Congratulations to President Obama!

It reminds me of the wife of a failed presidential candidate.

Naww.. couldn't be!

It sounds like the words uttered by a woman, while trying to explain in her own words, how the economy could be fixed, reading from prepared remarks to questions that were already submitted.
 
It did happen

"Trickle Down" economics does NOT work. That's what the Busch tax cuts were, just repackaged. It does NOT work, never did, never will. Busch explained that giving the top earners cuts would cause them to reinvest the money into creating jobs.

And that NEVER happened!!

It did happen, they did create jobs, but it was a 'better investment' to make them happen in China.
 
It sounds like the words uttered by a woman, while trying to explain in her own words, how the economy could be fixed, reading from prepared remarks to questions that were already submitted.
Without getting into details because Barbie says "Math is hard!"

So we get lines like "Capitalism is a fact of nature." Or did he say "law of nature?" I actually have him on iggy most of the time.
 
That's what makes the right such a bunch of assholes

They feel like welfare is a bad word, but outsourching and going to cheaper labor in countries willing to poison their people for a few jobs, is just 'good business'
I feel like they should be made to pay for the wreckage they leave behind them when they cut and run to another country for their jobs. If they knew they were going to have to pay a welfare tax to help support the laid off workers maybe they would reconsider the advantages of moving out of the country.

But cheap labor is only a problem for the next few years, soon everything will be automated. Watch a few of the 'How it's Made' shows on TV, you will seldom see a human hand as the products are sent from one machine to the next.

Some form of government paid dole seems to be the only solution to me.
 
Wait-- before, you said that the "wealthy" are

Now you're saying;

But honey, trillionaires don't, and we know this for a fact, because they have not. In fact, the more money goes into those pockets, the fewer jobs stay in America.

They don't do small business. I, and my people, We do small business. We are what small business is. Fuck if I know who decided that "small business" means 500 employees! :rolleyes: Right now, my goal is to generate income for five people. a really successful company that I know of has thirty employees. One guy reycling is a guy doing business.

And the federal government, believe it or not, does a lot to help small business, not hinder it. I am hearing from a lot of people how they can afford more staff for the first time, because of the new health insurance rules. Despite Poppa John's lying bullshit, healthcare is in fact becoming a thing for small people like us. A hell of a lot of those regulations are real useful for us.

The reason we are creating this new economy is NOT because of the state. We are doing this because Trillionaires have refused to do it.

We are not creating new currency systems because it's so much fun; we are doing it because most of this one is sitting in Swiss bank accounts and the cayman islands. :rolleyes:

It's humerous, but not very much, that you suddenly think "global competition" is more important than "keeping the wolf away from the door." Move a goalpost, why don't you?

There has been one war in my lifetime that was necessary to maintain the peace of a nation-- and it wasn't ours. That was the cooperative effort in Bosnia.

The way to have a peaceful Isreal would have been to establish it in a far different way in the first place. We know that the intent was NOT peace.

Ah, where to begin? Let's start with a question: Do you actually read what I've written or do you just knee-jerk react to it? :confused:

To begin with, I said most of the millionaires are business persons, not all of them. Some are trust fund babies like the Kennedy's and even they invest their money, not stuff it in their mattresses while they beat their servants.

One of the things they invest in are firms that provide venture capital to aspiring business persons (y'know, like the much vilified Bain Capital). That keeps the economy moving, not the government's Robin Hood economics. Government business loans have practically no criteria for the practicality or anticipated success of a proposed business; otherwise known as a business plan. As a result. the field is littered with the remnants of federally funded failed businesses too ridiculous to even mention. Solution: Tighten the loan criteria which will never happen since the Fed's job is to give money away, not be in any way practical.

I think it was none other than the federal government who set that 'under 500 employees is considered a small business' criteria. Go figure.

I presume you know why those businesses you mention can afford to hire more employees thanks to Obamacare, don't you? Simple, they don't have to pay for their health insurance anymore. Which, by the way, is increasingly costly thanks to incessant government meddling. If you think health care's expensive now, wait until it's free.

The reason your 'new economy' is necessary is not due to the 'trillionaires' hoarding their money, it's because much of the investment capital that could be made available to a small business is being Hoovered up by Uncle Sammy who redistributes it to the 'more deserving' in the US population.

For the last time (I hope), understand that the 'Trillionaires' you speak of are not hoarding their money in Swiss Banks and burying it in the back garden of their mansions in Mason Jars. They are investing it globally in a global economy that we here in America are increasingly less a part of thanks to overbearing government regulations.

Finally, I did not equate competing in a global economy with 'keeping the wolf from the door'. They are two separate and distinct subjects and I thought I made that clear in my post. I would appreciate it if you'd stop twisting my words in the future. It does nothing to help your argument.

Next. :D
 
We've tried to keep it friendly, but some snots from GB have infiltrated the thread. it's like they can't get over Obama winning.

Since when is disagreeing with someone's point of view hostile?

I'm no 'snot from the GB', either, sonny. I've been posting here a helluva lot longer than you have and I've never set foot in that cesspool.

You're right there. I can't get over Obama's winning either. Mainly because he's done nothing to improve this country's lot in his first term and if he continues on with his current policies won't in the next four years. Idealize him all you like, but he's exactly what this country doesn't need right now; which is an Anti-Colonialist, Keynesian economic Socialist.

Read about his background sometime. You may be surprised. ;)
 
Since when is disagreeing with someone's point of view hostile?

I'm no 'snot from the GB', either, sonny. I've been posting here a helluva lot longer than you have and I've never set foot in that cesspool.

You're right there. I can't get over Obama's winning either. Mainly because he's done nothing to improve this country's lot in his first term and if he continues on with his current policies won't in the next four years. Idealize him all you like, but he's exactly what this country doesn't need right now; which is an Anti-Colonialist, Keynesian economic Socialist.

Read about his background sometime. You may be surprised. ;)

Use examples of how he's a Keynesian, and use of the repeal of the Busch tax cuts for the top earners is not one. All that shows is that you're a Reagan-era economist. Trickled on economics does not work.
 
you know what-- forget it. I've just deleted my entire post, because I want to know what the fuck this is in your mind;
...Anti-Colonialist...

See, You People (see what Idid there :D ) keep claiming that we "idolise" Obama.

Some people do, but many people who voted for him-- as has been stated over and over and over again here in this very thread-- we do not.

He's right of center. We KNOW that, we KNEW it. We voted for him BECAUSE he was the CLOSEST to center that was in the field.

If I wanted to be a wild-eyed radical Lib, I would have voted for Roseanne Barr.

Anyway, here you go, this is a classic reaganomic pyramid scheme; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess-Bankery

Hostess liquidation might turn out to be as good as the "legitimate rape" statements are, for showing the GOP to be oinking liars.
 
Last edited:
"Trickle Down" economics does NOT work. That's what the Busch tax cuts were, just repackaged. It does NOT work, never did, never will. Busch explained that giving the top earners cuts would cause them to reinvest the money into creating jobs.

And that NEVER happened!!


Don't drink too much beer.



 


FDR and Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy hoodwinked you into thinking that gravity doesn't exist and that there was no end to the gravy train.


Well, guess what? The folks who promised you an endless supply of goodies from Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are now running out of other people's money.


You've been had.


 
Poor little bloviator.

Poor little chest thumper.

Poor old hasbeen- wannabe.

Your guy lost, and there were damn good reasons why, now get over it.
 
:cool:
“The dividend policy of companies is very often affected by the tax policies of the government. When the taxes on the dividends are too high, then companies don’t distribute, the shareholders don’t get the dividends and Uncle Sam doesn’t get the tax.”
 
Use examples of how he's a Keynesian, and use of the repeal of the Busch tax cuts for the top earners is not one. All that shows is that you're a Reagan-era economist. Trickled on economics does not work.

Ooo, an easy one over the plate.

Economist John Maynard Keynes advocated such things as the government creating jobs by spending money on public works (shovel ready ones?), that government borrowing prevents recessions (still waiting on that one), government budget deficits are good things (still waiting on that one too) and last, but certainly not least, the use of fiscal and monetary controls (measures) to mitigate the effects of recessions and depressions (hello Federal Reserve ... still waiting).

Any resemblance to the above and the Obama Administration's policies (and those to come, no doubt) is more than a coincidence. ;)

Those were the Bush tax cuts, BTW, Busch is a brand of beer. They freed up a lot of working capital to help businesses grow and increased every taxpayers take home pay which also helped the economy. Money that disappears into the maw of government helps no one except the government where the economy is concerned. The government neither toils nor spins and produces nothing; it only redistributes wealth and protects the nation. I don't mind funding the latter.

Ho-hum, the old evil Reagan crap. Trickle up economics doesn't work either. A Capitalist economy works best and Keynes was sadly mistaken as Europe is proving as we speak.

Next. :D
 
Those were the Bush tax cuts, BTW, Busch is a brand of beer. They freed up a lot of working capital to help businesses grow and increased every taxpayers take home pay which also helped the economy.
except that they didn't do either of those things. The only businesses that grew were the ones that were eating their competitors instead of making business. Ands we can see what happned to those taxpayers and their take-home pay-- they stopped getting any pay to take home at all.
Money that disappears into the maw of government helps no one except the government where the economy is concerned. The government neither toils nor spins and produces nothing; it only redistributes wealth and protects the nation. I don't mind funding the latter.
If the government redistributes wealth, then the money hasn't disappeared into the mawBut we all know which maw money disappears into-- big corporations.
Ho-hum, the old evil Reagan crap. Trickle up economics doesn't work either. A Capitalist economy works best and Keynes was sadly mistaken as Europe is proving as we speak.
QUOTE]You better believe trickle up doesn't work. That's what we've had, that's what's put us in this position. Pyramid schemes.

A capitalist economy is that one you disparaged as "lemonade stands." People trading goods and income back and forth. It's not necessarily glamorous, it's not impressive, it's not the stuff of boyish daydreams-- It's not necessarily global. It is, however, what we have available at this time.
 
you know what-- forget it. I've just deleted my entire post, because I want to know what the fuck this is in your mind;


See, You People (see what Idid there :D ) keep claiming that we "idolise" Obama.

I don't recall using that phraseology, but let it pass.


He's right of center. We KNOW that, we KNEW it. We voted for him BECAUSE he was the CLOSEST to center that was in the field.

Obama's in the center? How can you say that with a straight face? His parents, mentors and friends were either Communists, Socialists or Radicals. If that upbringing sends people to the center, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin must have made a wrong turn somewhere.

If I wanted to be a wild-eyed radical Lib, I would have voted for Roseanne Barr.

Like she had a bat's chance of winning. Much like Ron Paul voters.

Anyway, here you go, this is a classic reaganomic pyramid scheme; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess-Bankery

Hostess liquidation might turn out to be as good as the "legitimate rape" statements are, for showing the GOP to be oinking liars.

The evil Reagan crap again. This is getting old. Anyway, companies are formed to produce a product or service desired by the consuming public, not to provide jobs. The jobs offered are those necessary to manufacture or supply said services or products and workers salaries are paid commensurable with a workers talents. This gives workers the incentive to do better, earn a larger salary and advance in the company.

Hostess could not compete successfully in the marketplace and declared bankruptcy, plain and simple. I'm sure poor management, delayed equipment upgrades, an antiquated distribution system and poor product placement had a lot to do with it and I'm sure union wage demands didn't help either.

To paint this business failure as a conspiracy against the union or that union demands wholly caused Hostess' demise is pathetically simplistic. :rolleyes:
 
The evil Reagan crap again. This is getting old.
tough noogies, it's getting old. It's still true that we are seeing the repercussions of a failed economic theory.
Anyway, companies are formed to produce a product or service desired by the consuming public...
no duh.
...not to provide jobs. The jobs offered are those necessary to manufacture or supply said services or products and workers salaries are paid commensurable with a workers talents. This gives workers the incentive to do better, earn a larger salary and advance in the company.
well, that's the theory, anyway. Funny though-- it's not working real well, is it?

In fact, the only places were workers advance is in very small businesses, or where "worker" = "Venture capitalist"
Hostess could not compete successfully in the marketplace and declared bankruptcy, plain and simple. I'm sure poor management, delayed equipment upgrades, an antiquated distribution system and poor product placement had a lot to do with it and I'm sure union wage demands didn't help either.

To paint this business failure as a conspiracy against the union or that union demands wholly caused Hostess' demise is pathetically simplistic. :rolleyes:
dear heart, if you keep reading beliefs into my words, and if you decide that the beliefs you are reading in are "pathetically simple" we are going to stop having all this fun.

Also, you did not bother to read the link.
 
Last edited:
Those were the Bush tax cuts. They freed up a lot of working capital to help businesses grow and increased every taxpayers take home pay which also helped the economy. Money that disappears into the maw of government helps no one except the government where the economy is concerned. The government neither toils nor spins and produces nothing; it only redistributes wealth and protects the nation. I don't mind funding the latter.

Ho-hum, the old evil Reagan crap. Trickle up economics doesn't work either. A Capitalist economy works best and Keynes was sadly mistaken as Europe is proving as we speak.

Next. :D

Keynes wrote the General Theory of Money Interest and Employment. Like most amateur critics you only read the Employment part. He was perfectly orthodox on Money and Interest - and a successful capitalist investor to boot.

I pay US taxes on a significant part of my income and some at the highest marginal rate, and I have no problem if the rate was increased as the Democrats propose. It is a fairness issue and it was fairer when Bush Senior introduced them and they continued through the Clinton administration. Incidentally the period 1990- 2000 was the last sustained period of US economic growth and balanced budgets.

Bush junior drove the USA deep into debt by insane foreign military adventurism and absurd tax cuts - without expenditure cuts.

The USA government does need expenditure cuts and they could start with the vast subsidies paid to US capital owners. Example 1 is the US Farm Bill which pays to Agri-Business an amount every year greater than the entire European CAP(Common Agricultural policy)

Example 2 is military expenditure. America currently spends 51% of the entire worlds defence budget - and can't win a war against a bunch of stone age camel herders. More money is not the answer. There are many more examples of preferred treatment to wealthy capital holders.

Cutting basic social welfare is not a good idea in a recession. It will lead to a very fast collapse of consumer demand and instant depression. Do that in the good times - as Clinton did.

My guess is that if Congress can cut a deal and if necessary expenditure cuts are made - mainly to capital holders, the interest rate policy of the last 4 years will start to yield results in 2013-2014 in terms of a slow recovery in economic activity and employment.

The big problem which will still emerge by 2015 - 2016 will be fast increase in inflation, firstly of prices, then of wages.The latter is inevitable given the de-valuation of the Dollar in recent years.

And my parting shot! Reagan was grossly over-rated as an economic manager. It was his tax cutting that started the American private and public addiction to debt financing.
 
Thanks, Ishtat.

you bring up one of the few points neocons can actually understand;
Cutting basic social welfare is not a good idea in a recession. It will lead to a very fast collapse of consumer demand and instant depression. Do that in the good times - as Clinton did.

Yanno, how everyone bitches about "Welfare queens buy big screen TV!"

Aside from the classist and racist factors, there's the fact that SOMEBODY better buy those TVs. Or else RCA is gonna go under, and all of their employees are going to have to go on welfare too.
430719_483307838359431_637171080_n.jpg
 
Back
Top