Politics and the US Economy

[Luk]

The problem is that we are not taxed enough. Clearly personal income tax should be at 80% for every American, and the evil corporate world must be taxed at 99%...that should teach people in wanting to improve his or her life by building a business and trying to make a better life for their children…what is wrong with people! The only truth is obama, government, and taxes for all!

An hour later and you are still arguing. Who is the liar now?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34565990&postcount=53

Don’t you get it, you are not worth my time…therefore no need to edit what I post. Sorry! Thanks for playing…next!

 

[eyer]

"WTF are you talking about?" - firespin

Do you even realize the purpose and evidence of the graph you used, firespin? I've never seen it before, but it only gives spine to the prophesy of my post. Or can you not see what graphically happened for the first time in the graph's expose of history? (Here's a hint: focus on 2006-2007...)


"No love for Ayn Rand today?" - firespin

I was in serious love with her for awhile, and still value the glorious time we've spent together, but our relationship is irrevocably strained due to her complete denial of the existence of God and her copyrighted moral rigidness in refusing to consider an embryo as anything more than a mere physical part of the female body and, in being so, able to be eliminated at will - as so much unwanted waste.


"...It is business, not government, that creates jobs." - Larry Kudlow

Mr. Kudlow is correct in his government critique, but he's just as wrong in his business kudos.

AMERICAN ECON 101: "business" AND "government" are the same genre, simply different flavors - they're faceless, innate entities - NEITHER are able to create jobs. INDIVIDUALS (singly or united )create jobs that create business whose earnings make government possible.

 

[mercury14]

The problem is that we are not taxed enough. Clearly personal income tax should be at 80% for every American, and the evil corporate world must be taxed at 99%...that should teach people in wanting to improve his or her life by building a business and trying to make a better life for their children…what is wrong with people! The only truth is obama, government, and taxes for all!

Queen of putting words into other people's mouths and lying her ass off. Mostly because what comes out of her own mouth isn't worth hearing.

 

[firespin]

"WTF are you talking about?" - firespin

Do you even realize the purpose and evidence of the graph you used, firespin? I've never seen it before, but it only gives spine to the prophesy of my post. Or can you not see what graphically happened for the first time in the graph's expose of history? (Here's a hint: focus on 2006-2007...).

Dude, you cited concern regarding the wide scale elimination of public sector jobs, when (as shown in the chart) the history of public sector jobs is continuous growth, in good times as well as bad.

Vs. say private sector manufacturing jobs, which come and go.

You can worry about what you want to worry about, of course, but it seems odd to worry about something the exact opposite of what has been happening for decades.

 

[eyer]

"...the history of public sector jobs is continuous growth, in good times as well as bad." - firespin


How's that "continuous growth" going in your town TODAY, firespin?

Govt "continually" hiring there TODAY?

How 'bout in D.C. TODAY?

Can you grab CURRENT graphs to prove your thesis? (please notice the last one you shared expired in 2008).


"...it seems odd to worry about something the exact opposite of what has been happening for decades." - firespin


Tell me, firespin: you have a minimum monthly debt payment of 62%; the other 38% of your monthly income you use to leverage more debt, so that as each month passes, your minimum debt balance grows...to 65%...70%...how long, firespin, before you run out of the rope to economically hang yourself?

How long can govt "continue" to pay the millions and millions and millions and millions of employees it already bloatfully provides for, let alone "continually grow", when it has NO real money to pay them with?

After first reading your reply, it reminded me of those I used to see on the news who'd in utter amazement/bewilderment/devastation claim, "Oh...I always seen this kinda stuff happen to other people, BUT I NEVER thought it would happen to me..."

But(t), it much more reminds me, tho, of a present day Greek guy who, contrary to "the history" he's always ("continuously") known ", has no clue of what he's now about to get for all his bending over socially all these years...

Alas, it also brings to mind all these poor souls I see whenever I patronize a gas station convenience store, who are delusionally addicted to the lotteries, hopelessly mired in the same fairy tale wish that their economic fortune can somehow be magically reversed...

 

[eyer]

BTW, firespin:

The thread No matter how bad the economy gets exemplifies perfectly how increasing "Government Payrolls" sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with any increase in government jobs - they are not exclusively linked, you know...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Like his policy of dramatically increasing deficit spending? Spending to get out of a recession?

Or his policy of raising taxes?

Which ones are you talking about?

Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending, therefore making it impossible for the Democrats to continue spending, and it worked for a while, back when the Democrats cared about deficits and cared about spending. The Reagan effort was to starve the Democrats of their primary weapon. Obama is attempting to starve the private sector of its primary weapon which is job creation, which is wealth growth, creation of wealth, by transferring or taking so much of the private sector, putting it into the government sector. And now these CEOs are starting to speak up. This Verizon guy, Ivan Seidenberg: "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace." Although there are some things that are certain, and that is crippling tax increases are going to hit beginning January 1st. "Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said in an interview, 'The whole tax situation is very much in flux, very uncertain. It makes it hard to plan.'

'It’s clear that firms are not yet hiring. A lot of them are sitting on big bundles of cash,' Williams said, citing the examples of Google and Apple, which are both hoarding about $30 billion in cash instead of investing it or using it to expand. ... But, Seidenberg said he was 'troubled' by Obama’s agenda, so much so that he had 'reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore.'" Now, Seidenberg was a huge contributor to Obama just as Jeff Immelt of General Electric was and Jeff Immelt, remember, that private dinner in Rome last week said that Obama and the American business community did not like one another and are not getting along with each other. Immelt said the US is a "pathetic exporter," according to the Financial Times. "Seidenberg said he was 'troubled' by Obama’s agenda, so much so that he had 'reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore.'" Can I translate that for you? Meaning, "Wait a minute. This is so bad that anybody who really wanted to grow the economy would pull back on these policies instead of amplifying them and ratcheting them up."

Guess Who...

No, not Burton Cummings...

 

[jeninflorida]

Queen of putting words into other people's mouths and lying her ass off. Mostly because what comes out of her own mouth isn't worth hearing.

Love live socialism! Maybe if we follow your lead, we could have a strong economy like France, or maybe even Greece!

Socialist fruitcake

 

[jeninflorida]

Guess Who...

No, not Burton Cummings...

At least with Regan there was a massive spending when it came to the military and that bled out into help form the technology center.

What toads like Mercurypoising and Cebalria believe that by increasing entitlements will some how increate the GDP and led America out of a recession

Sorry entitlements are not a right nor do they increase GPD.

By the way you defend this, it must really chap your two asses that people are waking up to how ineffective the European government model is, even though obama is still pushing it. funny, how the most European governments told obama to stop spending and that they will not spend their way out of a global recession.

Obama will not be happy till America files for bankruptcy

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The United States is Europe's Mississippi when it comes to keeping up with Big Brother...

 

[Ishmael]

Looks like the mortgage market is starting it's 'double-dip' already.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Did you mean to say Bush's "unregulated" Mortgage Market?

 

[Ishmael]

Did you mean to say Bush's "unregulated" Mortgage Market?

Might as well, Obama seems to have no interest in fixing it.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

His whole career has been finding the mistakes and injustices of the producers...




Not solving or fixing problems in his "community."

 

[Ishmael]

His whole career has been finding the mistakes and injustices of the producers...




Not solving or fixing problems in his "community."

Would it be fair to say he spent the better part of his carreer as a high level panhandler?

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I like that...





More noble than a Jacksonian "shake-down" artist.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Barney and Dodd say Fannie and Freddie are just fine.

And that will remain the fact of the matter as long as they keep feeding them the billions required to keep them afloat.

Ishmael

 

[jeninflorida]

BTW, firespin:

The thread No matter how bad the economy gets exemplifies perfectly how increasing "Government Payrolls" sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with any increase in government jobs - they are not exclusively linked, you know...

Increasing government payroll is good! this is the only way to increase the GDP

 

[jeninflorida]

Barney and Dodd say Fannie and Freddie are just fine.

Here is a simple solution. Several people here have brought up that a capitalist society is only good for greed and making few wealthy. And there are many here that believe is socialism.

So seeing that we are on the brink of a society collapse, and millions of people are out of work. What obama needs to do is create a secret police force of 3 million strong that will go out and find anti socialist people, round them up, and put them in re educational camps.

Just think about that!

Guessing we will need 10 teachers, and 2,000,000 administrators to run the reeducation camps.

Unemployment will down. the government coffers will grow with over 5,000,000 people working! Just think about all that personal income tax coming in!!!!

Then, with all these people working the IRS will need to hire 1,000,000 people to perform audits.

God, this is brilliant!

Just think about how fast our GDP will grow! We will outpace China.

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

"...the history of public sector jobs is continuous growth, in good times as well as bad." - firespin


How's that "continuous growth" going in your town TODAY, firespin?

Govt "continually" hiring there TODAY?

How 'bout in D.C. TODAY?

Can you grab CURRENT graphs to prove your thesis? (please notice the last one you shared expired in 2008).


"...it seems odd to worry about something the exact opposite of what has been happening for decades." - firespin


Tell me, firespin: you have a minimum monthly debt payment of 62%; the other 38% of your monthly income you use to leverage more debt, so that as each month passes, your minimum debt balance grows...to 65%...70%...how long, firespin, before you run out of the rope to economically hang yourself?

How long can govt "continue" to pay the millions and millions and millions and millions of employees it already bloatfully provides for, let alone "continually grow", when it has NO real money to pay them with?

After first reading your reply, it reminded me of those I used to see on the news who'd in utter amazement/bewilderment/devastation claim, "Oh...I always seen this kinda stuff happen to other people, BUT I NEVER thought it would happen to me..."

But(t), it much more reminds me, tho, of a present day Greek guy who, contrary to "the history" he's always ("continuously") known ", has no clue of what he's now about to get for all his bending over socially all these years...

Alas, it also brings to mind all these poor souls I see whenever I patronize a gas station convenience store, who are delusionally addicted to the lotteries, hopelessly mired in the same fairy tale wish that their economic fortune can somehow be magically reversed...

I see, you're a moron.

The graph I posted had the last label as 2008, but included data for 2009 as well. (I don't think it had this year, since the year isn't over yet.)

That said, my graph was in response to you noting that public sector payrolls were already, or were about to, be cut noticably and this concerned you. Whereas in this incoherent screed, you are concerned about public spending. You can't be concerned about both at the same time.

Well, not if you want to make sense, that is. Otherwise, carry on.

 

[eyer]

"That said, my graph was in response to you noting that public sector payrolls were already, or were about to, be cut noticably and this concerned you. Whereas in this incoherent screed, you are concerned about public spending. You can't be concerned about both at the same time." - firespin


Man! All this time to come up with something and this is what you got?

My post was about jobs dude, not payrolls. You changed it to payroll with your graph. See my last post straightening you out on that very point.

Let me refresh you on my point, firespin - not your perception:

Government employees are starting to lose their jobs and the number of them in the dark financial days ahead will be unprecedented...

...okay...feel free to post your irrelevant graph again so you can reconfuse yourself...

 

[firespin]

"That said, my graph was in response to you noting that public sector payrolls were already, or were about to, be cut noticably and this concerned you. Whereas in this incoherent screed, you are concerned about public spending. You can't be concerned about both at the same time." - firespin


Man! All this time to come up with something and this is what you got?

My post was about jobs dude, not payrolls. You changed it to payroll with your graph. See my last post straightening you out on that very point.

Let me refresh you on my point, firespin - not your perception:

Government employees are starting to lose their jobs and the number of them in the dark financial days ahead will be unprecedented...

...okay...feel free to post your irrelevant graph again so you can reconfuse yourself...

Learning opportunity #1 for crazy wingnut: "cutting payrolls" means "reducing employees" or "eliminating jobs." I know it sounds like it could mean something else, but it doesn't.

Your whole argument (such that it is) is based on the notion that there's this humongous cadre of public sector employees who are going to be let go involuntarily and go postal or something, and that's just not the case. There are some who are going to retire with very generous pensions, and some state and local employees who might be scaled back for a time, but the federal bureaucracy just grows, regardless of economy or who runs Washington. It grows because the population increases, or there's a crisis, or there's a new law. Oh, and it might be scaled back a few percent for a year or two as a stunt. But, at the end of day, it just grows. Claims that we're about to create a new subclass of laid off public sector workers are silly.

 

[eyer]

"Learning opportunity #1 for crazy wingnut: "cutting payrolls" means "reducing employees" or "eliminating jobs." I know it sounds like it could mean something else, but it doesn't."


You really should just try and give up the name calling, firespin - it might clear up your mind a bit. Or are you simply an adolescent on an adult site?

Your thesis stated quite clearly above "cutting payrolls" means "reducing employees" or "eliminating jobs" to be true would have to apply in the opposite, no? Which would be "increasing payrolls" means "adding employees" or "more jobs", right?

BUT "increasing payrolls" does not necessarily equal "adding employees" or "more jobs"... Check out the link I suggested again for just more evidence on how youth and inexperience can lead some astray.