| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
What Court so eloquently said could have come out of the pages of "Atlas Shrugged". It is remarkable how a Science Fiction story written in 1957 could be so relevant today. "Our work or your guns. You are free to choose either, but you cannot choose both." - From the chapter "This is John Galt Speaking". JoeBob sez "Check it out!" | ||
| Doug_s |
"...It is interesting that m2me and doug_s are the two Socialists here and the best that they can muster are emotional outbursts and hurling insults at those they oppose. This juvenile behavior is actually pretty sad..." and what, exactly do you call this statement? the overwhelming amount of content i have posted is not like the above; there are a ton of comments like the above attacking my honesty & integrity. doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
Both m2me and you have openly admitted to being Socialists. Why would you consider that an insult if your readers are reminded of your predilections? The overwhelming number of posts that you hurl are nothing but born of emotionalism, class envy, lack of understanding, and a desire for vengeance. Please don't have the audacity to suggest that others are insulting you when they are merely parsing your words. (Message edited by reindog on August 25, 2010) | ||
| Doughnut |
HD moving out of Milwaukee makes so much sense to me now. | ||
| Reindog |
HD has apparently moved out of this thread.  | ||
| Doug_s |
the idea that someone would rather collect unemployment is really quite baffling to me. how could anyone afford to live on 25% or less of what they earned before? and, if you cannot show you earned anything you get nothing. from what i can determine, w/o spending hours researching, wery few places offer more than this, some may offer as much as 50% of income earned the prior quarter. i still don't see this as an incentive for not wanting to work. and, for the overwhelming majority of folks, work is a major part of their self esteem. wery few people actually are happy not working. this excuse for opposing unemployment benefits is yust so lame... doug s. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
HD has apparently moved out of this thread BINGO!!! we have a winner! | ||
| Odie |
If you think folks really want to work but just can't find jobs then you need to come down here and look around. There are help wanted signs everywhere. Might not be the best job or the six figure dream job you've always wanted but there are jobs. Humans are inherently lazy in my opinion and when given the opportunity will be excessively lazy. I bust my rear working 21 hours a day, everyday, and I do not want my money going to slackers so they can sit around and drink beer all day. Join the military......they're always looking for a few good men and women. | ||
| Reindog |
doug_s: You are spot on about unemployment hurts one's self-esteem. But "funemployment" is like so many other drugs. $475/week ($25 of that is free Obama bucks) is fantastic if your spouse is working. My friend has been "funemployed" for almost a year and he has not even updated his resume until last week after his wife threatened to bash his skull in. Unemployment benefits are good up to a point. The best way to get people off unemployment benefits is to have job growth. This is where you and I disagree. Obama and Congress have created a climate which is anti-job growth except for the Federal government. This ain't sustainable. | ||
| Buellkowski |
"Prop up consumers now" or "invest in job creation"? A very real quandary, but not mutually exclusive goals. The problem is that job creation is slooooooowwwwww... Speaking for my own employer, the last thing they're interested in doing right now is hiring more employees. They took the opportunity to pare some dead wood during the recession and with our productivity numbers currently looking so good, increasing headcount will only spoil the party. When we finally get more business than we can handle, then we'll consider hiring. But not before. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
is that job creation is slooooooowwwwww... Why, pray tell, is that? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Sorry if my personal anecdote didn't offer enough of a suggestion. I think that when presented with additional disposable income these days, competitive companies would rather spend it on productivity & process improvements before they spend it on new employees or capacity. Who offers the products/services that improve productivity? Software developers, engineers, and six-sigma planners. Those are your new corporate tax credit "stimulus" jobs. Not Joe the Plumber. When the costs of those productivity tools are amortized and reach the limits of their production utility, and customer demand still isn't being met, only then will employees be hired to increase output. We won't address here how said demand is going to be stimulated in the first place. That's why I wrote that job creation is slow. I believe a long chain of events must take place before ads are placed in the "Help Wanted" section. If what you have in mind is a mom & pop shop who wants to hire a part-time bookkeeper with their tax credit $$$, then I'd like to know how much of an impact you think that will have on overall job creation. (Message edited by buellkowski on August 25, 2010) | ||
| Rainman |
So, anyone hear if Harley is leaving Milwaukee or not? | ||
| Doug_s |
reindog, i am fine w/being called a socialist. everything else you say is insults. some is your imagination run wild. i have no "class envy" or "lack of understanding" or "desire for vengeance", or whatever else is floating around in your imagination. but, i guess i should be happy with the one complement and ignore the other insults.  i also find it amusing that people wanna blame the present poor state of the employment situation on what's happened since fall of 2008, when it was the 30 years prior that set up what happened in 2008. while job creation certainly sucks presently, i haven't heard one single idea from anyone on how to do anything better than keeping it from getting a lot worse. oh yeah, i have heard a lot of "cut taxes" and "decrease regulation". wait, that's what pushed us over the edge, from 2000-2008... doug s. | ||
| Doughnut |
SUCK IT UP AND DO BETTER! | ||
| Court |
>>>when it was the 30 years prior that set up what happened in 2008 Tell us about those 30 years. I lived through them, in fact earned a degree in Economics during that time, and I'm eager to hear your assessment of the events that transpired, over a 30 year period, that culminated in the current, resistant to the influx of stimulus money, unemployment. How many jobs do you think the $4,000,000,000 spent to see how many beers are typically consumed prior to a Yale Sophomore getting laid? How do you feel about what Barney Frank did to essentially force banks to give loans to patently unqualified folks? I'm glad you arrived here with your answers . . . this stuff has been bugging me. | ||
| Sifo |
You are spot on about unemployment hurts one's self-esteem. But "funemployment" is like so many other drugs. $475/week ($25 of that is free Obama bucks) is fantastic if your spouse is working. My friend has been "funemployed" for almost a year and he has not even updated his resume until last week after his wife threatened to bash his skull in. Unemployment benefits are good up to a point. The best way to get people off unemployment benefits is to have job growth. This is where you and I disagree. Obama and Congress have created a climate which is anti-job growth except for the Federal government. This ain't sustainable. I was "funemployed" all summer long and the summer before too. It was great! I got to hit twisties in WI, MI, IN, KY, TN, NC, SC, and GA, and got a government check while doing it! So the question is... Would I have done that if I wasn't getting paid not to work? Tough call to be honest, but I've never done it when I had the chance before without getting the check. I plan on doing it again next summer too. Unemployment can be fun. | ||
| Sifo |
Still waiting for some good reading. All I see here is the same old shit that got us here to start with. I'm not looking for YOUR " to sum it up". Looking for actual ideas and answers. Guess it's harder than ya thought. Rocket, if you haven't run from this conversation yet, it's pretty easy to look up the Republicans official offerings. It's right here, but includes crazy stuff like cutting taxes, so I know you won't like it. Here it is anyway... http://gopleader.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu mentID=109659 So how many weeks before you post again about the Bush tax cuts not working. Every time you do that the facts get posted. Taxes got cut and tax revenues went up. The only way to achieve that is an increasing GDP. That's all good stuff and it's been proven to work. I just don't understand your reluctance to accept this simple fact. | ||
| Court |
>>>>Taxes got cut and tax revenues went up. Just makes sense. Theory as well as years of empirical experience support this. We have, pending some sort of smutting in the turbulent waters, forestalled two major purchases that would ordinarily bring funds into the system which would pay wages, rents, vendors and so forth. Shame it's not more complicated . . . . | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What people don't understand is activity velocity. People are willing to take a long position more often and are willing to reposition assets more often when the taxes are lower. Tax avoidance behaviors are also less when the tax rates are lower.  As tax rates rise, the value of tax-free muni-bond yields rises. At current Muni Bond Yields, a person can receive a tax equivalent yield of between 6-8% guaranteed. Given the risk in the market, many people are placing money in Muni Bonds instead of investing in businesses. The higher the tax rate goes, the more likely someone is to seek tax preferred investments. | ||
| Buellkowski |
At what point do lower taxes begin to decrease revenue collections? When people don't care whether they pay the tax or not? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Laffer Curve. | ||
| Stalker |
Seems kinda off subject now, however the union is getting ONE chance to vote to save there jobs. read for yourself http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/101508814.htm l | ||
| Doug_s |
"...So how many weeks before you post again about the Bush tax cuts not working. Every time you do that the facts get posted. Taxes got cut and tax revenues went up. ..." the only thing conweniently missing from this argument is that rewenues went up quite a bit less than they would have w/o the tax cuts. most non-partisan economists agree the present deficits would be ~25% less now, if the bush tax cuts had not been implemented. the fact is that most non-partisan economists know that supply-side economics is a total failure for stimulating long term growth. some facts: bush tax cuts vs proposed scale-back of them:  During his first term, President Bush enacted two rounds of tax cuts. Before the cuts, Americans paid on a sliding scale from 15% to 39.6%. After the cuts, the scale was 10% to 35%. President Obama wants to renew the tax cuts for couples and individuals making less than $250,000 per year, and allow the cuts to lapse on America’s wealthiest. Republicans argue that any tax increase whatsoever, be it on the rich or poor, is a bad idea. Democrats respond that Obama’s plan would make a decent dent in the deficit, which seemed very important to Republicans back when they were arguing against the Health Care bill. Republicans point out that millions of Americans report small business expenses on their personal tax forms, which puts their income into the $200,000-plus danger zone, and thus, Obama’s plan discourages small business investment. Democrats respond that declaring small business deductions for tax purposes is not the same as owning or running a small business. While 36 million taxpayers reported “small business income” in 2009, only 6% of Americans earn more than half of their income from a business they own. We’re told that allowing the tax cuts to lapse will gouge neighborhood dry cleaners and donut-shop owners. But in reality, not everyone who files a Schedule C or F in April has a “business” as such. Taxpayers can declare income as “small business” if they do consulting or public speaking on the side, possess a “home office” or belong to a small law firm or medical partnership. Democrats point out that if tax cuts for the wealthy are allowed to lapse, only 2.5% of those who declare “small business” deductions will be taxed at the higher rate. Obama does plan to allow the capital gains tax cuts to lapse, which means that the top rate of tax on long-term capital would rise from 15% to 20%. Republicans argue that such an increase creates a chilling effect on investment. However, Democrats point out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, income from interest, dividends and capital gains amounts to less than 5% of the incomes of all but the most wealthy investors. Obama’s supporters insist the President only wants the mega-rich to pay their fair share. For example, the top 400 earners in 2007, who earned an average of $340 million each that year, paid only 17% of their income in taxes. Even under the Bush-era tax cuts, middle-class families paid more. Eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the very rich would save the taxpayers more than seven hundred billion dollars over the next decade. That money would make a good dent into the long-term budget deficit, and it could be used to make public sector investments that are sorely needed, for example, putting money into education, roads and bridges, health care and new sources of energy. Republicans have long argued that lower taxes for the rich is good for the economy, because they spend more. Democrats point out that when taxes have been lowered for the rich, specifically Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981-83 and Bush’s tax cuts, the wealthiest don’t actually spend more, but rather, invest in bubble-prone economic activity, such as real estate speculation, and schemes that gave us the Enron and Savings & Loan debacles. Indeed, the economy is not improved by giving cash to people already sitting on lots of it. U.S.A Today reports that today, non-financial companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 are holding onto a record $837 billion in cash, which is enough to pay 2.4 million people $70,000-a-year salaries for five years. But they’re not hiring. They’re waiting for the next high-yield investment opportunity, and neither the waiting, nor the investments themselves, will create jobs. However, reducing taxes for people who are likely to spend on everyday needs, does create jobs. If you give money to someone who’s not seen a decent paycheck in a while, that money will end up at the local supermarket or department store. It will put people to work. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist for Moody’s Analytics, produced a study that compares the actual returns on various types of federal spending. The highest rate of return in genuine economic production was tax money spent on unemployment. That’s right. Your basic much-maligned unemployment check gives a return of $1.61 into the economy per each dollars spent. Contrary to what Republicans claim, if you want to “prime the pump” and create economic recovery, the best way is to give money to those who have very little of it. They will spend it on necessities, i.e. products that other Americans must manufacture, build, or grow. What America suffers from right now is a “demand” deficit. If you lower taxes for working people, they will spend it. They will create demand. In the coming months, the President will have to decide which of the Bush-era tax cuts to make permanent, and which cuts should lapse. Republicans will frame the discussion as “The Obama tax increase.” In such an environment, it’s easy to forget that Obama has decreased taxes. As part of the stimulus package, Obama cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, small businesses, first-time homebuyers, and for 8 million Americans paying for college. But since the so-called stimulus did very little to decrease unemployment, it’s considered a failure. But nonetheless, there was a genuine tax cut hidden beneath all those grant projects. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/19/extending-the-bush-tax-cuts-some-fact doug s., (edited for spelling) (Message edited by doug_s. on August 26, 2010) (Message edited by doug_s. on August 26, 2010) | ||
| Doug_s |
now i know that npr is considered liberal by reactionary republicans, (most liberals and middle-of-the-road types consider it middle-of-the-road), but there's an interesting interwiew yust today, w/david stockman, guru economist under ronnie reagan, leader of the supply-side de-regulation theories. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?ps=cp rs&storyId=129052425 doug s. | ||
| Strokizator |
most liberals and middle-of-the-road types consider it middle-of-the-road That's not surprising. Most liberals identify themselves as "middle of the road". Very few admit to being "far left". | ||
| Doug_s |
That's not surprising. Most liberals identify themselves as "middle of the road". Very few admit to being "far left". wery few are far left. barack certainly isn't. that's why he's ramping up the war in afghanistan, why there's no public option in the healthcare bill, why he supports nuclear power, why he supported off-shore drilling, (until the bp fiasco), why he woted as a senator to give retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations and woted for the fisa amendments act; why he bailed out wall street & the auto companies, why he's backpedaling on civilian trials for terrorists, why he doesn't support a complete roll-back of the bush tax cuts... i think that's enough for now... doug s. ps - good yob addressing the issue raised in the article.  | ||
| Strokizator |
Thanks, I always try to do a wery good yob. | ||
| Buellkowski |
I'm clueless: what's with the "w" and "y" spelling? | ||
| Spike |
Did you actually read that interview?
|
