WaterMan Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I, OTOH, am equally entitled to expect far better from the richest country on the planet and....... That money just ain't tricklin' down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I don't really mean to derail this too much, and what I said was probably taken wrong, but regardless of what other people may think I've found that even if I don't agree with Ursa and BP, they generally have well-thought and articulate opinions to express. When I see a pithy post from one of them, especially when it doesn't appear to be duly called for, it kind of bums me out because I can get pithy substanceless posts from any number of other people on this board. That's why I expect better. I prefer my assumptions be challenged in a way that makes me think. I don't really have use for people trying to zing one-liners and pretending (poorly) to be Jon Stewart or Glenn Beck. As for the relativity of poor... I think that is an important part of the discussion. Unlike a LOT of places in this world, our *relatively* well-off poor have the means to increase their station, or create a situation to increase the station of their progeny. That requires them to make decisions to that end, and, frankly, that seems to be a BIG part of the problem. What the Heritage report shows is that 'poor' is an arbitraty amount of money that doesn't correlate with standard of living (which is what people immediately assume when they hear 'poor'). If you have the money for two cars or flat-panel televisions, you have the money to begin working on moving up in the world. You're just not choosing to apply your capital to that end (which requires things like sacrifice and personal responsibility). That said... it's clear there still is a class of people in the country that are well and truly screwed. I'm not actually opposed to lending assistance to those people, but I'd rather those programs be focused on getting them on their feet while teaching them some sort of marketable skill focused on making them productive members of society, rather than writing them a check and hoping things turn out for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I don't really mean to derail this too much, and what I said was probably taken wrong, but regardless of what other people may think I've found that even if I don't agree with Ursa and BP, they generally have well-thought and articulate opinions to express. When I see a pithy post from one of them, especially when it doesn't appear to be duly called for, it kind of bums me out because I can get pithy substanceless posts from any number of other people on this board. That's why I expect better. I prefer my assumptions be challenged in a way that makes me think. I don't really have use for people trying to zing one-liners and pretending (poorly) to be Jon Stewart or Glenn Beck. As for the relativity of poor... I think that is an important part of the discussion. Unlike a LOT of places in this world, our *relatively* well-off poor have the means to increase their station, or create a situation to increase the station of their progeny. That requires them to make decisions to that end, and, frankly, that seems to be a BIG part of the problem. What the Heritage report shows is that 'poor' is an arbitraty amount of money that doesn't correlate with standard of living (which is what people immediately assume when they hear 'poor'). If you have the money for two cars or flat-panel televisions, you have the money to begin working on moving up in the world. You're just not choosing to apply your capital to that end (which requires things like sacrifice and personal responsibility). That said... it's clear there still is a class of people in the country that are well and truly screwed. I'm not actually opposed to lending assistance to those people, but I'd rather those programs be focused on getting them on their feet while teaching them some sort of marketable skill focused on making them productive members of society, rather than writing them a check and hoping things turn out for the best. +1 on all accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 That said... it's clear there still is a class of people in the country that are well and truly screwed. There is. It is growing. It is growing because there has been for some considerable time a squeezing of the middle class. I believe I can find data to show that downward mobility is beginning to outpace upward mobility for the first time. At least, I hope I can - I read an article that demonstrated this c/w data. I will see if I can find it later. For me, the whole discussion comes down to one thing - is it better to keep cutting taxes for the well off (the supposed "job creators") or is it better to put money in the pockets of the people who are at the other end of the scale (which pretty much means the bottom 60%)? I guess it depends on what you want to happen. If your desired result is to get an economy that relies for 70% of it's movement on consumerism moving again, then it surely makes sense to stimulate that portion of the populace - the ones that are copper-bottom guaranteed to spend whatever they have. It therefore is paradoxical that companies complain there is no demand while they simultaneously assist in squelching demand by getting rid of as many people as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 There is. It is growing. It is growing because there has been for some considerable time a squeezing of the middle class. I believe I can find data to show that downward mobility is beginning to outpace upward mobility for the first time. At least, I hope I can - I read an article that demonstrated this c/w data. I will see if I can find it later. For me, the whole discussion comes down to one thing - is it better to keep cutting taxes for the well off (the supposed "job creators") or is it better to put money in the pockets of the people who are at the other end of the scale (which pretty much means the bottom 60%)? I guess it depends on what you want to happen. If your desired result is to get an economy that relies for 70% of it's movement on consumerism moving again, then it surely makes sense to stimulate that portion of the populace - the ones that are copper-bottom guaranteed to spend whatever they have. It therefore is paradoxical that companies complain there is no demand while they simultaneously assist in squelching demand by getting rid of as many people as possible. Fair Tax is the answer. It would cut out all the class warfare and still take care of those on the bottom. It almost seems as though you advocate communism which ensures everyone have a job. That has proven not to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) Fair Tax is the answer. It would cut out all the class warfare and still take care of those on the bottom. It almost seems as though you advocate communism which ensures everyone have a job. That has proven not to work. Actually Perch (and I in no way want to imply I am speaking for Ursa here) I read the post as being an advocate of the trickle UP theory. If people on the bottom have more money, they tend to spend it. Then they buy crap, which are made by wealthy people that own businesses or stock in businesses. They then make more money by selling more of their crap, which then can lead to an expansion of their business. They them pay more in taxes, but them make even more money by selling more crap. The money always ends up at the top in the end, so the money trickles up. Cuting taxes for the wealthy just doesnt make sense when there isnt the demand. If peoiple at the bottom have money to spend, they will but stuff and increase demand. Disclaimer** Ursa did say that our economy is 70% based on consumerism and this theory is geared toward that outcome. Edited September 14, 2011 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Actually Perch (and I in no way want to imply I am speaking for Ursa here) I read the post as being an advocate of the trickle UP theory. If people on the bottom have more money, they tend to spend it. Then they buy crap, which are made by wealthy people that own businesses or stock in businesses. They then make more money by selling more of their crap, which then can lead to an expansion of their business. They them pay more in taxes, but them make even more money by selling more crap. The money always ends up at the top in the end, so the money trickles up. Cuting taxes for the wealthy just doesnt make sense when there isnt the demand. If peoiple at the bottom have money to spend, they will but stuff and increase demand. Disclaimer** Ursa did say that our economy is 70% based on consumerism and this theory is geared toward that outcome. That 70% of our economy is based on consumerism (assuming that is correct) has a lot to do with why our economy is in the shape it is in. Had we not taxed and regulated our way our of a manufacturing economy we would be a lot better off today. With regard to trickle up, there is an inherent flaw with it. It requires bureaucracy to redistribute our money. Bureaucracy is by nature inefficient. So for every $100 they take out of our pockets only $90 goes to the poor to spend. Then you assume the poor buy our goods and services and not cheap crap made in China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 That 70% of our economy is based on consumerism (assuming that is correct) has a lot to do with why our economy is in the shape it is in. Had we not taxed and regulated our way our of a manufacturing economy we would be a lot better off today. With regard to trickle up, there is an inherent flaw with it. It requires bureaucracy to redistribute our money. Bureaucracy is by nature inefficient. So for every $100 they take out of our pockets only $90 goes to the poor to spend. Then you assume the poor buy our goods and services and not cheap crap made in China. Cmon Perch . . . you dont really think that do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect a V shaped recovery. I get the impression it will take a while for things to get back on track, and once they do people will get stupid, and then then there will be a sharp recession followed by another gradual recovery... rinse and repeat. In a recession, cash is king. Companies 'hoarding' cash is actually the smart move. If they recklessly spent and then went under (or then needed a bailout), we'd sit around complaining about how the CEO didn't know what he was doing costing people their jobs based on his recklessness. Aside from all the potential government uncertainty, I feel the two main things that people are uncertain about are: 1) How bad is this recession? (how scared/cautious do I need to be?) 2) What are the emerging opportunities? (where do I invest?) Until people know how bad things really are, and where to actually put their money, I expect a lot more cash on the sidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Cmon Perch . . . you dont really think that do you? Actually I do. Why are American companies shipping jobs and plants overseas? It boils down to taxes, regulation, and unions which the government has helped support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Actually I do. Why are American companies shipping jobs and plants overseas? It boils down to taxes, regulation, and unions which the government has helped support. It boils down to.........because they can. The only logical thing that would have stopped them would be overall cost. Given that a few short minutes ago you were saying how much better the American way of life is and therefore there is no real poverty, it's sort of ironic that now you're saying we could still be a manufacturing economy if only we'd wallow in poverty - real poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Fair Tax is the answer. It would cut out all the class warfare and still take care of those on the bottom. It almost seems as though you advocate communism which ensures everyone have a job. That has proven not to work. Communism? Is that what you call efforts to stimulate the economy through means other than yet another tax cut for people who demonstrably are NOT stimulating the economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Actually I do. Why are American companies shipping jobs and plants overseas? It boils down to taxes, regulation, and unions which the government has helped support. I don't think this is entirely true... or it's true enough to say 'National Minimum Wage'. It's more accurate to say that companies in other countries don't appear to have the same moral quandries about exporting labor, hence they gain a competitive advantage on price compared to 'Made in the USA' companies. How many 1st world companies are still doing tons of manufacturing domestically? I can't imagine many do, or if they do it's more expensive, specialized goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I don't think this is entirely true... or it's true enough to say 'National Minimum Wage'. It's more accurate to say that companies in other countries don't appear to have the same moral quandries about exporting labor, hence they gain a competitive advantage on price compared to 'Made in the USA' companies. How many 1st world companies are still doing tons of manufacturing domestically? I can't imagine many do, or if they do it's more expensive, specialized goods. I think you meant "exploiting" rather than "exporting". Germany was until very recently the world's #1 exporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Communism? Is that what you call efforts to stimulate the economy through means other than yet another tax cut for people who demonstrably are NOT stimulating the economy? Well you seem to think everyone deserves a job and are angry when companies lay off people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Well you seem to think everyone deserves a job and are angry when companies lay off people. I'm simply making an observation on a paradox. Companies need demand, yet the jobs they are eliminating the jobs feed that demand. It's just an oddity. I'm not saying anything can be done about it but whining that it's all about taxes (at record low levels) and regulation (pretty much all self-inflicted) is just BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I'm simply making an observation on a paradox. Companies need demand, yet the jobs they are eliminating the jobs feed that demand. It's just an oddity. I'm not saying anything can be done about it but whining that it's all about taxes (at record low levels) and regulation (pretty much all self-inflicted) is just BS. What was the corporate income tax rate in 1912? Record low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 What was the corporate income tax rate in 1912? Record low? Yes, you want to discuss business/labor conditions in 1912 and make them sonehow relevant to today. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Yes, you want to discuss business/labor conditions in 1912 and make them sonehow relevant to today. Well done. Ursa said taxes were at record lows. I was just pointing out that for the majority of this country's history they were much lower than they are now. I said nothing about labor conditions in the post you quoted, so I don't know why you even brought that up, unless it was to deflect from the point I was making in a vain attempt to invalidate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Companies need demand, yet the jobs they are eliminating the jobs feed that demand. This is an interesting paradox, at first it sounds great. More welfare, more demand! Pay people unemployment, they spend it all to create demand! It all sounds so good, but it's like the sweet chocolate on the top of a rotten strawberry. When the chocolate is gone, then what? The parable of the broken window was introduced by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is actually not a net-benefit to society. The parable, also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy, demonstrates how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are "unseen" or ignored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window I would hope, anyone regardless of ideology would be familiar with this idea. You cannot forever take from those who do, and give to those who do not. This idea of civilization is not sustainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Ursa said taxes were at record lows. I was just pointing out that for the majority of this country's history they were much lower than they are now. I said nothing about labor conditions in the post you quoted, so I don't know why you even brought that up, unless it was to deflect from the point I was making in a vain attempt to invalidate it. Pretty sure you don't seriously want to compare 1912 to 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Ursa said taxes were at record lows. I was just pointing out that for the majority of this country's history they were much lower than they are now. I said nothing about labor conditions in the post you quoted, so I don't know why you even brought that up, unless it was to deflect from the point I was making in a vain attempt to invalidate it. Please. Don't let me stop you. Because of course the labor situation 100 years ago is 100% unrelated to taxes at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 It sure seems that people are becoming more and more reliant on other people and government to support them. Just open your eyes and see how many people have become fat and lazy. So to fix our economy let's tax the rich more so we can GIVE more to the people that government thinks needs it and then we will all be better off and then when the economy turns around these people will change and go out and work and all will be golden. So that's the plan??? I am not rich and taxing the rich will not make me pay more - I do have a great friend of mine who has worked hard for years and even went out and started a business that failed and he spent years paying off his debt because of this failed business. He then went to work for a start up and now has hit the jackpot. This guy has lived a tough life prior to hitting the jackpot but has made good decisions in life (never took handouts from anyone) and now has become rich - So why should he be taxed more to help bail out others? Just because he can? Just does not seem right to me. I have said before - all of you who keep saying tax the rich - Ursa you seem to be the biggest proponent of this - I am sure you have a bit of extra cash laying around - maybe you could spare a bit from the next vacation you have planned so go ahead and pay in a bit more - until you do that you are a hypocrite and advocating others pay more just because - not right in my opinion. If you have volunteered to pay more on your tax return then my bad but I don't think you already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I have said before - all of you who keep saying tax the rich - Ursa you seem to be the biggest proponent of this - I am sure you have a bit of extra cash laying around - maybe you could spare a bit from the next vacation you have planned so go ahead and pay in a bit more - until you do that you are a hypocrite and advocating others pay more just because - not right in my opinion. Isn't advocating that others pay more a central plank of whatever it is that passes for a GOP plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Isn't advocating that others pay more a central plank of whatever it is that passes for a GOP plan? How so? Even the most conservative plans just call for everyone paying the same percentage. Most see that as a pipe dream, and just want to keep it close to the way it is, where the "rich" still carry the overwhelming majority of the load, they just don't want to add to it like you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.