Proof! That liberal progressives want to destroy the country!!

[Engineer]

only you would suggest printing new money.. as i never did.
No... someone will ultimately have to pay the brunt of this, and there is only one group of people who can... the business owners.

This is a radical problem requiring a radical new approach...

i suggest we try Trickle-Up economics. without going into the negative, suppose every company cut salaries above an arbitrary number, say 250K and hired as many people as possible people at livable salaries say 30k to 50K... simply employing people for the sake of employing people. Lets call this profit minimalizing without going negative...

Are you seriously arguing that this would not ease the burden on government services and create new demand, thus undoing the last decade of economic downsizing?

Noone would ever propose such a proposterous thing because... oh no... think of the shareholders. The shareholders are the real agenda responsible for our current problems: our inefficiencies made our economy strong, removing them weakened it.
Want proof? look at germany... strongest economy in europe. Germany protects workers (aka consumers) at all cost.

I like it...I like it alot!!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Where did I say we had general shortages of consumer goods?

You keep insisting that the way to fix the economy is to put more money in the hand of businesses so they can expand and increase supply. If the problem was a lack of supply, however, there would be widespread shortages. That is simply not the case. The problem is a lack of demand, i.e., people aren't spending like they used to.

There may be an over or under supply of some goods in relation to others. This is caused by the misallocation of resources.
This is what needs to be fixed in order for our economy to get healthy again.

What is your basis for this claim? Please give specific examples of any significant misallocation and provide documentation for the purported impact. This sounds like pure ideological dogma to me.

Simply giving people money to go out and spend won't fix it.
Have you been asleep the past decade? We've had nothing but consumer spending.
How'd that work out for us?

And it worked pretty well for a long time. It was ultimately unsustainable because so much of it was false prosperity, borrowed money and good jobs that have since disappeared.

In the same vein, we've had 30 years of tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, trickle-down economics, and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite few. How's that working out for us?

People have this notion that if we can just get people enough money to "clear the shelves" of stores so that businesses will hire people so those people will make more money to spend on other things. Its nothing but just a naive, surface level view of how an economy works. Again, simply getting people to spend money will not fix what is wrong with this economy.

That's a straw man. Nobody is suggesting it's that simple. The point is that putting money in the hands of spenders is far more effective at stimulating the economy than putting that same money in the hands of the very wealthy.

 

[BarneyFife]

I just can't help but laugh at people in here fighting with the elites to fuck themselves. Notice all the budget cuts in every state involve funding for people. You'll never see contractors or vendors being asked to take a hit. So right now Poor Profjohn, is arguing on a message board to fuck himself so that the billionaires can have even more money. The mentality is unbelievable. Some of you guys are stupid beyond belief.

On a side note, when did the elites all of a sudden become soooo greedy? Back in the 70's and 80's, they at least offered benefits and pensions. Now they don't even want you to have government assistance when you get old and they want all your money pooled into the stock market so they can rip you off even more.

 

[Craig234]

I just can't help but laugh at people in here fighting with the elites to fuck themselves. Notice all the budget cuts in every state involve funding for people. You'll never see contractors or vendors being asked to take a hit. So right now Poor Profjohn, is arguing on a message board to fuck himself so that the billionaires can have even more money. The mentality is unbelievable. Some of you guys are stupid beyond belief.

On a side note, when did the elites all of a sudden become soooo greedy? Back in the 70's and 80's, they at least offered benefits and pensions. Now they don't even want you to have government assistance when you get old and they want all your money pooled into the stock market so they can rip you off even more.

It's just a long gradual slide. To get an idea where it ends, look at third world plutocracies. The question is just whether we'll go more that direction, or return to a middle class.

There's no guarantee even our basic government will remain in place - the power of the government to 'tax the rich and pay for social programs' can be changed.

You can get an idea if you look at the *planned* government and economic structure for Iraq, they were unable to fully implement. It was radical right-wing social engineering.

It's hard to find info on those plans, but you can see some here from Naomi Klein:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

 

[dmcowen674]

If the rich peoples wealth were spread equally out to the rest of the people in these countries it would make hardly a difference in their wealth.

Your economic views are a fucking joke.

It's yours that is a joke and the American people negatively affected by your thuggery is waking up and will come after your kind.

The tables will be turning.

 

[dmcowen674]

I just can't help but laugh at people in here fighting with the elites to fuck themselves. Notice all the budget cuts in every state involve funding for people. You'll never see contractors or vendors being asked to take a hit. So right now Poor Profjohn, is arguing on a message board to fuck himself so that the billionaires can have even more money. The mentality is unbelievable. Some of you guys are stupid beyond belief.

On a side note, when did the elites all of a sudden become soooo greedy? Back in the 70's and 80's, they at least offered benefits and pensions. Now they don't even want you to have government assistance when you get old and they want all your money pooled into the stock market so they can rip you off even more.

Power is a consuming thing. Once they knew they have all of the power they have gone hog wild and don't care what happens to the country. That's why so many of them have dual citizenship and ready to jump this ship on a moments notice.

Wonder how many in here have citizenship in Monaco

 

[dmcowen674]

And don't forget the linger effects of WW 2 where we were the only major country to escape unharmed which gave us a huge advantage in the 50s.

And it occurred before the creation of the global economy when our workers didn't have to compete with cheap labor and thus our labor costs were allowed to escalate.

Stop saying we and us, you hate this country and should leave it ASAP.

 

[Jhhnn]

Investments of a $ million must be made with after-tax funds. I.e., with very exceptions there is no deduction available for an investment of that sort (a $ million and one Gates would likely make).

Therefore tax rates wouldn't have the kind of effect you describe.

Fern

I think that's inaccurate. At the level of small business, there's currently little impetus to re-invest in the company rather than declaring a dividend, paying 15% in federal taxes. Much higher taxes change the calculus entirely- you can't just take money out of the company & put it in your pocket w/o substantial penalty. It's smarter to expense the money thru the corporate entity, even if it's just a nicer office & a new "company vehicle". You can't offshore the money buying a beach house in the Bahamas... use it to pay down personal debt or speculate in real estate, either.

It's the same at the level of corporate taxes, too. With very profitable companies, high corporate taxes encourage hiring & pay increases, which are expenses rather than the accumulation of cash reserves, which are not, obviously.

Yeh, sure, those reserves will be put to use, invested or disbursed, *eventually*, but that's not going to solve today's problems, at all.

J Paul Getty once remarked that it was cheaper for him to buy companies rather than their products during the depression, simply because liquidity was so low & cash so very dear in the wake of the credit collapse... That's one of the results of a debt/deflation spiral, something we're rapidly approaching. It's great if you made oodles of money on the way up, got liquid before it all fell down, but damned few people were able to do that, then or now. For everybody else, it's a screwjob, because cashflow is a necessity of survival in the modern economy, and those who have cash will beat you down mercilessly when nobody else has any...

 

[matt0611]

You keep insisting that the way to fix the economy is to put more money in the hand of businesses so they can expand and increase supply. If the problem was a lack of supply, however, there would be widespread shortages. That is simply not the case. The problem is a lack of demand, i.e., people aren't spending like they used to.



What is your basis for this claim? Please give specific examples of any significant misallocation and provide documentation for the purported impact. This sounds like pure ideological dogma to me.



And it worked pretty well for a long time. It was ultimately unsustainable because so much of it was false prosperity, borrowed money and good jobs that have since disappeared.

In the same vein, we've had 30 years of tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, trickle-down economics, and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite few. How's that working out for us?



That's a straw man. Nobody is suggesting it's that simple. The point is that putting money in the hands of spenders is far more effective at stimulating the economy than putting that same money in the hands of the very wealthy.

Where did I say to put more money into the hands of businesses?
That's not my view at all. I have no idea where you are pulling this stuff from.

Yeah, printing money works well, for a while, and then the economy will eventually go into another slump because printing money doesn't actually fix the problems in the economy. It leads to false prosperity (like you said) and a mis-allocation of real resources in the economy.

When things are unsustainable by definition the real resources in it are allocated in an unsustainable way, this is why we are now in a very long recession.

Where did I say anything advocating "trickle down economics" whatever that even means precisely. I'm an advocate of free-market capitalism, nothing more.
Printing money, or getting money to the consumer will not fix this problem. Go ahead, tax the rich and spend tons of money in a political fashion, it won't fix the problems, as we are witnessing now. Government is running at huge deficits, economy is still in the gutter.

And its not a straw man, you just repeated exactly what I said you were advocating.
The root of our problems go a lot deeper than a "lack of money" or a "lack of demand from consumers".

 

[JSt0rm]

Where did I say to put more money into the hands of businesses?
That's not my view at all. I have no idea where you are pulling this stuff from.

Yeah, printing money works well, for a while, and then the economy will eventually go into another slump because printing money doesn't actually fix the problems in the economy. It leads to false prosperity (like you said) and a mis-allocation of real resources in the economy.

When things are unsustainable by definition the real resources in it are allocated in an unsustainable way, this is why we are now in a very long recession.

Where did I say anything advocating "trickle down economics" whatever that even means precisely. I'm an advocate of free-market capitalism, nothing more.
Printing money, or getting money to the consumer will not fix this problem. Go ahead, tax the rich and spend tons of money in a political fashion, it won't fix the problems, as we are witnessing now. Government is running at huge deficits, economy is still in the gutter.

And its not a straw man, you just repeated exactly what I said you were advocating.
The root of our problems go a lot deeper than a "lack of money" or a "lack of demand from consumers".

We are going through an era of potential deflation. We dont want deflation. We print more money to stop deflation. Another way to get people to invest and start moving money around is to inflate it. another way to help with the debt is to inflate it away. And why shouldn't we? Do you want to deflate our currency, INCREASING the debt owed? What kind of idiot are you?

 

[matt0611]

We are going through an era of potential deflation. We dont want deflation. We print more money to stop deflation. Another way to get people to invest and start moving money around is to inflate it. another way to help with the debt is to inflate it away. And why shouldn't we? Do you want to deflate our currency, INCREASING the debt owed? What kind of idiot are you?

Where did I say I want to deflate the money supply?
All I said was that you can't inflate our problems away.
Again, simply "moving money around" or "getting people to spend or invest" is not going to fix the problem.
Inflation doesn't necessarily cause people to invest in new businesses and hire people you know.

 

[Jhhnn]

Inflation doesn't necessarily cause people to invest in new businesses and hire people you know.

Deflation definitely discourages it, however. When cash & cash equivalents gain value by virtue of being withheld from circulation, there's no point in taking risks with excess funds at all. We're seeing that already, and cutting federal expenditures won't improve that picture in the slightest. Having less spending, less money in circulation in the economy is deflationary by definition. Having a balance of payments deficit of >$500B is also deflationary wrt the national economy, as is population growth with a fixed money supply...

 

[JSt0rm]

Where did I say I want to deflate the money supply?
All I said was that you can't inflate our problems away.
Again, simply "moving money around" or "getting people to spend or invest" is not going to fix the problem.
Inflation doesn't necessarily cause people to invest in new businesses and hire people you know.

All of those things are factors. Money velocity is important as is controlled inflation. From how i hear you rpublicans talk about the reasons behind people creating jobs I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about. The moment you get off the w2 slave train and start thinking about WHEN you take profits and have pre tax expenses come and talk to me about "trickle down economics"

Your policies are going to give us a 3rd world country.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Where are the facts that back up your 85/15 plan????

Who said that? When did they say it? Was it a real offer or just made up BS??

Its in several articles, and I posted a link as such in the other thread. I can't make it any easier for you.

So for the umpteenth time, please explain how Obama, who moved to within 2% of the GOP plan didn't compromise.

Then explain how the GOP, having gotten all but 2% of what they wanted, moved further away from their position, to 100/0.

I have asked several times, but you cannot or will not answer. Why is that? It couldn't' possibly be because you have no way to justify it?

Your OP claimed Obama didn't compromise. My link (and plenty of others on the web) all say he did, followed by the GOP refusing and moving further away. So prove your OP correct or admit you are lying.

This isn't your personal spam forum where we have to take your BS at face value. Post real evidence and defend your posts (of you can of course).

edit: Just for PJ, a simple google serach found several articles discussing this.

Link

Link

Two things to note:
1. It is accepted that the GOP moved from their 85/15 proposal to 100/0. Everyone is talking about the GOP and the "no tax increase"
2. It is accepted that Obama moved to within 2% of the GOP deal, and that many Dem's don't/didn't like it.

So again, npj, explain your lies about Obama not compromising and then explain for the GOP compromise was to move AWAY from their original proposal.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your mistake, Garfield, is that you believe PJ is trying to "make sense". He's not. He's "disseminating propaganda" and knows what he's doing.

 

[Fern]

I think that's inaccurate. At the level of small business, there's currently little impetus to re-invest in the company rather than declaring a dividend, paying 15% in federal taxes. Much higher taxes change the calculus entirely- you can't just take money out of the company & put it in your pocket w/o substantial penalty. It's smarter to expense the money thru the corporate entity, even if it's just a nicer office & a new "company vehicle". You can't offshore the money buying a beach house in the Bahamas... use it to pay down personal debt or speculate in real estate, either.

Small businesses are set-up as S corps, with very few exceptions. Dividends from S corps are taxed at the regular rate, not the 15% rate for "qualifying dividends".

It's the same at the level of corporate taxes, too. With very profitable companies, high corporate taxes encourage hiring & pay increases, which are expenses rather than the accumulation of cash reserves, which are not, obviously.

I'm not sure I'm following you, but if you're referring to larger corporation that are not S corps bear in mind they need to pay dividends; that's a major reason people (ad pension/retirement plans) purchase their stock. Otherwise, the accumulation of cash reserves (you'd want cash invested and earning something) increases the stocks value and shareholders can benefit.

Publicly traded Corporations will pay higher salaries just because the tax rate is higher (unless the rate were 100% or more). It makes no sense to do so, neither for the corporation or the s/h's.

------------------------------------

This was about Bill Gates being to deduct an "investment". My point is that there is no deduction, unless it a very unusual investment for someone like him.

Expenditures for "trade or business" expenses are deductible, investments are not (until a loss is realized).

Fern

 

[Macamus Prime]

Your wet dream of having some 12 year old working 11 hour shifts will never happen in this country again, give it up.

Too late,...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/young...y-fields-walmart-severs-ties/story?id=8951044

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Your mistake, Garfield, is that you believe PJ is trying to "make sense". He's not. He's "disseminating propaganda" and knows what he's doing.

True, but I think people still need to call him and anyone else that intentionally lies out and make them face facts. At the very least, others will quickly learn who lies around here. Just letting PJ and others merrily troll away is wrong.

And I notice he still refuses to answer the question about compromise.

 

[Engineer]

Funny how it's only the dems plan (according to PJ) that is lacking details....

Looks at GOP
Looks at Dems

Can't tell much difference.

*shrugs* and goes on a walk.

 

[Fern]

Funny how it's only the dems plan (according to PJ) that is lacking details....

Looks at GOP
Looks at Dems

Can't tell much difference.

*shrugs* and goes on a walk.

While I agree with your overall assessment - can't tell much difference, I don't see how a balance budget amendment requires such specifics. Seems to me those specifics should be worked during each year's budgeting process. Surely they can, and should, change each depending upon the situation (projected revenues will rise and fall, wars will surge or draw down etc)

Fern

 

[Engineer]

While I agree with your overall assessment - can't tell much difference, I don't see how a balance budget amendment requires such specifics. Seems to me those specifics should be worked during each year's budgeting process. Surely they can, and should, change each depending upon the situation (projected revenues will rise and fall, wars will surge or draw down etc)

Fern

If that's the case, and it might be, then surely Obama and the dems can "work out" the proposed spending cuts during each year's budgeting process, no?

Edit: Walk is on hold until wife eats! :biggrin:

 

[Jhhnn]

True, but I think people still need to call him and anyone else that intentionally lies out and make them face facts. At the very least, others will quickly learn who lies around here. Just letting PJ and others merrily troll away is wrong.

And I notice he still refuses to answer the question about compromise.

You're right, of course, but there's little point in acting as if PJ might be reasonable, at all.

He practices pump & dump posting- fire up the mental midgets, keep them agitated, then move on to more of the same in a new thread when countered by reason or facts. They'll go for the same Shiny! every time, having the attention span of fruit flies...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

/sound of crickets

Still waiting for npj to provide an explanation for his intentional lies. Funny how he claims to post facts, but never can provide proof, and bails out of every thread he starts once show he is wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

/sound of crickets

Still waiting for npj to provide an explanation for his intentional lies. Funny how he claims to post facts, but never can provide proof, and bails out of every thread he starts once show he is wrong.

Well, yeh- of course. He has a new thread up- same as this one, wherein another ultra wealthy Repub sycophant offers fuel for denial-

It's all Obama's fault. Everything.

 

[ProfJohn]

only you would suggest printing new money.. as i never did.
No... someone will ultimately have to pay the brunt of this, and there is only one group of people who can... the business owners.

This is a radical problem requiring a radical new approach...

i suggest we try Trickle-Up economics. without going into the negative, suppose every company cut salaries above an arbitrary number, say 250K and hired as many people as possible people at livable salaries say 30k to 50K... simply employing people for the sake of employing people. Lets call this profit minimalizing without going negative...

Are you seriously arguing that this would not ease the burden on government services and create new demand, thus undoing the last decade of economic downsizing?

Noone would ever propose such a proposterous thing because... oh no... think of the shareholders. The shareholders are the real agenda responsible for our current problems: our inefficiencies made our economy strong, removing them weakened it.
Want proof? look at germany... strongest economy in europe. Germany protects workers (aka consumers) at all cost.

Start your own business and do it yourself...