|
|
Post by thomgeno on Jan 17, 2011 10:55:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 17, 2011 11:46:24 GMT -8
Collectivist claptrap. . . I guess that it is not possible to hold a differing view without being a communist huh? The fact of the matter is that wealth inequality does impact our economic well being. Countries with high disparities are almost inevitably less well off than those whose differences are smaller. And, and our overall economic condition has deteriorated in direct tandem to the growth of income inequality. If you lay the graphs side by side the correlation is clear. Do you dispute the fact that the 70% of us whose incomes have declined are also the ones most responsible for our economy's performance? If more resources fall into the hands of people who do not spend, just how does or economy expand? If wealth inequality is not at least partially responsible for our declining incomes, then pray tell just what is? And don't tell me it is because we are lazier, unmotivated, stupid or some other personal responsibility tripe. Just how does income redistribution help anyone and how is it done? Destroy the source of capital and jobs are not created. How about going after the real problems that make large companies want to export jobs. Unions, regulations, high taxes and such make us uncompetitive. Those are our problems and not high net worth individuals or high income earners. They are investors. We need to make domestic investment attractive to create jobs. aztecwin wants us to emulate third world countrys so that we can compete. We won't have enough economy to pay for the government pensions he lives on if that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 17, 2011 13:42:04 GMT -8
Lets see.... Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Those evil Conservatives ...  Excuse me, you are advocating that government should subsidize private enterprise? What happened to conservatives wanting government out of trying to influence the economy? What happened to the idea of the market making the decisions, not government subsidys? Another advocate for welfare for the rich! |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Jan 17, 2011 14:46:38 GMT -8
Lets see.... Import poverty and unskilled labor by the millions and for some reason pay in the service sector (perhaps the largest part of economy) is not going up.?? Oh yeah, blame a Conservative and take someone else's salary to compensate. Have millions of college kids trend away from the hard sciences towards liberal arts and for some reason our ability to retain high paying white collar business declines. Imagine? Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Gee Arnold - what happened? Have the President demonstrate that the Government will get paid first, second and third when you have an employee working for you and for some reason businesses are reluctant to hire new employees. Who woulda thunk? Labor Unions make our private sector manufacturing (like the Auto industry) be less competitive and for some reason business owners look for less expensive alternative. Didn't they go to Yale & Harvard for their MBA? Those evil Conservatives ... Business negotiates with the unions. If business leaders cannot drive a hard bargain what good are they? The unions are so powerful that they bully CEOs? No. They do what Boeing is doing up in Seattle. They are abandoning it for right to work South Carolina. Tell me the last time a union won a major concession. So, your argument does not compute. Business will move offshore to save a few cents, union, no union, politics no politics, patriotism , no patriotism. Remember the textile industry? As I remember they were almost exclusively located in places, like South Carolina, where unions are severely curtained. It made no difference, off they went to India. All unions exist for is to give employees some bargaining power. You would deny them any economic power, because you are afraid of them. You are afraid because they are not on your political wave length. No tax breaks for business? What planet are you on, fella? There hasn't been a tax increase at the federal level for a very long time. It seems politicians are too afraid to raise them. As far as the economy goes, businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Conservatives hate stimulus, so no one is buying. GET IT? Conservatives are not evil, they are just too lazy to cogitate and too frightened to look at the truth. Fear, fear, fear that is all you get from conservatives. Too much immigration, too much debt, too much diversity, too much government, too many unions, too much immorality, too much gun control, too much taxation, too many terrorists, too many enemies, too many lazy people, too many welfare cheats, too many this, too many that. I am sick of your fear!! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 17, 2011 15:05:04 GMT -8
Just how does income redistribution help anyone and how is it done? Destroy the source of capital and jobs are not created. How about going after the real problems that make large companies want to export jobs. Unions, regulations, high taxes and such make us uncompetitive. Those are our problems and not high net worth individuals or high income earners. They are investors. We need to make domestic investment attractive to create jobs. aztecwin wants us to emulate third world countrys so that we can compete. We won't have enough economy to pay for the government pensions he lives on if that happens. Unrelated to the topic and just the opposite would be true. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 17, 2011 16:40:19 GMT -8
Lets see.... Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Those evil Conservatives ... Excuse me, you are advocating that government should subsidize private enterprise? What happened to conservatives wanting government out of trying to influence the economy? What happened to the idea of the market making the decisions, not government subsidys? Another advocate for welfare for the rich! Gee - I guess in some cases, giving out tax breaks to the rich might depend on the political ideologies of the those that ARE the rich? business.highbeam.com/409712/article-1G1-86056287/california-goes-hollywood-look-partial-exemption-postproductionwww.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25556.htmlDo all companies in CA get this? No? I wonder why? But besides the subsidies for friends and cronies paid for by the California tax payer, when Government uses tax incentives, it is a financial multiplier - as the private company must spend their own money at levels many times greater than the incentive in order to obtain the tax break. Thus more money is pumped into the economy overall and only a fraction of it is paid by the tax payer. And the infrastructure is enhanced nonetheless. In contrast to that, look at the asinine Stimulus Bill from Obama that forks over tax payer dollars with no buy-in from industry required. When tax payer funding runs out, the job is over and people return to being unemployed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 17, 2011 17:01:49 GMT -8
Excuse me, you are advocating that government should subsidize private enterprise? What happened to conservatives wanting government out of trying to influence the economy? What happened to the idea of the market making the decisions, not government subsidys? Another advocate for welfare for the rich! Gee - I guess in some cases, giving out tax breaks to the rich might depend on the political ideologies of the those that ARE the rich? business.highbeam.com/409712/article-1G1-86056287/california-goes-hollywood-look-partial-exemption-postproductionwww.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25556.htmlDo all companies in CA get this? No? I wonder why? But besides the subsidies for friends and cronies paid for by the California tax payer, when Government uses tax incentives, it is a financial multiplier - as the private company must spend their own money at levels many times greater than the incentive in order to obtain the tax break. Thus more money is pumped into the economy overall and only a fraction of it is paid by the tax payer. And the infrastructure is enhanced nonetheless. In contrast to that, look at the asinine Stimulus Bill from Obama that forks over tax payer dollars with no buy-in from industry required. When tax payer funding runs out, the job is over and people return to being unemployed. If acting as a mulitplier is the rule here then why not increase the welfare payments to the poor? They act as a mulitplier as well. Your second paragraph is too vague to comment on. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 17, 2011 17:13:02 GMT -8
Lets see.... Import poverty and unskilled labor by the millions and for some reason pay in the service sector (perhaps the largest part of economy) is not going up.?? Oh yeah, blame a Conservative and take someone else's salary to compensate. Have millions of college kids trend away from the hard sciences towards liberal arts and for some reason our ability to retain high paying white collar business declines. Imagine? Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Gee Arnold - what happened? Have the President demonstrate that the Government will get paid first, second and third when you have an employee working for you and for some reason businesses are reluctant to hire new employees. Who woulda thunk? Labor Unions make our private sector manufacturing (like the Auto industry) be less competitive and for some reason business owners look for less expensive alternative. Didn't they go to Yale & Harvard for their MBA? Those evil Conservatives ... Business negotiates with the unions. If business leaders cannot drive a hard bargain what good are they? The unions are so powerful that they bully CEOs? No. They do what Boeing is doing up in Seattle. They are abandoning it for right to work South Carolina. Tell me the last time a union won a major concession. So, your argument does not compute. Business will move offshore to save a few cents, union, no union, politics no politics, patriotism , no patriotism. Remember the textile industry? As I remember they were almost exclusively located in places, like South Carolina, where unions are severely curtained. It made no difference, off they went to India. All unions exist for is to give employees some bargaining power. You would deny them any economic power, because you are afraid of them. You are afraid because they are not on your political wave length. No tax breaks for business? What planet are you on, fella? There hasn't been a tax increase at the federal level for a very long time. It seems politicians are too afraid to raise them. As far as the economy goes, businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Conservatives hate stimulus, so no one is buying. GET IT? Conservatives are not evil, they are just too lazy to cogitate and too frightened to look at the truth. Fear, fear, fear that is all you get from conservatives. Too much immigration, too much debt, too much diversity, too much government, too many unions, too much immorality, too much gun control, too much taxation, too many terrorists, too many enemies, too many lazy people, too many welfare cheats, too many this, too many that. I am sick of your fear!! The Unions didn't want GM to undergo a traditional bankruptcy where the liability to their pensions fund is on the same table as with their libility to bond holders. But by proxy, they routed the CEO and got a sweetheart deal funded by the tax payer. And government Unions are even better connected. They can bully plenty.... www.wane.com/dpp/news/dc_wane_cbs_ap_gm_ceo_ousted_20090330 |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 17, 2011 17:22:01 GMT -8
Gee - I guess in some cases, giving out tax breaks to the rich might depend on the political ideologies of the those that ARE the rich? business.highbeam.com/409712/article-1G1-86056287/california-goes-hollywood-look-partial-exemption-postproductionwww.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25556.htmlDo all companies in CA get this? No? I wonder why? But besides the subsidies for friends and cronies paid for by the California tax payer, when Government uses tax incentives, it is a financial multiplier - as the private company must spend their own money at levels many times greater than the incentive in order to obtain the tax break. Thus more money is pumped into the economy overall and only a fraction of it is paid by the tax payer. And the infrastructure is enhanced nonetheless. In contrast to that, look at the asinine Stimulus Bill from Obama that forks over tax payer dollars with no buy-in from industry required. When tax payer funding runs out, the job is over and people return to being unemployed. If acting as a mulitplier is the rule here then why not increase the welfare payments to the poor? They act as a mulitplier as well. Your second paragraph is too vague to comment on. Even though you are likely being facetious, I can agree with you about welfare. As it is now, I believe, if someone on welfare finds work and makes money on his own, the welfare check is reduced by that amount. If there was some sliding scale where the more a person made working privately, the more they are given overall. As it is now, there is no incentive to work on your own unless the job you get can out pace the benefits of the welfare system by a significant margin. And that isn't always available. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 17, 2011 20:11:37 GMT -8
Lets see.... Import poverty and unskilled labor by the millions and for some reason pay in the service sector (perhaps the largest part of economy) is not going up.?? Oh yeah, blame a Conservative and take someone else's salary to compensate. Have millions of college kids trend away from the hard sciences towards liberal arts and for some reason our ability to retain high paying white collar business declines. Imagine? Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Gee Arnold - what happened? Have the President demonstrate that the Government will get paid first, second and third when you have an employee working for you and for some reason businesses are reluctant to hire new employees. Who woulda thunk? Labor Unions make our private sector manufacturing (like the Auto industry) be less competitive and for some reason business owners look for less expensive alternative. Didn't they go to Yale & Harvard for their MBA? Those evil Conservatives ... What a joke... the anti-science movement actually comes from the far Right. Students have always gravittated to what they feel they are good at... re Liberal Arts vs. Science. The same type of student that was bad at chemistry 50 years ago is still bad at it. Dumb post. Different students are motivated by different things. I worked my way through high school and lived by myself. I was not motivated by high grades. My only motivation was to make it through high school so I could get out in the world. I graduated one person below the midpoint of my class with a B- average, but went on years later to get A's in college. I can easily see how different environments can change the work ethic of a student. Ditto exposure to the sciences. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 18, 2011 11:10:14 GMT -8
Lets see.... Import poverty and unskilled labor by the millions and for some reason pay in the service sector (perhaps the largest part of economy) is not going up.?? Oh yeah, blame a Conservative and take someone else's salary to compensate. Have millions of college kids trend away from the hard sciences towards liberal arts and for some reason our ability to retain high paying white collar business declines. Imagine? Remove tax breaks for capital investment and for some reason, businesses do not implement infrastructure improvements. Gee Arnold - what happened? Have the President demonstrate that the Government will get paid first, second and third when you have an employee working for you and for some reason businesses are reluctant to hire new employees. Who woulda thunk? Labor Unions make our private sector manufacturing (like the Auto industry) be less competitive and for some reason business owners look for less expensive alternative. Didn't they go to Yale & Harvard for their MBA? Those evil Conservatives ... Business negotiates with the unions. If business leaders cannot drive a hard bargain what good are they? The unions are so powerful that they bully CEOs? No. They do what Boeing is doing up in Seattle. They are abandoning it for right to work South Carolina. Tell me the last time a union won a major concession. So, your argument does not compute. Business will move offshore to save a few cents, union, no union, politics no politics, patriotism , no patriotism. Remember the textile industry? As I remember they were almost exclusively located in places, like South Carolina, where unions are severely curtained. It made no difference, off they went to India. All unions exist for is to give employees some bargaining power. You would deny them any economic power, because you are afraid of them. You are afraid because they are not on your political wave length. No tax breaks for business? What planet are you on, fella? There hasn't been a tax increase at the federal level for a very long time. It seems politicians are too afraid to raise them. As far as the economy goes, businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Conservatives hate stimulus, so no one is buying. GET IT? Conservatives are not evil, they are just too lazy to cogitate and too frightened to look at the truth. Fear, fear, fear that is all you get from conservatives. Too much immigration, too much debt, too much diversity, too much government, too many unions, too much immorality, too much gun control, too much taxation, too many terrorists, too many enemies, too many lazy people, too many welfare cheats, too many this, too many that. I am sick of your fear!! + a billion  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 18, 2011 11:52:21 GMT -8
Business negotiates with the unions. If business leaders cannot drive a hard bargain what good are they? The unions are so powerful that they bully CEOs? No. They do what Boeing is doing up in Seattle. They are abandoning it for right to work South Carolina. Tell me the last time a union won a major concession. So, your argument does not compute. Business will move offshore to save a few cents, union, no union, politics no politics, patriotism , no patriotism. Remember the textile industry? As I remember they were almost exclusively located in places, like South Carolina, where unions are severely curtained. It made no difference, off they went to India. All unions exist for is to give employees some bargaining power. You would deny them any economic power, because you are afraid of them. You are afraid because they are not on your political wave length. No tax breaks for business? What planet are you on, fella? There hasn't been a tax increase at the federal level for a very long time. It seems politicians are too afraid to raise them. As far as the economy goes, businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Businesses hire when people buy. Conservatives hate stimulus, so no one is buying. GET IT? Conservatives are not evil, they are just too lazy to cogitate and too frightened to look at the truth. Fear, fear, fear that is all you get from conservatives. Too much immigration, too much debt, too much diversity, too much government, too many unions, too much immorality, too much gun control, too much taxation, too many terrorists, too many enemies, too many lazy people, too many welfare cheats, too many this, too many that. I am sick of your fear!! + a billion You two live in a bubble. Tell me just what it would take to please you. What would make us competetive in the global marketplace? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 18, 2011 12:15:39 GMT -8
What would be best for the global marketplace is for wages in the wages in the second and third tier economic countrys to rise. For some odd reason the conservatives all think that it is investment that drives growth. That is not so, it is purchasing power. Increased wages will drive economic forces for the betterment of everyone.
The only way we have seen that happen is unions.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 18, 2011 12:46:38 GMT -8
What would be best for the global marketplace is for wages in the wages in the second and third tier economic countrys to rise. For some odd reason the conservatives all think that it is investment that drives growth. That is not so, it is purchasing power. Increased wages will drive economic forces for the betterment of everyone. The only way we have seen that happen is unions. Flesh that idea out. I can't imagine how bringing down even third world economies with unionization will help us here in the US. If you are saying making others less competetive rather than increasing our own competetive position is growth, you are indeed in a bubble. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 18, 2011 14:07:23 GMT -8
What would be best for the global marketplace is for wages in the wages in the second and third tier economic countrys to rise. For some odd reason the conservatives all think that it is investment that drives growth. That is not so, it is purchasing power. Increased wages will drive economic forces for the betterment of everyone. The only way we have seen that happen is unions. Flesh that idea out. I can't imagine how bringing down even third world economies with unionization will help us here in the US. If you are saying making others less competetive rather than increasing our own competetive position is growth, you are indeed in a bubble. From your reply I sense you do not know the history of the labor movement in our country. Thus you are asking me to build a wall where there is no foundation. You need to get beyond your reflexive hate for unions. Educate yourself. It is not too late. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 18, 2011 15:55:29 GMT -8
Flesh that idea out. I can't imagine how bringing down even third world economies with unionization will help us here in the US. If you are saying making others less competitive rather than increasing our own competitive position is growth, you are indeed in a bubble. From your reply I sense you do not know the history of the labor movement in our country. Thus you are asking me to build a wall where there is no foundation. You need to get beyond your reflexive hate for unions. Educate yourself. It is not too late. Ah! No answer I see. We had a time when unions did wonders for our workers. It was a different time and place. It was when markets were more or less local. It was when currency rates and currency manipulation had much less effect on internal business. Those times of sweat shops and child labor in twelve hour shifts in this country are long gone. We will be able to grow and become more competitive on a global basis when we show that our productivity in the areas where we choose to compete are dominate. At present we have such poor and ill equipped leadership and have had for fifty years that we pretty much get laughed at in the world market place. Now today, I here on the Business Channel that China is going to show Boeing serious competition. They (Boeing) moved lots of manufacturing capacity out of Seattle into more competitive, right to work, and less taxing locations, but it might not be enough. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 18, 2011 16:58:19 GMT -8
From your reply I sense you do not know the history of the labor movement in our country. Thus you are asking me to build a wall where there is no foundation. You need to get beyond your reflexive hate for unions. Educate yourself. It is not too late. Ah! No answer I see. We had a time when unions did wonders for our workers. It was a different time and place. It was when markets were more or less local. It was when currency rates and currency manipulation had much less effect on internal business. Those times of sweat shops and child labor in twelve hour shifts in this country are long gone. We will be able to grow and become more competitive on a global basis when we show that our productivity in the areas where we choose to compete are dominate. At present we have such poor and ill equipped leadership and have had for fifty years that we pretty much get laughed at in the world market place. Now today, I here on the Business Channel that China is going to show Boeing serious competition. They (Boeing) moved lots of manufacturing capacity out of Seattle into more competitive, right to work, and less taxing locations, but it might not be enough. The reason China has such a manufacturing base is labor costs. Do you think there are any sweat shops or child labor in China or other places with low labor costs? I think so. It would be good for everyone if their labor costs rose so that their employees could buy what they make. When more people can buy the economy expands. Demand can not come only from the upper 2%, even upper 10% of income earners. For an economy to truly expand the demand needs to come from bottom to top. Trinkle down is BS. An economy needs to percolate up to find success. The reason that Chinese airplane makers can now compete is also because Boeing stupidly gave them their technology. What kind of short term thinking was that? That is on management, not labor. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 18, 2011 19:16:10 GMT -8
That Boeing fiasco has to go down in history as among one of the stupidest moves by management of a major company. They somehow seem to have forgotten that we are in an economic and technological war with the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Jan 18, 2011 21:45:47 GMT -8
I'm sorry but arguing for unions is like arguing for pyramid schemes. They once had a noble purpose in protecting the American worker before there were laws in place that would provide that protection. Those laws now exist and there is technically no need for a union. As an example private sector union membership has drastically declined over the last couple decades in part because they have cripled the industries that they have had strangleholds on (airlines anyone?).
However there are too many people whose livelihoods (union bosses) and political careers (jerry brown) are beholden to the existence of unions that they don't go away. As another example public sector unions have remained strong over the last couple decades in spite of declining private sector membership.
Unions segregate there job sites when a project is joint with non union companies, they are bankrupting every level of government with pension liabilities that came about from bad faith negotiations with elected officials whom they got elected in the first place, and when it becomes clear that a business model for a company is no longer viable they refuse to budge or negotiate in good faith. They lie in their campaign ads and hold construction projects hostage if they don't give in to their ridiculous demands.
Simply put, they need to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 19, 2011 12:41:58 GMT -8
What would be best for the global marketplace is for wages in the wages in the second and third tier economic countrys to rise. For some odd reason the conservatives all think that it is investment that drives growth. That is not so, it is purchasing power. Increased wages will drive economic forces for the betterment of everyone. The only way we have seen that happen is unions. All you cons need to read this again. I am arguing for increased wages in 2nd and 3rd world economys. Unions helped our workers out of sweatshops in the past and help build a middle class. Unions need to do the same now in 2nd and 3rd world countrys. |
|
