stimulus survey
-
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.
-
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.
thrakazog wrote:
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).
The most skilled Mexican in that country can live like a king on money that you wouldn't consider a reasonable wage, because he, in turn, is living in an economy where a great many peons work for nothing.
thrakazog wrote:
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.
And then surprise, surprise the country where the factories used to employ two or three shifts wakes up from an artificially (and illegally) created boomlet and its people stop buying the products of those overseas factories because they don't have jobs. Then the senior managers fly into Washington on private jets and demand handouts so they can continue to pay themselves 20M bonuses. What fracking good does it do to have a factory producing widgets at the lowest possible cost, if no-one can afford to buy widgets? American Business has been playing a form of The Prisoners Dilemma for at least thirty years. The best possible course of action for any factory manager is, as you say, to go where they can operate at the least expense - as long as everyone else keeps their factories in the U.S. But as more and more businesses try to lower their costs by putting Americans out of work, the pool of consumers in this country gets smaller and smaller. Ultimately it gets too small and so you see the government stepping in with makework programs trying to undo the damage by ripping off our kids and grandkids. Henry Ford, who pretty much invented American industry, got it right a long time ago: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible." Take away one leg of that three-legged stool and it won't stand up. It isn't standing up. And there's no reason to believe that government can pass a law saying that two-legged stools must stand up. As I somewhat facetiously pointed out, the government can start a war which will immediately employ a very large number of people thus creating higher wages in the civilian job market and increasing demand further by burning through men and materials l
-
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
government attempting to stmulate the economy, then engaging in protectionist legislation.
Synaptrik wrote:
So, go follow your own advice and read up on the depression.
I have, the very reason I recommend it.
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
Unbounded is the only way it works.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
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:
keep coloring the debate with those buzz words..messiah.. heh. let the sophistry continue..
you're right, I meant to say, "Magic Negro".
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Or maybe introduce legislation so that companies after H1-bs have to prove they tried to recruit domestically first? Seems reasonable and they aren't discriminating against people who have already immigrated.
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
let me see if I'm following your argument. you're proposing that companies do not attempt to hire the best available tallent at the most competitive price, instead hiring people whose houses are near their operation at an uncompetitive rate? that should go a long way to making organizations more competitive. moron.
-
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.
You do remember what we're talking about don't you? You're straying away from the original point. You can't receive a wage if you quit your job. Stay on point Stan. You're overriding need to be against anything contrary to your model is betraying you.
This statement is false
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What pulled the US out of the depression was the post WWII era when the US had the only significant industrial capacity left standing.
The unemployment rate did not drop from depression levels until the economic impact of World War II was felt. The high level of demand during that war reduced the unemployment rate to minuscule levels. While the unemployment rate should be the defining characteristic of economic depression, the standard definition is in term of GDP. The first year that the US GDP exceeded 1 trillion dollars was 1941. It grew to 1.8 billion by 1944 and then shrank to 1.7 billion as the war wound down in 1945. It shrank again to 1.5 billion in 1946. It did not exceed 1944's high water mark until 1952, the second year of the Korean War. Even more telling is the fact that between 1933 and 1955 the GDP-per-capita grew every year except during the peacetime between the end of WWII and the Korean War. The exact years when you claim the U.S. was pulling out of the depression :confused:
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I would call unions an organic response to the hierarchical nature of employment. You question the boss and get fired. No leverage. As long as there is a co-dependency, you need workers to produce your product, they need work to feed themselves, then there will always be levelers. Cause and effect. The only leverage available to workers is the union. When you're hungry, or when all of the employers agree on what a job is worth, then the workers have no recourse.
This statement is false
-
thrakazog wrote:
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).
The most skilled Mexican in that country can live like a king on money that you wouldn't consider a reasonable wage, because he, in turn, is living in an economy where a great many peons work for nothing.
thrakazog wrote:
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.
And then surprise, surprise the country where the factories used to employ two or three shifts wakes up from an artificially (and illegally) created boomlet and its people stop buying the products of those overseas factories because they don't have jobs. Then the senior managers fly into Washington on private jets and demand handouts so they can continue to pay themselves 20M bonuses. What fracking good does it do to have a factory producing widgets at the lowest possible cost, if no-one can afford to buy widgets? American Business has been playing a form of The Prisoners Dilemma for at least thirty years. The best possible course of action for any factory manager is, as you say, to go where they can operate at the least expense - as long as everyone else keeps their factories in the U.S. But as more and more businesses try to lower their costs by putting Americans out of work, the pool of consumers in this country gets smaller and smaller. Ultimately it gets too small and so you see the government stepping in with makework programs trying to undo the damage by ripping off our kids and grandkids. Henry Ford, who pretty much invented American industry, got it right a long time ago: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible." Take away one leg of that three-legged stool and it won't stand up. It isn't standing up. And there's no reason to believe that government can pass a law saying that two-legged stools must stand up. As I somewhat facetiously pointed out, the government can start a war which will immediately employ a very large number of people thus creating higher wages in the civilian job market and increasing demand further by burning through men and materials l
Oakman wrote:
Henry Ford, who pretty much invented American industry, got it right a long time ago: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible."
Correct and his notion of stimulating his economy when struggling was to give them all raises and encourage them to buy cars. Win-win. And it worked.
This statement is false