Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:17 am
Tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the current economic crisis. The problem we face is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Raising taxes is just the easy way to avoid the real solution which is cutting spending.
Les
Les
cuts
Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:06 pm
Big Grey, first I agree with you, "tax cuts had nothing to do with the current economic crisis". We had the Bush tax cuts with lower rates for upper income levels IN PLACE when the crisis developed and it DID NOT PREVENT the crisis. But much of McCain's campaign focused on his tax claims against Obama and a tax increse that might come. I think it is a bogus claim as I have shown by the good economy we had under Clinton, but it is a claim lots of the right wing guys focus on.
Also, you want to cut spending. Good, most everyone says that, both candidates said the same thing. But which spending are you going to cut? Whose pet project are you going to cancel? Obama has promised to end the war which has been costing $10 billion a month, but all those savings will not come right away.
So again what would you cut?
Also, you want to cut spending. Good, most everyone says that, both candidates said the same thing. But which spending are you going to cut? Whose pet project are you going to cancel? Obama has promised to end the war which has been costing $10 billion a month, but all those savings will not come right away.
So again what would you cut?
Re: cuts
Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:38 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:So again what would you cut?
Marxist Education, Planned Parenthood, all welfare checks, the FDA, Ag Dept., EPA, ATF, DHS, TSA, & IRS... And bring troops home from places where they are not immediately critical. There's a big chunk of budget for you. Also all projects benefiting special interests or localities. I know you may say "but that will hurt their local economies" but you have to remember that every tax dollar the state takes comes from someone else who could've invested it in another business - and probably more efficiently.
Ryan
not fed
Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:48 pm
Ryan, I am pretty sure Planned Parenthood is not a federal govt branch, it is private. I think you are letting your passion get a little ahead of you. Cutting P P may lead to more unwanted pregnancies, I don't know why you would want that, but in any case that will not cut the federal budget.
Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:54 pm
Bill, I'm not sure Obama can end the war as easily as that. And if he dies he should shift assets east to Afghanistan. I'm seeign only a minor savings there. If we're going to climb out of this it will be by increasing spending dramatically on domestic issues, and gutting foreign expenditure. We need to put money into rebuilding our infrastructure, retraining, education, and rebuilding our own industry. The idea tat a country can unindustrialize and switch to a service economy is silly. Anybody can offer services as cheaply as we can. We need to retake our economic leadership position by producing goods and selling them. And we need to force countries who are undercuttign us by underpaying their employess to fight on an even level. The only way I know to do that is to write severe enough protectionist laws that they we can lessen the amount of goodies we buy from them, and replacing them with good we make here. We should be doing the same things they are: buying raw material and making goods and selling them. And using a good education system (we don't have that anymore) to set the pac eof industrial tech and quality of goods.
We've allowed it to become easier to gamble on the stock market to replace the idea of actually making something useful as our way of creating income. Bill, how in the hell have we lost the point of it all? This isn't like the industrial revolution. You can't just make money up, which is what we are doing. We've gone from the idea that a dollar equals an actual thing, to the idea that one can create more dollars simply by claiming there are more dollars.
The whole system to me looks insane
We've allowed it to become easier to gamble on the stock market to replace the idea of actually making something useful as our way of creating income. Bill, how in the hell have we lost the point of it all? This isn't like the industrial revolution. You can't just make money up, which is what we are doing. We've gone from the idea that a dollar equals an actual thing, to the idea that one can create more dollars simply by claiming there are more dollars.
The whole system to me looks insane
Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:11 pm
muddyboots wrote:We need to put money into rebuilding our infrastructure, retraining, education, and rebuilding our own industry. The idea tat a country can unindustrialize and switch to a service economy is silly. Anybody can offer services as cheaply as we can. We need to retake our economic leadership position by producing goods and selling them. And we need to force countries who are undercuttign us by underpaying their employess to fight on an even level. The only way I know to do that is to write severe enough protectionist laws that they we can lessen the amount of goodies we buy from them, and replacing them with good we make here.
Muddy, the way to do this is to lower the minimum wage - one of the Dem's misguided pets. If I HAVE to pay someone X to get it done, they I have to charge Y in order to make a profit. That makes the person unable to have a decent standard of living you say? No - it actually improves it because while I may earn less money - everything I'll buy will also cost less!
Ryan
Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:39 pm
sorry Ryan, that's sounds like crazy talk to me.
The only thing that'll really happen is what HAS happened: owners end up with exponentially higher incomes. Workers end up with comparably lower incomes. If the cycle continues we end up living like any other 2nd world country because we haven't protected our workers. The argument is taht the world is squeezing us and we have to live smaller. It's a lie. the world hasn't changed: We've let our leadership steal from us and justify it by claiming that they can't make a profit if they don't.
The only thing that'll really happen is what HAS happened: owners end up with exponentially higher incomes. Workers end up with comparably lower incomes. If the cycle continues we end up living like any other 2nd world country because we haven't protected our workers. The argument is taht the world is squeezing us and we have to live smaller. It's a lie. the world hasn't changed: We've let our leadership steal from us and justify it by claiming that they can't make a profit if they don't.
Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:48 pm
muddyboots wrote:sorry Ryan, that's sounds like crazy talk to me.
The only thing that'll really happen is what HAS happened: owners end up with exponentially higher incomes. Workers end up with comparably lower incomes. If the cycle continues we end up living like any other 2nd world country because we haven't protected our workers. The argument is taht the world is squeezing us and we have to live smaller. It's a lie. the world hasn't changed: We've let our leadership steal from us and justify it by claiming that they can't make a profit if they don't.
muddy,
Last year (before getting an instrument rating and a commercial license) I had a nice sum of money in the bank. One day, I could've gone out and hired someone to work at our ranch for a little over half a year right there on the spot - and paid them minimum wage all the way through. A few days later, after the new minimum wage was enacted, I could've only afforded to hire that same person for about 3-4 months. I still had the same amount of money in the bank - but by fiat, the government had made it less valuable.
The government were the one's doing the stealing.
Ryan
Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:54 pm
muddyboots wrote:sorry Ryan, that's sounds like crazy talk to me.
The only thing that'll really happen is what HAS happened: owners end up with exponentially higher incomes.
That's the beauty of the American system. ANYONE who is diligent, saves their money, and has an idea can start their own business and be an entrepreneur. No one forces you to work for someone you don't like. Oh, and most of the exponentially higher incomes are in government defined large corporations that in my opinion are propped up by bad laws and unfair advantages. Airlines for instance. If the government TRULY de-regulated the aviation industry (trying hard to get this back on topic) then I could feasibly compete with airlines for customers. I think with efficient light planes I could drop costs and improve service to small local communities all over the country - but no, I can't be an airline or offer regularly scheduled service with a single-engined aircraft because that's not safe.
Ryan
Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:10 pm
Bill Clinton blames Democrats for the mortgage mess. Comrad Ossma even tried to get a little money for acorn in the bailout bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJWiysm67xA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJWiysm67xA
Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:16 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:muddyboots wrote:sorry Ryan, that's sounds like crazy talk to me.
The only thing that'll really happen is what HAS happened: owners end up with exponentially higher incomes. Workers end up with comparably lower incomes. If the cycle continues we end up living like any other 2nd world country because we haven't protected our workers. The argument is taht the world is squeezing us and we have to live smaller. It's a lie. the world hasn't changed: We've let our leadership steal from us and justify it by claiming that they can't make a profit if they don't.
muddy,
Last year (before getting an instrument rating and a commercial license) I had a nice sum of money in the bank. One day, I could've gone out and hired someone to work at our ranch for a little over half a year right there on the spot - and paid them minimum wage all the way through. A few days later, after the new minimum wage was enacted, I could've only afforded to hire that same person for about 3-4 months. I still had the same amount of money in the bank - but by fiat, the government had made it less valuable.
Ryan
And the minimum wage you would have paid him wouldn't have paid a months rent, much less fed a familiy, or even a single person. I don't believe the answer is in setting wage standards but in refusing to allow other countries wage standards to destroy our own. What would have been better for your worker would for you to have paid him a fair living wage for 3 moths and allowed him to go find anotehr job for after that. You wouldn't have got as much work done from him, bt then, you wouldn't have been stealing from HIM. If you can't affrod to pay a man enoug hto live on, do the work yourself. And befor eyou whine that it's al he is worth--no. It is not. Every man deserves the right to make enugh to live on. If you are paying a non living age, you're stealing from him. Of course, you can claim that if you pay him a livign wage you can't afford to pay the next guy a living wage but in reality it doesn't work that way. What really happens is one guy can now afford to eat and pay rent and put his kids in school and add to the economy. This allows other people to add to the economy and support their families. The only time taht on person making a decent wage causes problems is when another party CHEATS by paying a less than livig wage. Liek CHina is doing to us right now.
What you see happening on a macroeconomic scale also happens on a national regional, local, and microeconomic scale. Scale doesn't matter imo. It's all about fairness- if one person cheats it affects everyone else.
Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:51 pm
Muddy,
Sorry to say, you are almost directly quoting Marxist doctrine there.
You know, if I could afford to pay someone more, that'd be great, but why should it be OK to pay someone $5 one day and not the next? Also, I think someone could indeed do OK on minimum wage if that's the only job their qualified for or can find. At least it's better than mooching. Also, last year I was only making around $10/hr while working part time and studying (like I am right now for my CFI) for my IFR rating. So the immediate effect of the minimum wage increase was to deflate the value of the hard-earned money I had in the bank. My hiring someone for a wage that I set is NOT STEALING from him. If he can find something better, he's free to do so. Otherwise, we get very arbitrary... For instance, I could say now that my boss is stealing from me because I don't make $20/hr like I can when I get hired to do a photo flight. Ridiculous.
Truth is if it costs me $2 to produce a product, it will cost you approximately $4-5 to buy it if I want to have enough to eat tomorrow (Most retailers have to have a 40-60% markup in order to pay for their employees, buildings, and other overhead and still have a profit. And if it costs me $4 for goods and $5 for a worker, then the price will probably be close to $20 for the product. That worker would have to work 4 hours in order to buy the product. Iif I can cut that down to $2 for the goods and $3 for the worker, I can drop my price to approximately $10 for the same item. Now, at the lower wage rate, he might only have to work 3 1/2 hrs, and I might be able to pay him more 'cause I can eat cheaper, too!. See how that works???
Oh, and BTW, I like making more money, but if worst came to worst, I could make by just fine on $5.85/hr. It's called living within your means and if you want to make more $, you will find a way to improve your skills or find a better employer.
I'm not cheating if I can find a cheaper way to do things. It's completely fair. It's unfair if you devalue my money which represents the time and effort I've already put in. That's not fair.
BTW, how on earth do you determine a "living wage"?
Ryan
Sorry to say, you are almost directly quoting Marxist doctrine there.
You know, if I could afford to pay someone more, that'd be great, but why should it be OK to pay someone $5 one day and not the next? Also, I think someone could indeed do OK on minimum wage if that's the only job their qualified for or can find. At least it's better than mooching. Also, last year I was only making around $10/hr while working part time and studying (like I am right now for my CFI) for my IFR rating. So the immediate effect of the minimum wage increase was to deflate the value of the hard-earned money I had in the bank
. My hiring someone for a wage that I set is NOT STEALING from him. If he can find something better, he's free to do so. Otherwise, we get very arbitrary... For instance, I could say now that my boss is stealing from me because I don't make $20/hr like I can when I get hired to do a photo flight. Ridiculous.
Truth is if it costs me $2 to produce a product, it will cost you approximately $4-5 to buy it if I want to have enough to eat tomorrow (Most retailers have to have a 40-60% markup in order to pay for their employees, buildings, and other overhead and still have a profit. And if it costs me $4 for goods and $5 for a worker, then the price will probably be close to $20 for the product. That worker would have to work 4 hours in order to buy the product. Iif I can cut that down to $2 for the goods and $3 for the worker, I can drop my price to approximately $10 for the same item. Now, at the lower wage rate, he might only have to work 3 1/2 hrs, and I might be able to pay him more 'cause I can eat cheaper, too!. See how that works???
Oh, and BTW, I like making more money, but if worst came to worst, I could make by just fine on $5.85/hr. It's called living within your means and if you want to make more $, you will find a way to improve your skills or find a better employer.
I'm not cheating if I can find a cheaper way to do things. It's completely fair. It's unfair if you devalue my money which represents the time and effort I've already put in. That's not fair.
BTW, how on earth do you determine a "living wage"?
Ryan
Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:56 pm
This all gos back to when we were kids and some were asked would you have 3 one dollar bills or 1 five dollar bil and some just could not get over the 3 laying there.. Inflation is a different game but for adults. 
Dang no child let behind program!
Dang no child let behind program!
Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:04 pm
I very rarely get involved in these kind of discussions, and I'll probably regret this, but here goes.
Muddyboots, you mentioned that every man deserves the right to make enough money to live on. Where is this in the Constitution?? We've taken the word "right" to mean way too many things that are not truly rights granted by our Constitution. Even the Declaration of Independence mentions the "pursuit of happiness", but nowhere does it say the "RIGHT" to happiness......
No man has the "right" to make a "living wage". If an individual makes choices in life that result in his having a career flipping burgers, then it is not up to you, me or the government to dictate that he deserves a certain income level. I got where I am today by making good choices in life and I've worked hard for what I've got. I'm certainly not rich, but I do have a comfortable life. It is not for the government to force me to give what I've worked hard for to someone who has had no desire to better themselves. That's not to say that I don't voluntarily try to help others. You may be surprised at some of the things I've done and do, but this is not about me. It is about an "entitlement" mindset that has gotten us into the mess we are in. Until people learn that decisions in life have consequences, both good and bad. and that no one has a "right" to be bailed out for making bad choices, we will continue to go down hill.
I know that I haven't changed your mind, nor did I think I would, but this is how I see it. You are also not going to change my mind, and I have no plans to get into a drawn out discussion, but I just had to say something.
Muddyboots, you mentioned that every man deserves the right to make enough money to live on. Where is this in the Constitution?? We've taken the word "right" to mean way too many things that are not truly rights granted by our Constitution. Even the Declaration of Independence mentions the "pursuit of happiness", but nowhere does it say the "RIGHT" to happiness......
No man has the "right" to make a "living wage". If an individual makes choices in life that result in his having a career flipping burgers, then it is not up to you, me or the government to dictate that he deserves a certain income level. I got where I am today by making good choices in life and I've worked hard for what I've got. I'm certainly not rich, but I do have a comfortable life. It is not for the government to force me to give what I've worked hard for to someone who has had no desire to better themselves. That's not to say that I don't voluntarily try to help others. You may be surprised at some of the things I've done and do, but this is not about me. It is about an "entitlement" mindset that has gotten us into the mess we are in. Until people learn that decisions in life have consequences, both good and bad. and that no one has a "right" to be bailed out for making bad choices, we will continue to go down hill.
I know that I haven't changed your mind, nor did I think I would, but this is how I see it. You are also not going to change my mind, and I have no plans to get into a drawn out discussion, but I just had to say something.
Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:33 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:Muddy,
Sorry to say, you are almost directly quoting Marxist doctrine there.
You know, if I could afford to pay someone more, that'd be great, but why should it be OK to pay someone $5 one day and not the next? Also, I think someone could indeed do OK on minimum wage if that's the only job their qualified for or can find. At least it's better than mooching. Also, last year I was only making around $10/hr while working part time and studying (like I am right now for my CFI) for my IFR rating. So the immediate effect of the minimum wage increase was to deflate the value of the hard-earned money I had in the bank
Truth is if it costs me $2 to produce a product, it will cost you approximately $4-5 to buy it if I want to have enough to eat tomorrow (Most retailers have to have a 40-60% markup in order to pay for their employees, buildings, and other overhead and still have a profit. And if it costs me $4 for goods and $5 for a worker, then the price will probably be close to $20 for the product. That worker would have to work 4 hours in order to buy the product. Iif I can cut that down to $2 for the goods and $3 for the worker, I can drop my price to approximately $10 for the same item. Now, at the lower wage rate, he might only have to work 3 1/2 hrs, and I might be able to pay him more 'cause I can eat cheaper, too!. See how that works???
Oh, and BTW, I like making more money, but if worst came to worst, I could make by just fine on $5.85/hr. It's called living within your means and if you want to make more $, you will find a way to improve your skills or find a better employer.
I'm not cheating if I can find a cheaper way to do things. It's completely fair. It's unfair if you devalue my money which represents the time and effort I've already put in. That's not fair.
BTW, how on earth do you determine a "living wage"?
Ryan
No Ryan, I am not. Marx believed that the only way capitalism can function is if owners cheat their employees. I believe that employers can turn a profit without cheating their employees, and that in fact many do. However MOST cheat because they believe they have to in order to beat the other guy, and because they are unintelligent and selfish enough to be able to justify their actions to themeselves. There are any number of businesses which pay their employees a true living wage, and do quite well. However most are CoOps, or family owned, or have a very strong willed leader. In general it is the Corporation which is to blame for most of our woes. When you remove liability, by removing an indidual responsibility fo rthe actios of a business, then tha business becomes amoral and ceases to care about things like laws, or decency. Whcih is why you cna't deregulate the market: Businesses do what comes natural: Steal and cheat and run the market int...oh wait guess what just happened.
You anarchists think taht human nature is to love and help one another grow through competition. Any anthropologist will tell you this is an idiotic idea. Human nature is to throttle the guy next to you and take what is his, and make his daughters yours. Only SOCIETY has hindered this urge. And only society, with it's rules, can regulate business properly-business being just a less violent war (sometimes it's less violent). I know you want to think that human nature is helpful and good but you;'re wrong. Sorry bout that. We're monsters, each and every one of us. And your libertarian/anarchistic ideology is just silly. If you truly believe that it will work yo need to go find a war zoen to live in for a couple of years. Then you'll see what we are when you take off the fuzzy sheep suits. and set the rules aside.