User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 93

  1. #31
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    Sharing prosperity is lefty concept.
    It is? I know that spreading the wealth around is a lefty concept, but wealth and prosperity are two different things. I see no indication that lefties want prosperity. Every lefty policy I see coming from this administration kills jobs and opportunities and increases poverty. We saw the same thing with FDR's New Deal programs; these programs extended the Depression by 4 years.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  2. #32
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It is? I know that spreading the wealth around is a lefty concept, but wealth and prosperity are two different things. I see no indication that lefties want prosperity. Every lefty policy I see coming from this administration kills jobs and opportunities and increases poverty.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you're using the term "leftie" I assume you're probably a "rightie" (i.e. Republican/conservative etc)? Frankly I believe the current two party system is complete fucked, since you can pretty much buy laws through lobbying. And sharing of "prosperity" hasn't been on the Republican agenda for as long as I can remember.

    Not that I agree with all the policies of either party, but I certainly don't agree with your categorical view on things. For example, social programs can be conducive to the economy because they add a sense of financial security for a "regular joe", and as such, encourage spending, which is much needed in our consumer based economy.

    As for the "righties" - a lot of stuff trumpeted by the self professed fiscal conservatives is destructive to the US economy. For example that whole "Free Trade" racket bullshit (which isn't even really free trade), which destroys American industries. How is an American based business, and an American worker supposed to compete with their Chinese counterparts? China has no labor or environmental standards and has a significantly lower standard of living. I don't think it will do anything for an American prosperity if an average wage is 50 cents an hour and our air is unbreathable. Now if an average American citizen was reaping the price disparity that'd fine. But that isn't the case - I'm still paying $5 for a tshirt that costs less 5 cents to make. The only difference now and 50 years ago, is that some corporate middleman becoming very wealthy from shipping t-shirts from one country to another, while some poor American bastard with low IQ who would otherwise would have a livable wage from making t-shirts is now unemployed and probably trying to get on the dole.

    On top of that, we don't even get equivalent deals. Any business in China has to be 51% Chinese owned, by law. We don't have those kind of stipulations in America. Why? Because powers that be don't give a shit about long term consequences on the country, as long as they get their cut.

    As for corporate taxes. Corporations right now are sitting on trillions dollars of cash. They are not investing in growth - they are just buying their stocks back, because they view current economy as uncertain so they would rather sit on the sidelines while the Fed is desperately trying to jump start the economy with taxpayers dollars. So corporations are not contributing to the economy with their extra earnings, and as far as I am concerned, the only reason to lower corporate taxes is tp incentivize growth, which isn't happening because, like I said, corporations do not invest in growth during uncertain times. So tell me again why we should lower corporate taxes? So they don't outsource to China? That has already happened.

    We saw the same thing with FDR's New Deal programs; these programs extended the Depression by 4 years.
    I don't recall ever coming across any categorical data that New Deal extended the depression by 4 years. Not to say FDR didn't pull some unsavory shit such forcing people to sell precious metals, but he also presided over very useful reforms such as the the Glass-Steagall Act, the repealing of which caused the 2008 financial fiasco.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  3. #33
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you're using the term "leftie" I assume you're probably a "rightie" (i.e. Republican/conservative etc)?
    I'm what you would call a Tea Party libertarian. I'm a Republican though I have no allegiance to the party; it just happens to be slightly less Marxist than the Dem party and I'm not completely left out of the primaries if I'm registered in the GOP.

    And sharing of "prosperity" hasn't been on the Republican agenda for as long as I can remember.
    The country thrived under Coolidge and Reagan. We should return to the policies that gave us prosperity in the 20s and the 80s.

    For example, social programs can be conducive to the economy because they add a sense of financial security for a "regular joe", and as such, encourage spending, which is much needed in our consumer based economy.
    The people benefitting from social programs would spend even more if they had a good job and weren't dependent on those social programs.

    How is an American based business, and an American worker supposed to compete with their Chinese counterparts?
    Automation and better management. A machine can do the work of 100 Chinese workers making 50 cents and do it even cheaper.

    Corporations right now are sitting on trillions dollars of cash. They are not investing in growth - they are just buying their stocks back, because they view current economy as uncertain so they would rather sit on the sidelines while the Fed is desperately trying to jump start the economy with taxpayers dollars.
    Don't you think Obamacare is contributing to this uncertainty? Deadlines and mandates in the law have been changed 2 dozen times already.

    So tell me again why we should lower corporate taxes? So they don't outsource to China? That has already happened.
    We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world. If taxes are high, corporations will just move elsewhere. When Reagan lowered the taxes on unearned income from 70% down to 26%, a net $5.2 trillion in capital entered the country (from 1981 to 2007). During the 1970s, we were a net exporter of capital.

    Not to say FDR didn't pull some unsavory shit such forcing people to sell precious metals, but he also presided over very useful reforms such as the the Glass-Steagall Act, the repealing of which caused the 2008 financial fiasco.
    FDR was a national disaster, even more incompetent than Obama. He tripled taxes during a Depression; gave the unions a stranglehold in many industries, which resulted in more than a doubling of work stoppages and strikes. He set wage controls which resulted in lots of poor people losing their jobs and his spending sucked the money out of the economy. Banks used their money to buy government bonds instead of loans to private businesses.

    In October 3, 1942, FDR issued this executive order:

    "In order to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort, the Director is authorized to take the necessary action, and to issue the appropriate regulations, so that, insofar as practicable, no salary shall be authorized under Title III, Section 4 to the extent that it exceeds $25,000 after the payment of taxes allocable to the sum in excess of $25,000"

    "No American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year."

    This bastard capped all salaries at $25,000/year (in 1942 dollars).
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #34
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The country thrived under Coolidge and Reagan. We should return to the policies that gave us prosperity in the 20s and the 80s.
    The country thrived under Clinton too.

    The people benefitting from social programs would spend even more if they had a good job and weren't dependent on those social programs.
    Yes, in an ideal world everyone would have a job and a sufficient income to provide for their necessities. But the jobs are hard to come by when the economy is ruined by rigged financial shenanigans and the work is outsourced.

    Automation and better management. A machine can do the work of 100 Chinese workers making 50 cents and do it even cheaper.
    The benefits of the technological advancement will be reaped by the owners of technology/machinery. Tell me, how does an average laborer benefits from this?

    Here's a chart to illustrate what has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future:




    Don't you think Obamacare is contributing to this uncertainty? Deadlines and mandates in the law have been changed 2 dozen times already.
    The economy took a giant shit all over itself before Obama stepped into the White House. Frankly, the implementation of the national healthcare reform was long overdue because the system we've had in place made no sense - medical insurance that was attached to the place of employment (which limited employment mobility), and the bastardized system that allowed free loaders how could afford healthcare but chose to go without it show up to ER and then skip on the bill. Also, it's hard to implement something when it's constantly being cockblocked by the hostile partisans.

    We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world. If taxes are high, corporations will just move elsewhere. When Reagan lowered the taxes on unearned income from 70% down to 26%, a net $5.2 trillion in capital entered the country (from 1981 to 2007). During the 1970s, we were a net exporter of capital.
    On the books the corporate tax is high, but we have so many loopholes that a lot of corporations don't pay any tax at all. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  5. #35
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    The country thrived under Clinton too.
    The architect of Reaganomics, Arthur Laffer, voted for Clinton twice because Clinton largely kept Reagan's policies in place. From 1996 to 2000, Clinton promoted free trade, tight-fisted budgets, signed a capital gains tax cut, signed welfare reform (after 2 vetoes), and signed NAFTA.

    "Clinton with a Democratic Congress was a recipe for disaster, but Clinton with a Republican Congress produced a gravity-defying expansion." Art Laffer

    The benefits of the technological advancement will be reaped by the owners of technology/machinery. Tell me, how does an average laborer benefits from this?
    The running and fixing of these machines requires higher skilled workers and that means higher wages. Unskilled laborers will always be at a disadvantage which is why minimum wage laws are so destructive. They prevent the unskilled laborer from acquiring the skills necessary to get better paid. The only leverage an unskilled laborer has to offer is to work for peanuts. Minimum wage laws destroys entry level work where the worker can get valuable on the job training.

    Here's a chart to illustrate what has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future:
    The chart leaves out unemployment. It would be better to look at median, inflation adjusted wages for each of the quintiles. There is a reason why the chart is using an index and I suspect it's to hide something.

    Frankly, the implementation of the national healthcare reform was long overdue because the system we've had in place made no sense - medical insurance that was attached to the place of employment (which limited employment mobility), and the bastardized system that allowed free loaders how could afford healthcare but chose to go without it show up to ER and then skip on the bill.
    Why does healthcare need to be any different than car repair or any other service? I'm not sure what advantage you are seeing in government involvement since that usually has the effect of driving up cost, as we've already seen (premiums have increased in 45 out of 50 states). The reason why it's a mess today is because of Medicare and Medicaid and the employer mandates to provide healthcare coverage. Ideally, we get rid of these entitlements and the waste associated with them ($100 billion/year in waste,fraud, and abuse). Let workers have control of the money via health savings accounts. This obviates the need to hire 16,000 IRS agents (who don't provide any healthcare) and the loss of privacy.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    And sharing of "prosperity" hasn't been on the Republican agenda for as long as I can remember.
    This is capitalism, we'll offer equal opportunity to fight to the death for prosperity.

    We don't offer the safety the left does, with the state caring for you and what not.

    What we do offer is a chance to make something of yourself (if you train have the talent and work hard enough) and to have something that is yours and yours alone.

    The larger the safety net, the more we redistribute, the more we equally share in mediocrity.

    So that's your choice, a warm safe blanket the protects and mollifies (and smothers) you, or a chance to try and climb up a slippery hill.

    I take the hill every time.

  7. #37
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    The benefits of the technological advancement will be reaped by the owners of technology/machinery. Tell me, how does an average laborer benefits from this?

    Tell me... Is the management to be blamed for the advances enabled by the software developer?

    In a competitive environment where every company is searching for every edge to out compete it's rivals, and the choices are adopt technology or die, who are you to blame a CEO for choosing to stay competitive (with new tech) as opposed to failure?

    You're too jaded on our system man.

    Yes there are problems, but those problems are opportunities to evolve in ways that will make us flourish in the 21 century.

  8. #38
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    This is capitalism, we'll offer equal opportunity to fight to the death for prosperity.

    We don't offer the safety the left does, with the state caring for you and what not.

    What we do offer is a chance to make something of yourself (if you train have the talent and work hard enough) and to have something that is yours and yours alone.

    The larger the safety net, the more we redistribute, the more we equally share in mediocrity.

    So that's your choice, a warm safe blanket the protects and mollifies (and smothers) you, or a chance to try and climb up a slippery hill.

    I take the hill every time.
    We regulate capitalism, particularly finance, and ensure competition. The result has been 24 years of uninterrupted growth and a triple A credit rating, across all rating agencies.

    And even though you have the largest economy in the world, you failed to regulate your capitalism causing the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

    Your model has failed and continues to fail as your Reserve Bank continues to print money.

    So why not take a leaf out of a successful book and regulate your capitalism and ensure competition.

    Why, it was in 1776 that Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations showing that regulated and competitive capitalism produced prosperity. Don't you think it is time you caught up?

  9. #39
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We regulate capitalism, particularly finance, and ensure competition. The result has been 24 years of uninterrupted growth and a triple A credit rating, across all rating agencies.

    And even though you have the largest economy in the world, you failed to regulate your capitalism causing the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

    Your model has failed and continues to fail as your Reserve Bank continues to print money.

    So why not take a leaf out of a successful book and regulate your capitalism and ensure competition.

    Why, it was in 1776 that Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations showing that regulated and competitive capitalism produced prosperity. Don't you think it is time you caught up?
    A post informing us as to just what a perfect little slice of heaven Australia is from you?!?!?!

    I'm shocked. Just shocked I say.

  10. #40
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Tell me... Is the management to be blamed for the advances enabled by the software developer?

    In a competitive environment where every company is searching for every edge to out compete it's rivals, and the choices are adopt technology or die, who are you to blame a CEO for choosing to stay competitive (with new tech) as opposed to failure?

    You're too jaded on our system man.

    Yes there are problems, but those problems are opportunities to evolve in ways that will make us flourish in the 21 century.
    I don't think anyone is supporting Ludditism. But if that result is the reality of technological advancement, then perhaps a sound society must make interventions to stem some of the economic damage done by it, and reduce the inequality of gains.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 08:58 PM
  2. Ignorance must be brought to the light. It must be eradicated.
    By iNtrovert in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 03:06 PM
  3. [NT] I must be crazy.
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 09:16 PM
  4. I'm this, so you must be this
    By tovlo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO