or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 2

post #41 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He won't listen and will continue to be willfully ignorant. A good post, but a waste of you're time...I'm afraid.

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ". I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending. It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month. I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ". I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending. It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month. I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.

Your point would be valid if all Americans were paying taxes equally but as I am sure you are aware, a greater majority of the U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy; while 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all! Thus what Baracky is pushing is a true socialist entity where only a small percentage pay for all - unfair, unamerican, and discriminatory.
post #43 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Your point would be valid if all Americans were paying taxes equally but as I am sure you are aware, a greater majority of the U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy; while 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all! Thus what Baracky is pushing is a true socialist entity where only a small percentage pay for all - unfair, unamerican, and discriminatory.

That small percentage wouldn't be the top 1% would it? The one's that make so much money our ordinary lives seem like we're living on a different planet.

I'm sorry but I really don't think our forefathers could have dreamed of the accumulation of so much wealth.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That small percentage wouldn't be the top 1% would it? The one's that make so much money our ordinary lives seem like we're living on a different planet.

I'm sorry but I really don't think our forefathers could have dreamed of the accumulation of so much wealth.

Some people wouldn't have dreamed that people could one day fill up a 1 GB drive - or even that it would ever be built. Luckily, those limited-imagination people are not the type of people our founding fathers are.
post #45 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Some people wouldn't have dreamed that people could one day fill up a 1 GB drive - or even that it would ever be built. Luckily, those limited-imagination people are not the type of people our founding fathers are.

Hard drives don't put food on the table for their families is the point. So saying " It's unamerican " by what standard? I think if you're going to use the basis of our country and what those people wanted for a comparison I think they'd look at the super rich of today the same way they looked at the British government at the time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #46 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ".

Yes, you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending.

If you bring that sentence in we can have it converted into a coherent one in a few weeks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month.

"Alex, I'll take 'Poor Analogies' for $1,000."


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.

I am. It does. The way to do it is to cut spending. Once the budget is in balance after spending cuts, then cut more and use any "surplus" to pay down debt. Once that's paid down, reduce taxes until there's no more surplus.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Your point would be valid if all Americans were paying taxes equally but as I am sure you are aware, a greater majority of the U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy; while 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all! Thus what Baracky is pushing is a true socialist entity where only a small percentage pay for all - unfair, unamerican, and discriminatory.

If it's true that the vast majority of profit is made by the wealthy, it should follow that the vast majority of taxes should be paid by the wealthy. Duh.

And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there are a hell of a lot of people who can't afford to survive if not for assistance. And before you start telling the poor to get off their lazy asses, you should be reminded how "uniquely American" a mother holding down three jobs is.
post #48 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If it's true that the vast majority of profit is made by the wealthy, it should follow that the vast majority of taxes should be paid by the wealthy. Duh.

Given this reasoning then taxation would be in proportion to everyone's share of the nation income. Which it is not. The wealthy pay a higher proportion of income taxes than would make sense when stood up agains their share of the national income. Unless your main goal is simply redistribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,

Uh huh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

there are a hell of a lot of people who can't afford to survive if not for assistance.

Free free to objectively define "a hell of a lot of people" as well as what it means when they are unable to "afford to survive if not for assistance."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And before you start telling the poor to get off their lazy asses, you should be reminded how "uniquely American" a mother holding down three jobs is.

Good for those women. They are working, being productive. They should be applauded. Is there something wrong with that?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #49 of 753
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/bu...leonhardt.html

That's how.

For me the money quote is this:

Quote:
If there is a theme to all this, it has been to try to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality. Growth in the decade that just ended was the slowest in the post-World War II era, while inequality has been rising for most of the last 35 years.

It's been clear to me for the longest time that supply-side economics lead to income equality and income equality stifles the economy and with it, growth.

When people wonder why the rich pay a higher share of taxes (ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich pay a lower percentage than the moderately rich), I wonder if those people look at income disparity at all. I don't mean among the low-skilled or the unemployed... I mean the disparity between say, a fresh grad and the first CEO he goes to work for. I mean the difference between a teacher and a stock broker. I mean the difference between a welder and a fund manager. I mean the difference in profit increases at a bank and teller-level salary increases at a bank.

The rich get richer and the poor stay the same or get poorer (when inflation is factored in). These are direct results of Reaganomics that need to be addressed. The only thing keeping these market forces from collapsing the economy altogether are social programs.

So when you ask how can anyone support social spending, I respond with incredulity that the vast majority of the same people have ignored the economic trends of the past 35 years, which have been driven by voodoo economics and supply-side wishful thinking.
post #50 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Good for those women. They are working, being productive. They should be applauded. Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, there is. It should not be required to work that hard to make a living while bankers can collapse entire industries and get billion-dollar bonuses. What would be "good for those women" would be to be compensated in a fair manner for their work.
post #51 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Uh huh.

Are you honestly denying that income disparity has been increasing at an out of control pace?
post #52 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hard drives don't put food on the table for their families is the point. So saying " It's unamerican " by what standard? I think if you're going to use the basis of our country and what those people wanted for a comparison I think they'd look at the super rich of today the same way they looked at the British government at the time.

#1: The founding fathers were well aware of history up to their time. The "rich" class have always figured out how to somehow become "richer" by past comparison. Only an unaware fool (or someone who doesn't know economics like yourself - as you yourself have previously admitted)* could not imagine that this progression would continue.

#2: No one contended hard drives put food on the table. Are you arguing with yourself? (Rhetorical question just so your not confused.)


*Support: (Just in case you said you never said that or demand support)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Economics isn't my strong area however I work at a local university and have a economics professor for a friend and he doesn't come to the same conclusions as you.
post #53 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Are you honestly denying that income disparity has been increasing at an out of control pace?

Be careful here. You claimed the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. This is a slightly different question than income disparity. It's a subtle but important difference.

To the question of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer "at an out of control pace", in aggregate, yes I would deny this is happening. But you're welcome to provide evidence of your claim and show us that in aggregate the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. As I said before, be careful here because wealth is not only about income.

The second thing I'd like you to show is that this is the result of free market capitalism (which I'm quite sure if what you believe) rather than government interventionism (which I suspect you believe has prevented it from getting worse) and crony capitalism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, there is. It should not be required to work that hard to make a living...What would be "good for those women" would be to be compensated in a fair manner for their work.

People are paid in relation to their labor productivity. In general, when you find people that are lower paid it is a result of the fact that their individual labor productivity is low. When you find people who are paid more you will find that their individual labor productivity is higher. This is basic economics. You might say "Economics 101."

P.S. Please objectively define "fair" and what a "fair" wage is for all of us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

while bankers can collapse entire industries and get billion-dollar bonuses.

I agree. It's quite a shame that the federal government has protected and subsidized and bailed out and enabled this kind of behavior, and continues to do do under the latest administration.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #54 of 753
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...210294510.html

Yet another stellar example of how how "government control/regulation" does such a FINE job of making things better.

If his judgement has been this good regarding health-care, it makes one wonder how anyone can possibly support Obama's economic policies.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #55 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

#1: The founding fathers were well aware of history up to their time. The "rich" class have always figured out how to somehow become "richer" by past comparison. Only an unaware fool (or someone who doesn't know economics like yourself - as you yourself have previously admitted)* could not imagine that this progression would continue.

#2: No one contended hard drives put food on the table. Are you arguing with yourself? (Rhetorical question just so your not confused.)


*Support: (Just in case you said you never said that or demand support)

Quote:
No one contended hard drives put food on the table. Are you arguing with yourself?

Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.

And Talon there's no way the founding fathers could have foreseen just how rich the top 1% would get or how they would dodge paying for things to get there.

You don't have to be an economist to see that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/bu...leonhardt.html

That's how.

For me the money quote is this:

It's been clear to me for the longest time that supply-side economics lead to income equality and income equality stifles the economy and with it, growth.

It's clear to me that chasing unicorns and playing with giraffes is what causes income equality and that this also stifles the economy and with it, growth.

Sadly that made up silly statement still makes more sense than your statement.

Quote:
When people wonder why the rich pay a higher share of taxes (ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich pay a lower percentage than the moderately rich), I wonder if those people look at income disparity at all. I don't mean among the low-skilled or the unemployed... I mean the disparity between say, a fresh grad and the first CEO he goes to work for. I mean the difference between a teacher and a stock broker. I mean the difference between a welder and a fund manager. I mean the difference in profit increases at a bank and teller-level salary increases at a bank.

It's much easier to pay a higher share of taxes when half of all people are not even on the tax rolls. You put forward this strange reasoning that income disparities are somehow related to the rate at which someone is taxed. That is the purest non sequitur I have read in a long time. One does not follow the other at all.

Quote:
The rich get richer and the poor stay the same or get poorer (when inflation is factored in). These are direct results of Reaganomics that need to be addressed. The only thing keeping these market forces from collapsing the economy altogether are social programs.

Again, pure non sequitur, government tax policy does not determine what a business will pay someone. It might determine how much they keep of it, but income disparities are not related to tax policy in any fashion or form.

Household incomes and their growing disparity can be attributed almost exclusively to trade and traits related to the culture war. Those parties who are questionable high school graduates or drop outs, have fewer manual labor jobs, factory jobs and union jobs to try to raise their living standard. That is the trade side of the equation. On the culture war side, you have many women who have decided to have children outside of wedlock. When they have their child, they become a "household" by government definition. The number of such households have dramatically increased since the 60's. These households reject marriage for a number of reasons.

So you have a growing number of semi-employable men and women, who reject marriage, still have children, have the government be the head of both households (they count as two) and the government controls their lives via family courts and assistance programs. They won't combine into a single household (which would almost immediately lift them out of poverty) because the women are married to the government for income and housing, and "get the cow without the milk" by having the government extract the income from the men without having the actually deal with the men.

Such households will never catch up with the households where the "rich are getting richer" because they reject education, marriage and desire the government be involved to solve for what they have rejected.

On the flip side of this, you have women who have entered the work force and become educated at amazing rates. They not only avail themselves of work and education but also still get married. Their household, by government definition, now contains two college educated, working adults. Such households are of course going to earn 5-700% more income than the other households. However all of this is attributable to choices made. When one party is gong to work part time at Walmart or McDonalds with questionable education and the other household is going to have two college educated adults working full time, the differences there are going to be 400-800% higher income.

Unlike the made up nonsense, rates of child birth outside of marriage follow the income traits. Most children living in poverty do so because their parents are not married.

Quote:
So when you ask how can anyone support social spending, I respond with incredulity that the vast majority of the same people have ignored the economic trends of the past 35 years, which have been driven by voodoo economics and supply-side wishful thinking.

There is some wishful thinking in there, and it has to do with wishing that tax policy was responsible for all these people unwilling to get married, grow up, get educated and raise their kids. When you look at communities that are supposedly oppressed due to race, look at their high school graduate rates, rates of marriage and rates of legitimacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.

And Talon there's no way the founding fathers could have foreseen just how rich the top 1% would get or how they would dodge paying for things to get there.

You don't have to be an economist to see that.

You also don't have to be an economist to just make up stuff. Please provide a source for what you claim because it is made up nonsense. The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth and also to limit direct Democracy. You are simply making crap up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

...avail themselves of work and education... ...attributable to choices made...

Oh come on!!... you can't advocate personal responsibility around here!!!


The poor (or those who feel in any way that they someone else has "more" than they do) always look for someone or something else to blame for their situation. It's just human nature. There's no way they are going to stand up and say, "I made poor choices and decisions in my life and look where that got me!"
It's just so much easier to say, "I'm poor because he's rich!... make him poor too so I don't feel so bad about myself."
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #58 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.

You extended an analogy which was clearly crafted for limited scope of "imagination" to absurdity. It's not my fault your reasoning skills and comprehension of English is so horrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

<snip>nonsense<\\snip>

Trumptman already responded to the rest of your post.
post #59 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

You extended an analogy which was clearly crafted for limited scope of "imagination" to absurdity. It's not my fault your reasoning skills and comprehension of English is so horrible.



Trumptman already responded to the rest of your post.

Well you've managed a really lame insult to me but not much else in this post.......

Someone's scope is limited alright.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's clear to me that chasing unicorns and playing with giraffes is what causes income equality and that this also stifles the economy and with it, growth.

Sadly that made up silly statement still makes more sense than your statement.



It's much easier to pay a higher share of taxes when half of all people are not even on the tax rolls. You put forward this strange reasoning that income disparities are somehow related to the rate at which someone is taxed. That is the purest non sequitur I have read in a long time. One does not follow the other at all.



Again, pure non sequitur, government tax policy does not determine what a business will pay someone. It might determine how much they keep of it, but income disparities are not related to tax policy in any fashion or form.

Household incomes and their growing disparity can be attributed almost exclusively to trade and traits related to the culture war. Those parties who are questionable high school graduates or drop outs, have fewer manual labor jobs, factory jobs and union jobs to try to raise their living standard. That is the trade side of the equation. On the culture war side, you have many women who have decided to have children outside of wedlock. When they have their child, they become a "household" by government definition. The number of such households have dramatically increased since the 60's. These households reject marriage for a number of reasons.

So you have a growing number of semi-employable men and women, who reject marriage, still have children, have the government be the head of both households (they count as two) and the government controls their lives via family courts and assistance programs. They won't combine into a single household (which would almost immediately lift them out of poverty) because the women are married to the government for income and housing, and "get the cow without the milk" by having the government extract the income from the men without having the actually deal with the men.

Such households will never catch up with the households where the "rich are getting richer" because they reject education, marriage and desire the government be involved to solve for what they have rejected.

On the flip side of this, you have women who have entered the work force and become educated at amazing rates. They not only avail themselves of work and education but also still get married. Their household, by government definition, now contains two college educated, working adults. Such households are of course going to earn 5-700% more income than the other households. However all of this is attributable to choices made. When one party is gong to work part time at Walmart or McDonalds with questionable education and the other household is going to have two college educated adults working full time, the differences there are going to be 400-800% higher income.

Unlike the made up nonsense, rates of child birth outside of marriage follow the income traits. Most children living in poverty do so because their parents are not married.



There is some wishful thinking in there, and it has to do with wishing that tax policy was responsible for all these people unwilling to get married, grow up, get educated and raise their kids. When you look at communities that are supposedly oppressed due to race, look at their high school graduate rates, rates of marriage and rates of legitimacy.



You also don't have to be an economist to just make up stuff. Please provide a source for what you claim because it is made up nonsense. The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth and also to limit direct Democracy. You are simply making crap up.

Are you looking in the mirror when you say that?

Quote:
The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth

For the people in general. Not the top exclusive 1%!

They were already running from an elite group. I doubt they'd feel good about one right here at home!

Nice twist but it doesn't work trumpy.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They were already running from an elite group. I doubt they'd feel good about one right here at home!

No... they were not "running" from an elite group. They came to the American colonies for the opportunity to make their own way... the opportunity to become wealthy even. (The "founding fathers" WERE wealthy colonists... though some lost their wealth standing up for what they believed in.)

The American Revolutionary War was about a lack of representation within the British government. They disliked the fact that they were subject to too much government intrusion in their lives. (Especially from a government that was on the other side of an ocean and communication at that time took 2-3 weeks to cross the ocean EACH way.) They didn't mind paying taxes, but they were being forced (because of the great wealth within the colonies) to pay a higher share of taxes than British commoners. And this was being forced on them without any representation within the British government to enable them to voice their concerns.

***(Actually somewhat analogous to the graduated tax scale we have here today... where some people pay NO taxes and others pay extortionist rates... in order to have it redistributed to those who have no motivation or personal pride. All decided by an "elite" group in Washington that thinks they know better how to handle my money than I do. The term "representative" hasn't really applied to senators and congressmen for a loooong time.)***

They wrote the constitution specifically to limit federal governmental power. (Any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states.) And to ensure (hopefully) that personal freedoms and wealth would not be subject to similar governmental intrusions in the USA.


Jimmac, you should have paid more attention in highschool.


*** = editorialized comments... feel free to ignore them.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #62 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

For the people in general. Not the top exclusive 1%!

A simpler and more correct way to put it is: for everyone.

The problem is that in modern America, especially under liberal Democrat rule, some people's property is deemed to be less worthy of being protected and, in fact, is considered fair game for confiscation to pay for whatever those folks wish. Most liberal, leftist Democrats today are on pretty thin ice on the subject of any property rights protection.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The problem is that in modern America, especially under liberal Democrat rule, some people's property is deemed to be less worthy of being protected and, in fact, is considered fair game for confiscation to pay for whatever those folks wish. Most liberal, leftist Democrats today are on pretty thin ice on the subject of any property rights protection.

Obama's big socialist government approach has been shown to fail by like models in Soviet Union, Venezuela, Greece and the like. Thus, when we hear of stories such as this =>

Obama land grab...
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...s/blog-324247/

we as citizens see Obama as the tyrant he is to America and its citizens. Do citizens matter anymore? Farmers matter anymore? Does the US Constitution matter anymore?
post #64 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well someone's " willfully ignorant ". I hate to remind you two ( especially the libertarian ) that taxes pay for things so even though they aren't spending they are taking money away from the pot that's supposed to be for paying for things so it's much like spending.


No, that's backwards. The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to us. We give the government money to fund services. The government allowing us to keep more of our money is not even close to spending.

Quote:
It's like paying on your credit card and you decide you'd like more money this month so you pay less on the card but the interest is still there as well as the balance so in the end you owe more the following month. I thought you guys were worrying about that massive debt hanging over our heads. But I guess it doesn't count as much in this particular argument.

It's nothing like that, actually. High taxes do not result in high revenue in the long term. It's counterintuitive in some ways, but it's well proven. Tax rates affect behavior (economic activity). This is why tax cuts have a stimulative economic effect. In turn, this produces more revenue.

The way out of our current situation is to cut spending and taxes, and unleash the power of the free market. But we're going completely the opposite direction. We have a President who is committed to literally redistributing wealth because he believes the system is unfair. He doesn't care about stimulating economic growth and/or protecting US interests--only about righting perceived injustices here and abroad. That is why we have a system where 47% of all workers pay no taxes. That is why we have a system where the top 10% of taxpayers pay 71% of the total tax bill and the bottom 50% pay less than 3%.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Obama's big socialist government approach has been shown to fail by like models in Soviet Union, Venezuela, Greece and the like. Thus, when we hear of stories such as this =>

Obama land grab...
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...s/blog-324247/

we as citizens see Obama as the tyrant he is to America and its citizens. Do citizens matter anymore? Farmers matter anymore? Does the US Constitution matter anymore?

Greece? Your bias is showing... Greece has been one of the LEAST socialist of the EU nations. In fact, "libertarian-style deregulation" had a hell of a lot to do with the collapse.

And Obama's so-called "big socialist government approach" was not tried in the Soviet Union or Venezuela (or Greece). None of those places were/are a constitutional representative Democracy with checks and balances. Economic policy does not operate in a vacuum separated from political policy.

If you really want the example you're looking for, try Iceland. But then I'll answer with Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, etc.
post #66 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Greece? Your bias is showing... Greece has been one of the LEAST socialist of the EU nations. In fact, "libertarian-style deregulation" had a hell of a lot to do with the collapse.

And Obama's so-called "big socialist government approach" was not tried in the Soviet Union or Venezuela (or Greece). None of those places were/are a constitutional representative Democracy with checks and balances. Economic policy does not operate in a vacuum separated from political policy.

If you really want the example you're looking for, try Iceland. But then I'll answer with Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, etc.


Obama has not implemented Chavez-like socialism. But his policies are socialist, relatively speaking. He favors redistribution of wealth. He favors large government. He favors greater government activity in the affairs of the people. He favors high spending, particularly on social welfare programs. Most importantly, he looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his plans to "remake America." In other words, he's the most "Left" of any President we've had, perhaps with the exception of FDR.

And please, stop comparing the US to The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. I realize your point is to illustrate that "socialism" actually works. It may work in those countries, but we are simply different-- from our economies to cultures, to our responsibilities in the world, to population size. It's not a valid comparison.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #67 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama has not implemented Chavez-like socialism. But his policies are socialist, relatively speaking. He favors redistribution of wealth. He favors large government. He favors greater government activity in the affairs of the people. He favors high spending, particularly on social welfare programs. Most importantly, he looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his plans to "remake America." In other words, he's the most "Left" of any President we've had, perhaps with the exception of FDR.

And please, stop comparing the US to The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. I realize your point is to illustrate that "socialism" actually works. It may work in those countries, but we are simply different-- from our economies to cultures, to our responsibilities in the world, to population size. It's not a valid comparison.

You turn around from a comparison of the United States to USSR, Greece(?!!!) and Venezuela -- about which you said not a single word, and even defended "well, it is socialism!"-- and then you criticize me for comparing the US, which is a union of fifty independently governed states, few of which are bigger (in population) than Sweden, to several countries for which socialism works...

Priceless.

And redistribution of wealth is appropriate when wealth has been obtained unfairly.
post #68 of 753
Define "unfair".
post #69 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Define "unfair".



Waits for a response.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #70 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Define "unfair".

Well, the wealth flowed to them and not us, and that is unfair....
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #71 of 753
Anytime ANYBODY has more wealth than me, then it's UNFAIR !!!!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #72 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

-Most importantly: Are we doing what's right for the country? Our children? Grandchildren?

Which do you believe?

First of all, I have a hard time believing you have either children or grandchildren.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #73 of 753
At the risk of making Tonton's head explode, I thought I'd link to a discussion that Canada is starting to have concerning the possible abolition of corporate tax.

I don't expect to see this happen completely in my lifetime (class warfare from the far left will provoke a backlash) but I'd love to hear what both the left and right on AI thinks about the idea.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #74 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

At the risk of making Tonton's head explode, I thought I link to a discussion that Canada is starting to have concerning the possible abolition of corporate tax.

I don't expect to see this happen completely in my lifetime (class warfare from the far left will provoke a backlash) but I'd love to hear what both the left and right on AI thinks about the idea.

Any tax at the corporate level just gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so what's the point?
Of course, the point is that the government can "get away" with higher taxes, because the ignorant proles think the "big mean corporations" are being taxed, and even though the citizenry is ultimately paying it. It doesn't show up as part of their tax-rate percentage, so they THINK they're only paying 10-12% in taxes when in reality it's more like 40-50%.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #75 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Any tax at the corporate level just gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so what's the point?

The point is to pander to the people who are too dumb to realize this. Unfortunately it happens to be that this is a large enough group to help get politicians elected.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You turn around from a comparison of the United States to USSR, Greece(?!!!) and Venezuela -- about which you said not a single word, and even defended "well, it is socialism!"-- and then you criticize me for comparing the US, which is a union of fifty independently governed states, few of which are bigger (in population) than Sweden, to several countries for which socialism works...

Priceless.

I really don't see where you're going with that. I think I've been pretty clear. Obama is a socialist, at least in comparison to the US's previous political leanings. Compared to Venezulea or other nations, it's hard to give him that same label. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

And redistribution of wealth is appropriate when wealth has been obtained unfairly.

Disagree. It might be appropriate when it's gotten illegally. There is nothing in our founding documents that addressed the concept of economic fairness. Moireover, who gets to decide what gains are ill-gotten...the government?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 753
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

First of all, I have a hard time believing you have either children or grandchildren.

Hilarious. I have a daughter. Thanks.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #78 of 753
Incentives matter:

Quote:
And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

Yes they do. Liberals will deny this to their dying day, but they will continue to be proven wrong and left scratching their heads when their economic policies based on faulty premises fail to deliver the good.

Quote:
People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, "high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992over $15 billionin order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994."

Note the the "people" here are primarily the rich since they tend to have the greatest amount of flexibility in how they structure (and restructure) their wealth and income.

And, of course, we have some recent examples of what incentives do:

Quote:
Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.


Quote:
On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.


Quote:
Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year?


Quote:
In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.


Quote:
Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 753
I have a feeling that most of you responding in this forum really don't understand what Socialism is; or, rather, could be.

Let's allow Wikipedia to illuminate the darkness, shall we?

"In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labor time or energy units.[4]

Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labor one contributes to society.[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.[7] Socialists characterize full socialism as a society no longer based on coercive wage-labor."



For the record, I find capitalism as it is practiced today in the USA...along with its seepage into politics & the mental-scape of American "culture" a near total-crime on several levels.

I find it very difficult to observe most large corporations producing wealth. Rather, I find them producing illth. If you need to me to cite my sources for this statement, then be prepared for a rather lengthy response, beginning with the 18th & 19th centuries (the dawn of the industrial age) and ending with..well, no end in sight. Alas.

There is a trend in this country, which I count myself as proudly part of, characterized by a powerful, natural impulse to restore order & balance to life - to move away from Corporate dominance & control. I admit that this movement is perhaps strongest on the West coast, in particular the Republic of Cascadia* Regardless of its size or numbers, there are least some who have risen above the flat-landers in order to celebrate life & not profits.

Feel free to flame, attack or destroy this post. I understand my words are challenging...or perhaps deluded...or perhaps the puerile efforts of a half-wit. To that I respond, in advance, whatevs.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadi...ce_movement%29
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
post #80 of 753
More borrowers in trouble despite federal help

Quote:
The result could be a new wave of foreclosures

Quote:
The Obama administration's flagship effort to help people in danger of losing their homes is falling flat.

More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out. That's more than the 27 percent who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.

Last month alone, 150,000 borrowers left the program bringing the total to 436,000 who have exited since it began in March 2009.

Administration officials say borrowers will get help in other ways. But analysts fear the majority will still wind up in foreclosure.

A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.


Quote:
Treasury officials have directed lenders to shift to a new system. They are now required to collect two recent pay stubs at the start of the process. Borrowers have to give the Internal Revenue Service permission to provide their most recent tax returns to lenders.



So first, with good intentions, we'll "pressure banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income", then when reality comes knocking, then we'll start to implement some of the checks that are normal for lending people money.


Quote:
The growing number of people leaving the program could lead to a new wave of foreclosures. If that happens, it could weaken the housing market and hold back the broader economic recovery.

Oh dear, it looks like even more failure of Obamanomics.


Quote:
Another 340,000 homeowners, or 27 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.


Quote:
Another option is a short sale one in which banks agree to let borrowers sell their homes for less than they owe on their mortgage.

A short sale results in a less severe hit to a borrower's credit score, and is better for communities because homes are less likely to be vandalized or fall into disrepair. To encourage more of those sales, the Obama administration is giving $3,000 for moving expenses to homeowners who complete such a sale or agree to turn over the deed of the property to the lender.

Administration officials said their work on several fronts has helped stabilize the housing market. They cited government efforts to provide money for home loans, push down mortgage rates, and provide a federal tax credit for buyers.

"There's no question that today's housing market is in significantly better shape than anyone predicted 18 months ago," said Sean Donovan, Obama's housing secretary.

The mortgage modification was announced with great fanfare a month after Obama took office.


It is designed to lower borrowers' monthly payments reducing their mortgage rates to as low as 2 percent for five years and extending loan terms to as long as 40 years. Borrowers who complete the program are saving a median of $514 a month. Mortgage companies get taxpayer incentives to reduce borrowers' monthly payments.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?