism during the good times and paying down the deficit, and a more liberal spending approach when demand is down and tough times occur. It's an acceptable balance."
> 
> And that's exactly what Keynes said: run deficits when the economy is down in order to keep the economy moving, then back off when it's moving and the government would be crowding out the private sector.
> 
> It's what Jay Asher calls the radical left.



No, what I call the radical left are those who because they may disagree with this are somehow stupid or venal.

And that must be what W. believed because it is what he actually did, to the anger of the conservatives. I distinctly remember your praising him for that at the time.....NOT


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 23, 2010)

Bush didn't do anything of the kind, Jay. He cut taxes and he also didn't do what conservatives like.

The point of my dig is that you think Paul Krugman is extreme, and nothing he says is that by any definition other than your own private one. If saying that all sanity has left one of the country's great political parties means that he's radical - as it has, and as he did say yesterday on Rachel Maddow - then you're right. But as far as what he says about economics, no.


----------

