stimulus survey
-
thrakazog wrote:
and include more tax cuts.
Cuts for whom? How do you stimulate the economy by spending less... :rolleyes: Put the money into our failing bridges and infrastructure == more jobs Put the money into our failing education system == more jobs and maybe we can compete intelligently again Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate. Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it. Tax cuts for those at the top will result in more speculation. What else would you do with that money? Not hire more people, that requires demand and there isn't any demand if people can't make a wage. But, the right will continue to beat the drum of a dead ideal. The Two Santa theory and Supply side economics in general are dead ideals. If you need more evidence look at Iceland. Milton unimpeaded... now let the one-votes and flames continue.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it.
Bullshit. Economic growth drives an economy. People earning wages for work that actually produces economic growth drives an economy. Government can not, and never has, created economic growth. If your theories had any validity, we could all quit our jobs and have the government take money from rich people and just give it to us so that we could spend it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The depression happened as a result of the tax cuts and deregulation of the 20s. This will be the second republican depression. Since removing the top tier of taxes on the rich Reagan set the stage for this current one. Kennedy while lowering the actual tax rate from 92 to 74 or whatever the real numbers were, actually produced more tax revenue as he closed loopholes. During the years where there was a high tax on wealth there was solid economic growth. During the years following deregulation and tax cuts on the wealthy we've seen bubbles followed by a crash. So, go follow your own advice and read up on the depression. I'm not against the free market. I'm not communist, I'm a capitalist. But... free market unbounded doesn't work. Free market in a corral works just fine. But we can see what happens when allowing it to run amok. But keep coloring the debate with those buzz words..messiah.. heh. let the sophistry continue..
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
The depression happened as a result of the tax cuts and deregulation of the 20s. This will be the second republican depression.
No it didn't. There was a simple downturn in the economy, which is a perfectly normal part of capitalism. Government panicked, over reacted and created the great depression. If Coolidge's wise council had been heeded, there would have been no depression. The economy would have turned around all on its own and by 1932 or so everyone would have been happily back at work.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Unions for: No 20 hour work days Overtime pay Lunch breaks Health safety codes No problem. Unions for: Mandatory pay increases Job Pools oops Edit, Job Banks[^] Continued pay and benefits for retired employees Loss of ability to fire moron employees Big Problem. Guess which list the unions in the US are currently running with. You can't tie businesses hands and expect them to remain profitable or economical.
-
Unions for: No 20 hour work days Overtime pay Lunch breaks Health safety codes No problem. Unions for: Mandatory pay increases Job Pools oops Edit, Job Banks[^] Continued pay and benefits for retired employees Loss of ability to fire moron employees Big Problem. Guess which list the unions in the US are currently running with. You can't tie businesses hands and expect them to remain profitable or economical.
Exactly. There is a cause and effect relationship between them. But the cause was several decades ago and the effect never has waned. There are now laws that protect workers, laws that provide for your first list. Unions now only serve to drag companies down (and keep nostalgic communists stirred up).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
That requirement is already there. Unfortunately, that is part of the fraud. Ever called a company about the perfect opportunity and then realized that not only was there pay low, it was far below even the lowest programmers expectation? This is one of the steps they take to justify that there is not an American counterpart available to hire. "We can't afford" is not the same thing as, "There isn't enough" Just last week I was talking to a company I would love to actually work for. And then they stated what they were looking to pay. I barely managed to keep professional decorum on the phone. Also, remember, H1-b is not an immigration visa it is a temporary worker visa which is different. Immigrants would get a different visa.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
If you don't ask questions the answers won't stand in your way.
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
And then they stated what they were looking to pay. I barely managed to keep professional decorum on the phone.
Ironically, today at his town meeting, Obama was refrring to the guys who are the working poor and paying no income tax - which he said were people making $50,000. Now in Washing DC, that's probably right, but he was in Elkart(sp?) Indiana where I suspect they pay their bank vice presidents $50 thou.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into our failing bridges and infrastructure == more jobs
So why is only about 18% of this great bill putting money there?
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into our failing education system == more jobs and maybe we can compete intelligently again
We already spend more per student than any other industrialized nation except Norway. That might suggest that money is not the problem with our educational system...
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate. Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it.
The minimum wage was raised twice in the 4 years that preceded this current economic mess, so what is the real evidence for your assertion? What is the difference between raising pay and reducing taxes, other than that the government doesn't get to handle the money in the middle...(thrakazog did not say tax cuts at the top BTW, that was your editorial addition, he said tax cuts in general)
Rob Graham wrote:
So why is only about 18% of this great bill putting money there?
A possible answer[^] for the more conspiratorially inclined reader :-D
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation. But Congress' salary has. There are tax cuts in the bill for the middle and lower classes. I can only assume that the implied missing cuts were for the top. [edit] I also didn't call this bill great. That was your editorial addition. But I do note, that more republicans voted to put the money back into the failed bankers than into our own infrastructure. [/edit]
This statement is false
modified on Monday, February 9, 2009 4:59 PM
Synaptrik wrote:
But I do note, that more republicans voted to put the money back into the failed bankers than into our own infrastructure. [/edit]
Which does not make either that or this even more egregious abuse of taxpayers right. The TARP debacle was a bad idea, the money was never spent as it was proposed to be, and has largely gone to waste (banks are still not lending, you might notice). I encouraged both of my (republican, as it were) Senators to vote against that (and both did). This "American recovery and reinvestment act" is far worse. This is just a bad bill, hastily concieved. It is nothing but "my favorite stuff sausage" masquerading as a response to the "crisis". There is money thrown at every conceivable cause (including for example nearly $1B to the Air force for "Operation and Maintenance"). Anyone of any political persuasion can find stuff to like and stuff to hate in here. It is just large sums of money hurled helter-skelter with no plan. And since it roughly triples the cash in circulation by the end of 2010, the inflationary effect will be felt for decades. I wouldn't want $1T of tax relief either. This is just printing money, not solving any actual problems.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
economically?
Economically? Well, ummm, there's corn, and nothing else. Thank your unions.
thrakazog wrote:
Well, ummm, there's corn, and nothing else. Thank your unions.
So you think Americans should work for the same slave-wages that Mexicans and Indians do? The manufacturing facilities that rushed out of here in the last 15 years included a helluvalot of non-union shops as well as union ones. There's no way a non-union semi-skilled worker in Georgia can work for $10.00 @ day so there goes the textile job to Guatamala. It was Bush-Clinton-Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce members that shipped our jobs overseas with great glee and excitement, not the workers and not their unions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
You can't pay people dirt wages and expect them to remain profitable or economical. Its cause and effect. Unions didn't start with nothing. Why did they start?
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
You can't pay people dirt wages
That's where the *free country* part comes in. If I'm paying dirt, you are free to leave. One mans dirt may be anothers living wage. People can decide that for themselves without union interference.
Synaptrik wrote:
Unions didn't start with nothing. Why did they start?
Pretty sure I covered that in my first list.
-
thrakazog wrote:
and include more tax cuts.
Cuts for whom? How do you stimulate the economy by spending less... :rolleyes: Put the money into our failing bridges and infrastructure == more jobs Put the money into our failing education system == more jobs and maybe we can compete intelligently again Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate. Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it. Tax cuts for those at the top will result in more speculation. What else would you do with that money? Not hire more people, that requires demand and there isn't any demand if people can't make a wage. But, the right will continue to beat the drum of a dead ideal. The Two Santa theory and Supply side economics in general are dead ideals. If you need more evidence look at Iceland. Milton unimpeaded... now let the one-votes and flames continue.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate.
That sounds like tax cuts to me. To stop taking so much of what I make, makes more sense and is much more efficient than continuing to rape me for the obsene amount already leveed and then printing and mailing me a check. But then I suppose I would see more clearly that that is my money and handle it like I do the fraction of my pay check I do get to see. When Joe Blow gets a check in the mail, he thinks it's Christmas.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
The depression happened as a result of the tax cuts and deregulation of the 20s. This will be the second republican depression.
No it didn't. There was a simple downturn in the economy, which is a perfectly normal part of capitalism. Government panicked, over reacted and created the great depression. If Coolidge's wise council had been heeded, there would have been no depression. The economy would have turned around all on its own and by 1932 or so everyone would have been happily back at work.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into our failing bridges and infrastructure == more jobs
So why is only about 18% of this great bill putting money there?
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into our failing education system == more jobs and maybe we can compete intelligently again
We already spend more per student than any other industrialized nation except Norway. That might suggest that money is not the problem with our educational system...
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate. Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it.
The minimum wage was raised twice in the 4 years that preceded this current economic mess, so what is the real evidence for your assertion? What is the difference between raising pay and reducing taxes, other than that the government doesn't get to handle the money in the middle...(thrakazog did not say tax cuts at the top BTW, that was your editorial addition, he said tax cuts in general)
Rob Graham wrote:
We already spend more per student than any other industrialized nation except Norway. That might suggest that money is not the problem with our educational system...
Don't be silly. Don't you realise that if something doesn't work, you just do it again, only harder? And again. And. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it.
Bullshit. Economic growth drives an economy. People earning wages for work that actually produces economic growth drives an economy. Government can not, and never has, created economic growth. If your theories had any validity, we could all quit our jobs and have the government take money from rich people and just give it to us so that we could spend it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Wages drive an economy. People need money before they can spend it.
Bullshit. Economic growth drives an economy. People earning wages for work that actually produces economic growth drives an economy. Government can not, and never has, created economic growth. If your theories had any validity, we could all quit our jobs and have the government take money from rich people and just give it to us so that we could spend it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Government can not, and never has, created economic growth.
Sure it has. Look how quickly our economy started growing after December 7th, 1941.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Put the money into wages and you'll see the economy stimulate.
That sounds like tax cuts to me. To stop taking so much of what I make, makes more sense and is much more efficient than continuing to rape me for the obsene amount already leveed and then printing and mailing me a check. But then I suppose I would see more clearly that that is my money and handle it like I do the fraction of my pay check I do get to see. When Joe Blow gets a check in the mail, he thinks it's Christmas.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
I don't mind paying my taxes. Roughly around 30%. But wages means more work for more people. More people working means more people spending which translates to more demand which translates to a stimulated economy. And I don't oppose middle class tax cuts. But in this climate would that be enough or would it cause people to actually save instead?
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
But I do note, that more republicans voted to put the money back into the failed bankers than into our own infrastructure. [/edit]
Which does not make either that or this even more egregious abuse of taxpayers right. The TARP debacle was a bad idea, the money was never spent as it was proposed to be, and has largely gone to waste (banks are still not lending, you might notice). I encouraged both of my (republican, as it were) Senators to vote against that (and both did). This "American recovery and reinvestment act" is far worse. This is just a bad bill, hastily concieved. It is nothing but "my favorite stuff sausage" masquerading as a response to the "crisis". There is money thrown at every conceivable cause (including for example nearly $1B to the Air force for "Operation and Maintenance"). Anyone of any political persuasion can find stuff to like and stuff to hate in here. It is just large sums of money hurled helter-skelter with no plan. And since it roughly triples the cash in circulation by the end of 2010, the inflationary effect will be felt for decades. I wouldn't want $1T of tax relief either. This is just printing money, not solving any actual problems.
-
You might be right. Time will tell. Although, with a filibuster pending it might not.
This statement is false
What filibuster? Three Republican Senators have already agreed to vote for this monstrosity, and that's all that's needed for cloture call. Reid is just stalling, because he wants more "Bipartisanship" on the bill (in case it turns out to be the disaster even many Democrats fear it might be). I just finished reading through the Senate version, and am appalled at the abandon with which they are spending money... You should read it for yourself, maybe your opinion would change.
-
If you freshen up on your reading comprehension you would note that I said WAGES drive an economy. That means WORK.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we could all quit our jobs
Relax. Step away from the kool-aid.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
That means WORK.
It means PRODUCTIVE work.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Well, ummm, there's corn, and nothing else. Thank your unions.
So you think Americans should work for the same slave-wages that Mexicans and Indians do? The manufacturing facilities that rushed out of here in the last 15 years included a helluvalot of non-union shops as well as union ones. There's no way a non-union semi-skilled worker in Georgia can work for $10.00 @ day so there goes the textile job to Guatamala. It was Bush-Clinton-Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce members that shipped our jobs overseas with great glee and excitement, not the workers and not their unions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
So you think Americans should work for the same slave-wages that Mexicans and Indians do?
Tough call, are we talking workers with the same skills. If so it would seem the only reason to pay them differently would be either racism or artificially created market conditions(unions/minimum wages/ and such). I'm not saying the Bush-Clinton-Bush trifecta didn't add to this. But in the last few decades the economy seems to have become much more global. Factories are going to go where they can operate at the least expense. Unions take part of the blame for making sure the least expense isn't here.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Government can not, and never has, created economic growth.
Sure it has. Look how quickly our economy started growing after December 7th, 1941.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
I don't subscribe to that theory. What pulled the US out of the depression was the post WWII era when the US had the only significant industrial capacity left standing. That capacity created real productive jobs and wages.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.