or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist - Page 6

post #201 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, it is. Have you ever gotten a job from someone who is poor?

Yes I have. You want me to embarrass the poor bugger?

Quote:
That doesn't even make sense. Phantom jobs?

No. If WalMart destroys the jobs of 50 local businesses and employs half of the now unemployed, is that job creation? After all they "hired" people didn't they?

Quote:
Small businesses that Barack Obama considers rich. Anyone over $250,000 is rich.

You earn $250,000 a year and you are poor?

Quote:
That is ridiculous. The rich want to get richer. If they can grow their business and hire more people, they will. The more they grow, the more they hire. They can't make more money without growing, and they can't grow without more people.

How they get rich is immaterial to them. They do not hire people just for the sake of it and if you haven't noticed the hallmark of "successful" CEOs for the last 2 decades has been slashing jobs.

Quote:
Someone has been reading Marx. No really...it's true that the lower classes are more vulnerable and that the rich have more to fall back on. But that has nothing to do with the subject of job creation.

If you are going to disagree with Marx, it pays to have read him, but that doesn't mean the bleeding obvious has to have come from what he wrote. I was just commenting on the freedom of movement allowed capital under our current rules relative to the lack of freedom of movement allowed labor is used against labor. ie Sack them and take the jobs elsewhere.

Quote:
Quote:

Present circumstances show how that works. The rich have caused the problems and taken their cut out of funds that have disappeared.

How have "the rich" caused the problems and who are "the rich?'

That's not entirely untrue. We just disagree on who "they" are.

The filthy rich CEOs of all the major corporations have, oddly enough , structured business and finance for their own benefit and everyone else's disadvantage. They got huge bonuses to create the mess we now find ourselves in.
post #202 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW2001:

Unemployment has increased after Bush has cut taxes on the rich.

The reality of economics is not as simple as your black/white thinking.

Oh, the irony of that last part! The fact is that employment data are lagging indicators. That is, they tell more about the quarter and FYs behind them than they do about the ones ahead.

When Bush took office we were in a global recession. Unemployment hadn't caught up yet, but it stood at 4%. Unemployment then rose over two years to reach about 6%. As they tax cuts took effect and the economy recovered, it went down to about 4.5%. It's now been rising again as the economy has first slowed and then started to crash as a result of the housing meltdown and ensuring credit crunch.

Regardless, unemployment did not suddenly go up because Bush cut taxes for "the rich."


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sorry but this so filled with nonfact it's not even worthy of a reply!

The 1980's??????

You mean when we had the S&L debacle ending in a recession and a draining war strangely similar to current times ( only now is worse )? I realize you weren't very old at the time but you must have read about some of this stuff?

It sounds like you see only what you want to see.

PS. Just to remind you we've been through this already!

Have you noticed you're not getting many takers on this line of reasoning?

Everything I said was fact. I did not address the S&L crisis, nor do I deny it existed. I said:

Quote:
It worked in the 1980s. I define "working" as:

--Significantly increased GDP growth
--Much lower unemployment/millions of new jobs
--More revenue to the federal government

Care to refute any of those?

1. GDP growth went up. From the 1980-1981, Real GDP was 2.52%. From 1983-84, it was 7.19%. Source.


2. Unemployment went down:

---When Reagan took office, unemployment was 7.2 percent (December 1980 figure). When he left, it was 5.3 percent (December 1988 figure).


3. Revenue went up. In 1980 revenue from income taxes was $364.1 billion. The same figure in 1988 was $ 607 billion. That's after huge tax decreases (and a few decreases)

Source:
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 #203 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

Yes I have. You want me to embarrass the poor bugger?

Yes.

Quote:


No. If WalMart destroys the jobs of 50 local businesses and employs half of the now unemployed, is that job creation? After all they "hired" people didn't they?

Hypothetical. And did I pose that example or one like it?

Quote:



You earn $250,000 a year and you are poor?

False dilemma. It's not just "rich" or "poor." The point is that $250,000 is not "rich." It's certainly "well off." But it's not rich especially if you own a small business.

Quote:


How they get rich is immaterial to them.

That's not true. You're generalizing and using a stereotype.

Quote:
They do not hire people just for the sake of it and if you haven't noticed the hallmark of "successful" CEOs for the last 2 decades has been slashing jobs.

1. No, they hire people when they need people. They hire people as their business grows.

2. They cut jobs when they think it's profitable and needed. And you're statement is not accurate. It's not the "hallmark" of "successful" CEOs. The hallmark of successful CEOs is a company that is growing and profitable. Is the the hallmark of Steve Jobs, for example?

Quote:


If you are going to disagree with Marx, it pays to have read him, but that doesn't mean the bleeding obvious has to have come from what he wrote. I was just commenting on the freedom of movement allowed capital under our current rules relative to the lack of freedom of movement allowed labor is used against labor. ie Sack them and take the jobs elsewhere.

I think you're getting too academic here. The comment really isn't relevant to the current political discussion.

Quote:

The filthy rich CEOs of all the major corporations have, oddly enough, structured business and finance for their own benefit and everyone else's disadvantage. They got huge bonuses to create the mess we now find ourselves in.

That's not true. "All" major corporations? Man, you really are an anti-capitalist. Pssst...I hear the G8 and World Bank will be meeting soon. Bring your peace signs and tear gas masks.
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 #204 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, the irony of that last part! The fact is that employment data are lagging indicators. That is, they tell more about the quarter and FYs behind them than they do about the ones ahead.

When Bush took office we were in a global recession. Unemployment hadn't caught up yet, but it stood at 4%. Unemployment then rose over two years to reach about 6%. As they tax cuts took effect and the economy recovered, it went down to about 4.5%. It's now been rising again as the economy has first slowed and then started to crash as a result of the housing meltdown and ensuring credit crunch.

Regardless, unemployment did not suddenly go up because Bush cut taxes for "the rich."




Everything I said was fact. I did not address the S&L crisis, nor do I deny it existed. I said:



1. GDP growth went up. From the 1980-1981, Real GDP was 2.52%. From 1983-84, it was 7.19%. Source.


2. Unemployment went down:

---When Reagan took office, unemployment was 7.2 percent (December 1980 figure). When he left, it was 5.3 percent (December 1988 figure).


3. Revenue went up. In 1980 revenue from income taxes was $364.1 billion. The same figure in 1988 was $ 607 billion. That's after huge tax decreases (and a few decreases)

Source:

You only want to talk about the parts that fit your picture of the 80's?

Quote:
Everything I said was fact. I did not address the S&L crisis, nor do I deny it existed.

You just want to gloss over it. Yes I understand.

What about the other end of the 80's and what followed all this SDW?
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 #205 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes.

Hypothetical. And did I pose that example or one like it?

False dilemma. It's not just "rich" or "poor." The point is that $250,000 is not "rich." It's certainly "well off." But it's not rich especially if you own a small business.

That's not true. You're generalizing and using a stereotype.

1. No, they hire people when they need people. They hire people as their business grows.

2. They cut jobs when they think it's profitable and needed. And you're statement is not accurate. It's not the "hallmark" of "successful" CEOs. The hallmark of successful CEOs is a company that is growing and profitable. Is the the hallmark of Steve Jobs, for example?

I think you're getting too academic here. The comment really isn't relevant to the current political discussion.

That's not true. "All" major corporations? Man, you really are an anti-capitalist. Pssst...I hear the G8 and World Bank will be meeting soon. Bring your peace signs and tear gas masks.

You'd be surprised. I'm not anti-capitalist, and I am not unconditionally pro capitalist. I actually have experience of the alternatives and they were not pretty or equitable either. Like Adam Smith I understand enough of capitalism to see its practicality but to not be too starry eyed about it.

Capitalists are largely not heroes. They are self motivated obsessive individuals and as such, unrestrained will be every bit as venal as anybody else. In fact considerably more so as their ethics and motives are almost by definition dictated by greed.

In our unregulated climate the goal posts have shifted in favor of people who will bend the rules, are short term oriented, disregard local laws and regulations because they can side step them. In short bad behavior is being rewarded, so it is no surprise that we have got the results we have. You can get extremely wealthy ruining peoples' lives, even totally screwing up the company you are in charge of. Most executives spend more time on getting their golden parachutes "right" than getting the company's fundamentals right.

White collar criminals can do far more harm than regular criminals and when they can change both the laws and the police they can even remove the stigma of criminal convictions.

I was at one G8 summit and for the heck of it joined in the protests, to the alarm of my wife. Amusing as it was, it was an eye opener to see both the reactions of the police and some of my fellow protestors who ranged from the stupidly psychotic, out to bait the police, to frightfully well meaning but very ill-informed idealists.

Like many things it would be wonderful to find a political movement that actually lived up to its ideals. But that isn't going to happen. Most people are like my friend who was a Troskyist at university and now is a very overweight, wealthy, tax dodging architect. He hasn't changed, its me that's changed. I was a "reactionary" then and now I'm a "bleeding heart liberal". So I must be doing something right.
post #206 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The point is that $250,000 is not "rich." It's certainly "well off."

In Southern California $250,000 is not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you live in Georgia, well, I'd consider you "extremely well off". Thankfully the cost of living in Los Angeles is NOT the national average!!!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #207 of 208
Maybe we should have region adjusted tax rates? If you live in BFE Texas and make $250,000 you pay a higher rate than of you live in Manhattan and make the same amount. It's only fair. If you can afford to pay more you should.
post #208 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

3. Revenue went up. In 1980 revenue from income taxes was $364.1 billion. The same figure in 1988 was $ 607 billion. That's after huge tax decreases (and a few decreases)

Source:

Revenues (aka receipts) almost always go up simply because of an increase in the workforce and an increase in GDP.

There have never been huge tax decreases.

Why?

Because each time the tax code is revised much more than just the tax bracket rates of taxation are revised.

For example, adjust a tax rate downward and correspondingly close some existing tax loopholes, and voilÃ*, your tax burden doesn't change significantly.

Reducing tax receipts through changes in the tax codes is just that, you end up with lower tax receipts than they would othrwise be.

Lost ground has never been recovered fully in later years.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist