Large Scale Central

The new Agenda by Obama

General Discussion
#1

We agree that Bushes economic policy was a joke, I did not agree with it at all. He was not fiscally responsable at all.

But the new agenda seems like it wants to punish the people who make this countries wealth. Take politics out, who produces wealth? Not the government, they are a NEGATIVE drain on the economy, so why GROW the government, it goes against all PRINCIPLES in growing an economy, again, who produces the wealth in this country that the government takes from?

Why punish the person who either produces something, or has a service business, or CREATES wealth.

Who creates Jobs? It is not the government, its privates business or small business owners. You want to create Jobs, give people who PRODUCE wealth more money to GROW there business.

All the government does is keep putting more and more rules that business has to follow, do you think that it does not cost business more to follow these rules? Who do you think then PAYS MORE for there product or service?

Obama has NEVER been in the private sector at all, so what is the first thing he does, spend money he does not have, thats what he knows, who has the purse strings of the government, Congress does, everyone in Congress either Democrat or Republican who voted for all this spending should be voted out of Congress.

This is not jab at Obama, but his economic policies against wealth producers.

My last question, what happens when we have no more wealth producers in this country, what happens when people just get fed up with repressive taxes and stop producing wealth? Where are they(democrats and republicans) going to get the money?

#2
tom h said:
Where are they(democrats and republicans) going to get the money?
Tom, they will just print it, like always.
#3

tom:

I posted this somewhere else–it’s an attempt to answer your questions, not to advocate for the policy

The theory here is that you need massive federal spending to stave off a depression. When times are hard, people spend less. It’s common sense–people get worried, they raise the drawbridge. But that makes times harder–there is less demand for goods and services–I have not bought any trains lately–so employers lay off. Which makes people spend less, because they are either laid off or worried about being laid off. The way to break the cycle, according to the argument the administration is making, is government spending to restart the economy.

There best example might be WWII. Think about WWII. The economy was booming during the war. And government spending was the entire reason. The government was buying steel, tanks, cars, food, cloth, electric wire, coal, oil, chemicals for gunpowder, rubber, glass: material to supply an Army of 16 million people AND their allies. And what was happening to the stuff the govt. bought? It was getting worn out and destroyed, so the govt. bought more. How many civilians worked on defense contracts in WWII? Directly or indirectly, nearly every American in WWI was living on govt. sending. In modern dollars, I think the govt. spent 15 trillion on WWII (I may have that wrong, it’s just from memory: I know it’s more than 7 trillion.) What does a trillion look like?

Within five years after WWII that debt was gone–vanished in a spurt of unprecedented peacetime economic growth. Economic growth makes the debt less and less relevant and pressing, and easier to eliminate. It’s exactly the same way that you might take on a mortgage early in life, and as you grow economically, the mortgage debt becomes a less and less significant part of your monthly take home.

The theory is that a massive increase in spending is needed to restart an economy brought to ruin by excessive lending in the last decade. Blame that on whoever you like: it’s a real fact. Citibank announced yesterday that it does not need any more bailout money: the stock market rose by over 15% this week. Maybe the plan (begun under Paulsen and Bush) is working?

Anyway, that’s the theory

#4

Mike, WW2 was different, the war and what it took to fight it was different than now, I understand that government spending because we were attacked and went to war, we can find common ground on that, I dont think it was to get out of depression so much.

But the spending they want now creates more government in the future, the states now are trying to stop it because after federal dollars are gone, the State is supposed to cover it, and we all know a government program never goes away, the Governor of South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and others understand this is temporary, but then what?

My point is that the new policy says that ONLY government is the answer, that ONLY government spending is the answer.

You cant keep taking away from the WEALTH creators, and that is what he(policy) seems to do, punish people who succeed.

Obama in Ohio said he was “saving” 25 jobs, what he did not say was that the money ends in 12 months, what then?

And for whoever is going to say I am picking on one side, the republicans have no room to talk either, just see how many earmarks they put in.

I guess I am just saying in general the tone thats coming out of Washington is so against private business and people who CREATE wealth.

So who IS going to pay for all this? : )

#5

kids and grandkids, God help them…

#6

Tom,
a government cannot simply create wealth by printing money. The wealth has to come from those in industry who create wealth through investment in their businesses. A government has to tax its productive sector and its working population. In boom times no one cares too much as we are all out making hay while the sun shines. However, when we are made to account for our past excesses, we complain. Do not rely on the private wealth sector to bail us out, as they are the ones who got us into this mess and yet they are the first ones receiving bailouts.

   I am sure that there are many homeless people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their lives, their dignity, their hope,  who applaud any attempt to turn the economy around.  I abhor the way the banks have reacted to the downturn,  by accepting bailout money and in a time of falling, almost zero interest rates,  are increasing their fees and interest charges.  The only reason that they are still viable is taxpayer's money keeping them afloat.  If you want to blame someone,  then voice your disapproval at those who started this whole downturn,  the investment bankers and the shoddy mortgage investment companies who were amply rewarded for their endeavours.  I am sure that there is more than one Madoff out there who has exploited the system.  However,  only a few sacrificial scalps will be taken and prosecuted and the main players will be allowed to continue to loot and plunder the economy as always.
#7

I didn’t post that to persuade, just to explain.

But it seems to me that the same market logic that applies to workers applies to management. Let’s say a guy is making a million dollars a year making and selling kitchen cabinets. His taxes are raised, and now he only takes home $980, 000. He’s pissed. So what does he do? He folds his business maybe, or he sells it to someone else, and moves to Key West to fish all day.

Doesn’t the logic of the market say that somebody is just waiting to sell those cabinets for 980, 000 profit? I mean, that’s how it works with labor–if you fire a guy who makes 5 bucks an hour, there’s someone waiting who will do the job for 4. While I sympathize with the guy who feels like he’s overtaxed, I’m not persuaded that the economy will collapse if he quits his business. There’s a competitor waiting in the wings to willing to do it for less. Somebody’s going to make kitchen cabinets as long as there’s demand. The same logic that’s applied to, say, autoworkers should apply to the owners of businesses. How come that relentless and brutal logic only applies to the low end?

Does anyone believe that if CEOs don’t get paid 20 million, there will be no more CEOS? The business schools are full of guys willing to do it for half the money. Given the performance of Wall Street, I think I could go into any business school in American and find 100 guys who could do an equally bad job for a tiny fraction of the salary.

So I’m not as worried as you are that returning the top tax rate to the same place it was in 2000, which is what Obama is doing, is going to cause kitchen cabinets, cars and computers to vanish. He’s only proposing repealing the tax cuts which Bush introduced as temporary in 2001. And he’s only proposed repealing them on the very wealthiest Americans–the top 2%. His budget only contains a tax increase for the top 2% and it simply returns tax rates for them to the same place they were in 2000. It hardly seems like a huge deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603367.html

The Debt is more worrisome, I agree

#8

I made kitchen cabinet (sometimes) when taxes went up, as that was part of my overhead cost, I’d raise my $40,000 kitchen to $42,000 (or whatever). Now rich guy, me isn’t taking the hit. It’s the consumer middle income Joe Lunchbucket. If the gubmint says I must pay my workers $25.00 per hour versus the $18.00 I pay now (theoretically) I just raise the cost of my goods and services commiserate with what the gubmint steals from my labor.

There is NO tax the rich, it all trickles down.

#9

Maybe we should stop paying ball players huge salaries of $20 million. I’d do it for less.

#10

Deleted

#11

Tongue in cheek Tony. You should know better.

#12

Deleted

#13

Sure. Do you?

#14

Deleted

#15

Deleted

#16

There’s only so much consumers will absorb, though. If you’re the only cabinetmaker, you have the advantage of an exclusive market and your customers will put up with a bit more of an increase, but still only to a point. Eventually, they’ll figure some sandpaper, stain, and a little elbow grease isn’t so bad after all.

Gas prices are a perfect example. We–as consumers–had very little (read “no”) control over gas prices, but there came a point where we were unwilling to absorb any more, so we changed our driving habits to curb demand. Once demand curbed, prices began to drop.

It’s natural for companies to look to pass increased costs onto their customer base, but they also know full well there’s a bottom to the well. Better to absorb part of the cost and stay in business than to watch your customers walk next door, or away completely. Finding that balance is a challenge every businsess faces on a daily basis–and each one is different.

Later,

K

#17

Yep, it’s a market–if you raise your prices to keep your after tax profit high, I’ll go somewhere else for the cabinets or do it myself. It’s the inexorable logic of the free market.

I’m not actually advocating for higher taxes here. I’m just pointing out that the idea that higher taxes will make all the jobs vanish doesn’t quite make sense. If you don’t want to do it for that price/profit, somebody else will.

True, you could move the manufacture of cabinets overseas, but that won’t avoid the tax problem if you are still showing income. Labor costs are the usual argument for moving overseas. This is generally where conservatives start blaming unions for being “greedy.”

As far as I can tell, the ideal business conditions for conservatives involve employers paying zero taxes and having a large supply of docile laborers who work for next to free. The workers have to pay taxes, though, so they can have roads to drive to get to work and so the employer can have water, electricity etc. Otherwise he’ll go live in John Galt-land.

Please. Please go live in Galt land. There are plenty of people waiting to do the job.

#18
David Hill said:
Maybe we should stop paying ball players huge salaries of $20 million. I'd do it for less.
Baseball is an absolutely terrible example. Ever wonder why there is only one professional baseball league? Major league baseball operates a licensed monopoly: it is specifically exempt from anti-trust regulation. It's a monopoly: it has no competitors

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7DD163BF937A15751C1A962958260

Baseball was the first large scale professional team sport in America, and its monopoly set the pattern for other sports, even though those sports had competing leagues (AFC/NFC, ABA/NBA) they have been allowed to operate in conditions of monopoly that violate the principles of the free market. You could argue that football competes with basketball, which is like saying that International Harvester competes with Toyota

It’s a bad example, but it’s often invoked by people who want to imagine themselves as, say, the Michael Jordan of kitchen cabinets.

#19

Obviously my analogy of high wages for ball players (baseball, football, basketball, etc.) was incomplete. I was blunting the argument that CEO’s earning $20 million is exorbitant. Corporate heads normally aren’t high school dropouts. They are sought and hired for their business acumen, ability to organize and motivate. They have much more responsibility that placing a basketball through a hoop at point blank range. One individual missing from the mix of eeeevvvillll CEO’s is the corporate founder, e.g. Bill Gates. How much have they, and their families, earned from the corporations they started?

My point is it shouldn’t matter what anyone else earns. I sounds too much like the siblings arguing over who got the bigger half of the jelly sandwich. There is enough jelly and bread out there for everyone to have a sandwich of their own. Politicians’ salaries are the only ones we should be concerned about.

In the U.S.A. there is only a guarantee of equal opportunity, not equal results. Here we allow you to have the right to fail, as many times as you choose, and even to get it right eventually and you are supposed to enjoy the fruits of your tenacity and hard work. If you want what someone else has, then do at least what they did to earn it.

#20
David Hill said:
My point is it shouldn't matter what anyone else earns. I sounds too much like the siblings arguing over who got the bigger half of the jelly sandwich. There is enough jelly and bread out there for everyone to have a sandwich of their own. Politicians' salaries are the only ones we should be concerned about..
But if it shouldn't matter what anyone else earns, why should we be concerned about politician's salaries?

There’s enough out there for everyone to have their own? So this whole scarcity thing is just an illusion? That’s pretty much straight out of Marx, who asked “is there enough food to feed everyone in the world?” The answer is clearly yes. So why are people starving? “The illusion of scarcity.” I’m surprised at you.

If it doesn’t matter what people earn, you should not be upset by GM autoworkers making a big paycheck.