|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 6, 2010 19:13:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 6, 2010 20:17:25 GMT -8
Republican Policies are 99% responsible. Bush wanted to fight all of these insane foreign wars, running horrible deficits while letting the infrastructure of American collapse due to wear without adequate replacement.
The solution to the Current Bush Depression was Government spending, and it appears to be working, but it is expensive. We still have that failing infrastructure. Now, after screwing up everything they could touch, the Republicans do not want to spend the money to rebuild our transportation systems (Bridges and highways as well as assistance to the railroads.) We need to bring millions of more acres under cultivation, but the Republiscams are probably opposed to that, too even though they know that people are starving because of their past policies.
There is a total lack of moral commitment from the Republiscams. "Let them die!" is their policy and they are doing a damn good job of proving it all around the world. There ain't no Jesus in their Christianity. It is all a sham.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 7, 2010 13:12:12 GMT -8
Republican Policies are 99% responsible. Bush wanted to fight all of these insane foreign wars, running horrible deficits while letting the infrastructure of American collapse due to wear without adequate replacement. The solution to the Current Bush Depression was Government spending, and it appears to be working, but it is expensive. We still have that failing infrastructure. Now, after screwing up everything they could touch, the Republicans do not want to spend the money to rebuild our transportation systems (Bridges and highways as well as assistance to the railroads.) We need to bring millions of more acres under cultivation, but the Republiscams are probably opposed to that, too even though they know that people are starving because of their past policies. There is a total lack of moral commitment from the Republiscams. "Let them die!" is their policy and they are doing a damn good job of proving it all around the world. There ain't no Jesus in their Christianity. It is all a sham. You are losing credibility as a BAL by not putting forth a plausible theory. Spending originates in Congress. Republicans are not in power and Conservative Republicans have rarely been in power. Obama, just like Bush, does not veto irrational spending |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 23, 2010 10:55:11 GMT -8
The "solution" is not government spending. It is never government spending. It is government inducing the private sector to spend. That is how you leverage the money you have. Simple little things can get 10 to 1 ratios or better. Example:
The government put tons of money into banks. Instead how about a simple plan to get money into banks by inducing others to do it. Give a 5% tax credit for paying down an old mortgage from old money. That would cost the government almost because it reduces tax deductions. It would infuse banks with tons of capital, making them more stable. All that money has to be moved. Who would get it? Without the big government spending programs to suck it up, we would see small business get a lot of it. They need it and want it now but it is not available.
There are a lot of people who would pay down their mortgage and would do so more if a 5% instant return on the money from the government. They get the 5% and the return of what ever their mortgage interest rate was. That is a good return. When bank saving rates are below 1% and the stock market is so volatile, that would be appealing.
That is just one example. There are countless other ways to leverage the money government spends (or allows to be kept) i.e. Allowing accelerated deprecation on capital equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 23, 2010 12:04:44 GMT -8
The "solution" is not government spending. It is never government spending. It is government inducing the private sector to spend. That is how you leverage the money you have. Simple little things can get 10 to 1 ratios or better. Example:
The government put tons of money into banks. Instead how about a simple plan to get money into banks by inducing others to do it. Give a 5% tax credit for paying down an old mortgage from old money. That would cost the government almost because it reduces tax deductions. It would infuse banks with tons of capital, making them more stable. All that money has to be moved. Who would get it? Without the big government spending programs to suck it up, we would see small business get a lot of it. They need it and want it now but it is not available. There are a lot of people who would pay down their mortgage and would do so more if a 5% instant return on the money from the government. They get the 5% and the return of what ever their mortgage interest rate was. That is a good return. When bank saving rates are below 1% and the stock market is so volatile, that would be appealing.
That is just one example. There are countless other ways to leverage the money government spends (or allows to be kept) i.e. Allowing accelerated deprecation on capital equipment. Totally wrong, Bill. The solution is Government spending as long as that spending spurs growth in the economy. The Bush and Obama policies so far have not done that. If you really want the government to not take any action, I will appoint you to the Hoover club for failed policy implementation and you can head the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 23, 2010 16:29:11 GMT -8
The economic collapse was a result of cheap money (The Fed) with people buying homes they couldn't afford (idiot people speculating with real-estate) using loan instruments that purposefully by-passed normal income verification (Carter's CRA Legislation) and having those bad loans capitalized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Clinton legislation putting the CRA on steroids) allowing local banks to churn out even more bad loans without risk (local small bankers) and then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street fraudulently packaging these toxic assets as prime investment vehicles (see Democrat cronies at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and GOP de-regulation).
And when the masses of idiot people started missing their loan payments as their goofy loans started to adjust, the rest is history.
It is very debatable how much of that is the fault of GOP policy (especially since the GOP never had a filibuster proof Senate) but we know we also have idiot people, Democrat Policy, the Fed, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Democrats blocking attempts to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Wall Street banks/Investment Houses, shady loan brokers, greedy local banks, disingenuous real-estate agents, etc, etc. to blame.
The cure to the economic problem is to create economic growth in the private sector to replace the jobs lost in the real-estate industry and investment sector (private sector). Hiring and subsidizing a bunch of government workers - who produce very little economic collateral growth - was exactly the wrong thing to do. And to do it at the levels that Barry the Marxist did was "stupider" still.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 26, 2010 14:28:12 GMT -8
The economic collapse was a result of cheap money (The Fed) with people buying homes they couldn't afford (idiot people speculating with real-estate) using loan instruments that purposefully by-passed normal income verification (Carter's CRA Legislation) and having those bad loans capitalized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Clinton legislation putting the CRA on steroids) allowing local banks to churn out even more bad loans without risk (local small bankers) and then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street fraudulently packaging these toxic assets as prime investment vehicles (see Democrat cronies at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and GOP de-regulation). And when the masses of idiot people started missing their loan payments as their goofy loans started to adjust, the rest is history. It is very debatable how much of that is the fault of GOP policy (especially since the GOP never had a filibuster proof Senate) but we know we also have idiot people, Democrat Policy, the Fed, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Democrats blocking attempts to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Wall Street banks/Investment Houses, shady loan brokers, greedy local banks, disingenuous real-estate agents, etc, etc. to blame. The cure to the economic problem is to create economic growth in the private sector to replace the jobs lost in the real-estate industry and investment sector (private sector). Hiring and subsidizing a bunch of government workers - who produce very little economic collateral growth - was exactly the wrong thing to do. And to do it at the levels that Barry the Marxist did was "stupider" still. The real reason economic collapse was the result of people going into debt to maintain their rapidly eroding standard of living and their attempt to find a bulwark to counter act the decline. They went into debt because their incomes have not kept pace with productivity nor inflation. Hence, we have witnessed a growing imbalance in wealth. In an attempt to maintain their position, families sent spouses to work, went back to school (in some cases) or looked for investments to keep up. Home ownership became a way to bankroll their lifestyles and gain protection from the increasing insecurity in retirement wealth and high health care costs, which had been increasingly shouldered by individuals and not employers. And, so, the race to buy homes was on. Banks and other lending institutions catered to the rush and bulk loans were were packaged into increasingly complex and arcane instruments. The instruments were designed by geniuses who could not figure them out when they started to sour and didn't care, anyway. The instrument packages failed. The resulting slowdown resulted in a severe contraction in demand. Since the beginning of the recession, corporations have amassed considerable liquidity which they have not used to improve operations, because there is no demand from consumers. Businesses would not budge due to weak demand and consumers were too afraid to spend (see increasing savings rate). So someone had to do something. Since private industry "F" 'd it up again and would not do anything (except pay CEOs more) the government had to step in. They stepped in because they were the only entity left large enough and powerful enough to do something about it. To say that Republicans are totally at fault is disingenuous and simplistic, even though I detested Reagan and almost everything he stood for. The causes for our current condition are complex and have to do with a great deal more than "Old Twenty Mule Team". That notwithstanding, the Republicans current plan, cutting taxes for those least likely to consume additional goods and services and cutting spending (and jobs) will not work to create demand. You best thank your lucky stars government did something to ameliorate the situation and save those business geniuses from themselves, or 10% unemployment would have looked like economic heaven by comparison. The inequality of wealth and the failure of the system to share productivity gains with employees has yet to be addressed. And don't count on republicans to try. Improving the economic status of the middle class contradicts their economic view. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 26, 2010 16:04:45 GMT -8
The Middle class has taken a severe blow. It is not yet down for the count, but it does not look healthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 29, 2010 13:25:51 GMT -8
The economic collapse was a result of cheap money (The Fed) with people buying homes they couldn't afford (idiot people speculating with real-estate) using loan instruments that purposefully by-passed normal income verification (Carter's CRA Legislation) and having those bad loans capitalized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Clinton legislation putting the CRA on steroids) allowing local banks to churn out even more bad loans without risk (local small bankers) and then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street fraudulently packaging these toxic assets as prime investment vehicles (see Democrat cronies at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and GOP de-regulation). And when the masses of idiot people started missing their loan payments as their goofy loans started to adjust, the rest is history. It is very debatable how much of that is the fault of GOP policy (especially since the GOP never had a filibuster proof Senate) but we know we also have idiot people, Democrat Policy, the Fed, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Democrats blocking attempts to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Wall Street banks/Investment Houses, shady loan brokers, greedy local banks, disingenuous real-estate agents, etc, etc. to blame. The cure to the economic problem is to create economic growth in the private sector to replace the jobs lost in the real-estate industry and investment sector (private sector). Hiring and subsidizing a bunch of government workers - who produce very little economic collateral growth - was exactly the wrong thing to do. And to do it at the levels that Barry the Marxist did was "stupider" still. The real reason economic collapse was the result of people going into debt to maintain their rapidly eroding standard of living and their attempt to find a bulwark to counter act the decline. They went into debt because their incomes have not kept pace with productivity nor inflation. Hence, we have witnessed a growing imbalance in wealth. In an attempt to maintain their position, families sent spouses to work, went back to school (in some cases) or looked for investments to keep up. Home ownership became a way to bankroll their lifestyles and gain protection from the increasing insecurity in retirement wealth and high health care costs, which had been increasingly shouldered by individuals and not employers. And, so, the race to buy homes was on. Banks and other lending institutions catered to the rush and bulk loans were were packaged into increasingly complex and arcane instruments. The instruments were designed by geniuses who could not figure them out when they started to sour and didn't care, anyway. The instrument packages failed. The resulting slowdown resulted in a severe contraction in demand. Since the beginning of the recession, corporations have amassed considerable liquidity which they have not used to improve operations, because there is no demand from consumers. Businesses would not budge due to weak demand and consumers were too afraid to spend (see increasing savings rate). So someone had to do something. Since private industry "F" 'd it up again and would not do anything (except pay CEOs more) the government had to step in. They stepped in because they were the only entity left large enough and powerful enough to do something about it. To say that Republicans are totally at fault is disingenuous and simplistic, even though I detested Reagan and almost everything he stood for. The causes for our current condition are complex and have to do with a great deal more than "Old Twenty Mule Team". That notwithstanding, the Republicans current plan, cutting taxes for those least likely to consume additional goods and services and cutting spending (and jobs) will not work to create demand. You best thank your lucky stars government did something to ameliorate the situation and save those business geniuses from themselves, or 10% unemployment would have looked like economic heaven by comparison. The inequality of wealth and the failure of the system to share productivity gains with employees has yet to be addressed. And don't count on republicans to try. Improving the economic status of the middle class contradicts their economic view. Pretty much Marxist-esque clap trap. There is a reason why Obama's economic advisers are leaving the Government and going back to academia. So they can only do harm to the hapless students who buy into their BS instead of harming an entire nation's economy. One's "Class" is more about "when" you are (as opposed to who you are) and your own personal choices in life and not the results of capitalist economic policy - especially in America where we actually strive for equal access to opportunity (and not "equal outcome" as the Marxist wanna-bes hopes for). My family and I would have been considered to be in "their" lower middle class as I grew up. I, as did some others in my family, either got a secondary education, or worked hard, or both, and have escaped the pay check to pay check living condition that dominated my earlier life. It took them a few years to decades as most were "lower class" as young families and are no longer considered lower middle class in the leftist terminology. Some in my family are still in dire straights and it has more to do with past substance abuse (alcoholism or drug use), failure to take advantage of schooling opportunities, divorce, poor work ethic, etc, etc. Also, the one policy that really affected them the most was the decision by the left and the right to let Mexico and Central America have their poorest citizens flood the US. Now, menial labor jobs do not even pay close to a living wage, let alone a substandard living wage. But the left takes no responsibility for the immigration policy that Kennedy architected nor do they acknowledge the social forces behind the preponderance of those living in distress because it doesn't fit with their consequence free, moral-relativist world. To them, it is all the fault of the "Man", who ever he is? (but if you go to any College or University - it is a White Male Christian Republican Capitalist who is keeping the money to himself ). See Obama's Economic Advisers for more detail  . |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 29, 2010 16:03:38 GMT -8
If we fault the illegal immigration of inexpensive labor to work construction and the fields and dirty jobs everywhere, then we need to ask if the laws were on the books and if they were enforced. Enforcement is up to the administration in power. We just had eight years of Bush (2001 - 2009). Did he aggressively enforce the immigrations laws? Did the level of illegal immigration increase when he was in office? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 29, 2010 17:28:22 GMT -8
The real reason economic collapse was the result of people going into debt to maintain their rapidly eroding standard of living and their attempt to find a bulwark to counter act the decline. They went into debt because their incomes have not kept pace with productivity nor inflation. Hence, we have witnessed a growing imbalance in wealth. In an attempt to maintain their position, families sent spouses to work, went back to school (in some cases) or looked for investments to keep up. Home ownership became a way to bankroll their lifestyles and gain protection from the increasing insecurity in retirement wealth and high health care costs, which had been increasingly shouldered by individuals and not employers. And, so, the race to buy homes was on. Banks and other lending institutions catered to the rush and bulk loans were were packaged into increasingly complex and arcane instruments. The instruments were designed by geniuses who could not figure them out when they started to sour and didn't care, anyway. The instrument packages failed. The resulting slowdown resulted in a severe contraction in demand. Since the beginning of the recession, corporations have amassed considerable liquidity which they have not used to improve operations, because there is no demand from consumers. Businesses would not budge due to weak demand and consumers were too afraid to spend (see increasing savings rate). So someone had to do something. Since private industry "F" 'd it up again and would not do anything (except pay CEOs more) the government had to step in. They stepped in because they were the only entity left large enough and powerful enough to do something about it. To say that Republicans are totally at fault is disingenuous and simplistic, even though I detested Reagan and almost everything he stood for. The causes for our current condition are complex and have to do with a great deal more than "Old Twenty Mule Team". That notwithstanding, the Republicans current plan, cutting taxes for those least likely to consume additional goods and services and cutting spending (and jobs) will not work to create demand. You best thank your lucky stars government did something to ameliorate the situation and save those business geniuses from themselves, or 10% unemployment would have looked like economic heaven by comparison. The inequality of wealth and the failure of the system to share productivity gains with employees has yet to be addressed. And don't count on republicans to try. Improving the economic status of the middle class contradicts their economic view. Pretty much Marxist-esque clap trap. There is a reason why Obama's economic advisers are leaving the Government and going back to academia. So they can only do harm to the hapless students who buy into their BS instead of harming an entire nation's economy. One's "Class" is more about "when" you are (as opposed to who you are) and your own personal choices in life and not the results of capitalist economic policy - especially in America where we actually strive for equal access to opportunity (and not "equal outcome" as the Marxist wanna-bes hopes for). My family and I would have been considered to be in "their" lower middle class as I grew up. I, as did some others in my family, either got a secondary education, or worked hard, or both, and have escaped the pay check to pay check living condition that dominated my earlier life. It took them a few years to decades as most were "lower class" as young families and are no longer considered lower middle class in the leftist terminology. Some in my family are still in dire straights and it has more to do with past substance abuse (alcoholism or drug use), failure to take advantage of schooling opportunities, divorce, poor work ethic, etc, etc. Also, the one policy that really affected them the most was the decision by the left and the right to let Mexico and Central America have their poorest citizens flood the US. Now, menial labor jobs do not even pay close to a living wage, let alone a substandard living wage. But the left takes no responsibility for the immigration policy that Kennedy architected nor do they acknowledge the social forces behind the preponderance of those living in distress because it doesn't fit with their consequence free, moral-relativist world. To them, it is all the fault of the "Man", who ever he is? (but if you go to any College or University - it is a White Male Christian Republican Capitalist who is keeping the money to himself ). See Obama's Economic Advisers for more detail . Well alrighty then! Actually, I believe in capitalism, just like I believe in social drinking. But there are excesses to be found in both activities and interventions to be done when things get out of control. Individuals are not, by themselves, able to cope (in all cases)when Capitalism pukes all over them. marxist-esque clap trap? No. I just paid attention in economics class. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 29, 2010 17:45:08 GMT -8
Pretty much Marxist-esque clap trap. There is a reason why Obama's economic advisers are leaving the Government and going back to academia. So they can only do harm to the hapless students who buy into their BS instead of harming an entire nation's economy. One's "Class" is more about "when" you are (as opposed to who you are) and your own personal choices in life and not the results of capitalist economic policy - especially in America where we actually strive for equal access to opportunity (and not "equal outcome" as the Marxist wanna-bes hopes for). My family and I would have been considered to be in "their" lower middle class as I grew up. I, as did some others in my family, either got a secondary education, or worked hard, or both, and have escaped the pay check to pay check living condition that dominated my earlier life. It took them a few years to decades as most were "lower class" as young families and are no longer considered lower middle class in the leftist terminology. Some in my family are still in dire straights and it has more to do with past substance abuse (alcoholism or drug use), failure to take advantage of schooling opportunities, divorce, poor work ethic, etc, etc. Also, the one policy that really affected them the most was the decision by the left and the right to let Mexico and Central America have their poorest citizens flood the US. Now, menial labor jobs do not even pay close to a living wage, let alone a substandard living wage. But the left takes no responsibility for the immigration policy that Kennedy architected nor do they acknowledge the social forces behind the preponderance of those living in distress because it doesn't fit with their consequence free, moral-relativist world. To them, it is all the fault of the "Man", who ever he is? (but if you go to any College or University - it is a White Male Christian Republican Capitalist who is keeping the money to himself ). See Obama's Economic Advisers for more detail . Well alrighty then! Actually, I believe in capitalism, just like I believe in social drinking. But there are excesses to be found in both activities and interventions to be done when things get out of control. Individuals are not, by themselves, able to cope (in all cases)when Capitalism pukes all over them. marxist-esque clap trap? No. I just paid attention in economics class. ;D Glad you paid attention in class but did you have to fall for it hook, line and sinker?  I know people who are wealthy and those who are on welfare and in-between. And the wealthy worked harder, studied harder, risked more or provided a unique service others couldn't and I couldn't begrudge them an inch and hope and pray that Capitalism is alive and well when I opt to risk more, work harder, etc.. And those I know on welfare are there mostly by choice (at least the adults). In fact, I know some who traveled from state to state seeking to maximize their benefits. They simply didn't want to work, captives of the drug known as "money (albeit modest) for NOTHING". Capitalism didn't puke all over them, it paid for them. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 30, 2010 19:07:16 GMT -8
Well alrighty then! Actually, I believe in capitalism, just like I believe in social drinking. But there are excesses to be found in both activities and interventions to be done when things get out of control. Individuals are not, by themselves, able to cope (in all cases)when Capitalism pukes all over them. marxist-esque clap trap? No. I just paid attention in economics class. ;D Glad you paid attention in class but did you have to fall for it hook, line and sinker? I know people who are wealthy and those who are on welfare and in-between. And the wealthy worked harder, studied harder, risked more or provided a unique service others couldn't and I couldn't begrudge them an inch and hope and pray that Capitalism is alive and well when I opt to risk more, work harder, etc.. And those I know on welfare are there mostly by choice (at least the adults). In fact, I know some who traveled from state to state seeking to maximize their benefits. They simply didn't want to work, captives of the drug known as "money (albeit modest) for NOTHING". Capitalism didn't puke all over them, it paid for them. My experience is that people on welfare hate it. I fall for nothing hook, line and sinker. But I apply what I learn to what I see. And the wealthy do not produce jobs with tax cuts. So, prove to me income disparities make us more economically stable. Name a country with a disparity ratio higher than ours (and ours is very high) that is an economic success. Demand works better when there is some "spreading around" of wealth.. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 1, 2010 8:13:12 GMT -8
The overwhelming majority of people who are on welfare are poorly educated because of an inability to learn (I.e. They ain't too smart.).
The rest are on welfare because of circumstance. I had an older sister who was on welfare for a third of a year. Her husband had disappeared without a trace, and as a housewife with two babies she did not have a job and no jobs were available at the time. I was 12, and sent her every penny I had along with my father's emergency check to her. She eventually landed a job that allowed her to pay for child care and rent a decent apartment. Fifty years later she has a beautiful house overlooking Mission Bay and is doing quite well for herself. Still, when she had need, it was good that Welfare was there to help her.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 1, 2010 8:17:59 GMT -8
The simple fact of the matter remains that the Fat Cat Republicans have destroyed the Middle Class, sending almost half of them down into abject poverty with no hope of ever climbing out.
The Middle Class was the true strength of America, and now it is rapidly disappearing. May Allah Damn all so called Conservatives to High Holy Hell where they belong.
They most certainly deserve eternal damnation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 1, 2010 18:48:50 GMT -8
Glad you paid attention in class but did you have to fall for it hook, line and sinker? I know people who are wealthy and those who are on welfare and in-between. And the wealthy worked harder, studied harder, risked more or provided a unique service others couldn't and I couldn't begrudge them an inch and hope and pray that Capitalism is alive and well when I opt to risk more, work harder, etc.. And those I know on welfare are there mostly by choice (at least the adults). In fact, I know some who traveled from state to state seeking to maximize their benefits. They simply didn't want to work, captives of the drug known as "money (albeit modest) for NOTHING". Capitalism didn't puke all over them, it paid for them. My experience is that people on welfare hate it. I fall for nothing hook, line and sinker. But I apply what I learn to what I see. And the wealthy do not produce jobs with tax cuts. So, prove to me income disparities make us more economically stable. Name a country with a disparity ratio higher than ours (and ours is very high) that is an economic success. Demand works better when there is some "spreading around" of wealth.. The biggest mistake the that the clueless Marxist-light profs (who have been given control over this economy) commit is to think that businessmen and entrepreneurs are like ants or bees and will try as hard as they can and be consistently ambitious regardless of tax rates or regulation. When business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs hear that they will pay the Government first, the employee, his benefits & his Union second and the risk-taking owner(s) gets paid last - and that amount will be taxed at a higher rate and even that will require loads and loads of paperwork and legal risk, it causes the business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs to consider waiting on the new hire, or making business plans that requires fewer employees or put plans on hold entirely until the current regime is out of office. In effect, in his (their) zeal to redistribute wealth, Barry the Marxist and his fellow Econ profs cuts the heads off of the middle class and $hits down their neck with increased unemployment. And as we all know, the best benefit the Government can give is a job. And they do that by setting up the proper environment for private industry to provide jobs - not by having the Government hire everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 1, 2010 20:37:26 GMT -8
My experience is that people on welfare hate it. I fall for nothing hook, line and sinker. But I apply what I learn to what I see. And the wealthy do not produce jobs with tax cuts. So, prove to me income disparities make us more economically stable. Name a country with a disparity ratio higher than ours (and ours is very high) that is an economic success. Demand works better when there is some "spreading around" of wealth.. The biggest mistake the that the clueless Marxist-light profs (who have been given control over this economy) commit is to think that businessmen and entrepreneurs are like ants or bees and will try as hard as they can and be consistently ambitious regardless of tax rates or regulation. When business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs hear that they will pay the Government first, the employee, his benefits & his Union second and the risk-taking owner(s) gets paid last - and that amount will be taxed at a higher rate and even that will require loads and loads of paperwork and legal risk, it causes the business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs to consider waiting on the new hire, or making business plans that requires fewer employees or put plans on hold entirely until the current regime is out of office. In effect, in his (their) zeal to redistribute wealth, Barry the Marxist and his fellow Econ profs cuts the heads off of the middle class and $hits down their neck with increased unemployment. And as we all know, the best benefit the Government can give is a job. And they do that by setting up the proper environment for private industry to provide jobs - not by having the Government hire everybody. No demand no jobs. That is why businesses are not hiring. Taxes may irritate businesses, but lack of demand shuts them down. There is no demand, so there aren't any jobs. The above is NOT the Communist manifesto. That is the current situation and it was caused by business-and- failure by the government to control excesses. This happens time and time and time again. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 2, 2010 6:21:33 GMT -8
The biggest mistake the that the clueless Marxist-light profs (who have been given control over this economy) commit is to think that businessmen and entrepreneurs are like ants or bees and will try as hard as they can and be consistently ambitious regardless of tax rates or regulation. When business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs hear that they will pay the Government first, the employee, his benefits & his Union second and the risk-taking owner(s) gets paid last - and that amount will be taxed at a higher rate and even that will require loads and loads of paperwork and legal risk, it causes the business managers, small business owners and would be entrepreneurs to consider waiting on the new hire, or making business plans that requires fewer employees or put plans on hold entirely until the current regime is out of office. In effect, in his (their) zeal to redistribute wealth, Barry the Marxist and his fellow Econ profs cuts the heads off of the middle class and $hits down their neck with increased unemployment. And as we all know, the best benefit the Government can give is a job. And they do that by setting up the proper environment for private industry to provide jobs - not by having the Government hire everybody. No demand no jobs. That is why businesses are not hiring. Taxes may irritate businesses, but lack of demand shuts them down. There is no demand, so there aren't any jobs. The above is NOT the Communist manifesto. That is the current situation and it was caused by business-and- failure by the government to control excesses. This happens time and time and time again. Business cycles of expansion and contraction are normal and not some evil plot by GOP businessmen & capitalists. The real failure now is the response by this Admin. Stifling growth when it is needed most with idiotic policies. No demand, as you put it, is because only a select few have access to the money pushed into the economy and it is not the businessman or entrepreneur (that is to say - job creators) but generally the bureaucrat and the non-productive. Money effectively Rat-holed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 2, 2010 6:34:51 GMT -8
Son of Thor, you are totally wrong. The present administration is not "stifling growth."
The Obama Administration has not stifled growth. It has put millions to work on Government Jobs and Government Projects.
The problem we have is with the Republican dominated so called Conservatives (Who do not know $#!+ about the economy, and are trying to rape everything they see for their personal benefit and pleasure.) If they poke their prods towards my interests, they will end up dickless.
The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans are trying to drive this country towards Civil War based upon Class inequality. If they do not back down and surrender their Billions of Ill gotten gains, they will be put to death in the coming calamity that they are forcing on this country.
I have my land to Bug Out to in Southeastern Colorado. Once I see the violence start, I will relocate there where our small friendly community of farmers and ranchers will ride out the storm in the coming two to three years.
Republican Greed has just gone too far this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 2, 2010 6:41:06 GMT -8
No demand no jobs. That is why businesses are not hiring. Taxes may irritate businesses, but lack of demand shuts them down. There is no demand, so there aren't any jobs. The above is NOT the Communist manifesto. That is the current situation and it was caused by business-and- failure by the government to control excesses. This happens time and time and time again. Business cycles of expansion and contraction are normal and not some evil plot by GOP businessmen & capitalists. The real failure now is the response by this Admin. Stifling growth when it is needed most with idiotic policies. No demand, as you put it, is because only a select few have access to the money pushed into the economy and it is not the businessman or entrepreneur (that is to say - job creators) but generally the bureaucrat and the non-productive. Money effectively Rat-holed. "because only a select few have access to the money pushed into the economy. . ." You mean that one percent who controls 42.7% of our wealth? Those rich people? Yes, I agree they have access to the money. Yes, you are right, business cycles and spikes in unemployment are normal. And, because they are normal we should not do anything about them, right? |
|
. 