Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Lol. The guy who posted the retort to Paul Krugman. The article's author was Tyler Durden. That's what I was referring to. Haha.

You didn't say this?

Dude you're like clockwork. Lol. Krugman, et al are dopes. What do they know with their fancy degrees and prizes and cushy professorships?

 

[Bluto]

You didn't say this?

Yes I said all that. The sequence was you mocked the Nobel guys. I mocked you (your second quote). Then some guy posted an article as a retort to Krugman's analysis of Argetina written by "Tyler Durden" In an attempt to mock me (see quote below). So I mocked him. Then I think you thought I was mockin you again (which I was not) because I referred to his post in the one I posted addressing you (see your second quote). Which brings us to the present. It should be crystal clear now...right?

Down Argentina Way - NYTimes.com

Argentina Freezes Supermarket Prices To Halt Soaring Inflation; Chaos To Follow | Zero Hedge[/url

Looks like Krugman got another one wrong.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...et-prices-halt-soaring-inflation-chaos-follow

 

[chicago51]

Yesterday the original poll for this thread had a total of 306 voters....307 today. My first thought was that someone in Florida finally figured out how to do it.

Nice!

On election day was pretty crazy that people were still in line and all the news networks said the election was over.

 

[chicago51]

You're bouncing wildly to both extremes lol. I don't think anyone except some extreme keynesesians are advocating blowing up our infrastructure (because we could then employ a bunch of people to fix it!).

If the argument is that we have bad roads-- let the be the argument. If the argument is that we need to employ people for the sake of employing people (not to do anything productive) let that be the argument.

If the argument is employment, I say we pay for shovels then pay for ditches and filling in the ditches.

if the argument is need-- I don't think that we have a infrastructure crisis in this country.



I'm against wasteful spending, and I'm against unconstitutional spending. Also, I can't really blame people for trying to save as much of their money as they can. I find it amusing when some people call such people unpatriotic or other absurd words a la what is currently happening in france-- (they raised the taxes on rich people to absurd levels.. and they consequently moved to the netherlands or other places lol).

First off as what spending do actually see as unconstitutional?

Secondly we have long to go before we operate like France and other countries in Europe. The whole piont of Senator Sanders bill is not raising rates. If you operate here and sell here you pay the full amount of funds you are required to pay under the law. We can keep a low corporate tax rate but corporations need pay their required amount. There is a reason corporations operate and sell here. US is a great market. If you don't want to pay here get out other competition will step right in.

 

[GoIrish41]

You guys see this? Unbeleivable.

Silicon Valley company caught paying Mexican workers in pesos

 

[chicago51]

You guys see this? Unbeleivable.

Silicon Valley company caught paying Mexican workers in pesos

Nice real nice.

 

[chicago51]

Verizon received $705 million refund from various deductions and had $1.5 billion in offshore tax income stashed over seas. In 2010 Verizon laid of 13000 workers.

GE cut 34000 jobs and replace them with 25000 overseas. General Electric now has more workers abroad than in the US. They are paying less in tax now than they did before they moved these jobs overseas.

2010 JP Morgan chase had 83 offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying over a billion in US taxes.

Bank of American had a pretax profit of 4.4 billion and received a tax refund of 1.9 billion.

Goldman Sachs has 39 subsidiaries to avoid paying millions in US taxes.

No other nation allows this in their tax code. We are the only suckers that get burned. Let's end tax havens certain corporate deductions and not give breaks to companies that out source.

 

[Black Irish]

I'm not bouncing between anything. Dude said spending on public infrastructure is not a long term economic stimulus. It is because it is the foundation for everything that happens in a society. If you think there is not a "infrastructure" crisis in this country take one look at New Orleans post Katrina, New York post whatever storm just wrecked it, the Mid West which has been in the midst of one of the worst droughts since the dust bowl, the overdrawing of the Ogallala aquifer, the the power grid collapse on the East Coast in the early 2000's, the Sacremento River Delta, the collapse of West Coast Salmon populations due in large part to bad development and resource management and the Mississippi Delta in gerneral and I think you will find some pretty good counter points to that argument.

So the arguement is we have a jobs crisis and an infrastructure crisis in this country in my opinion. Why not borrow at historically low rates to kill two birds with one stone?

Because it is not a stimulus. If you think roads won't get fixed so that people can drive on them, then you are dreaming. A stimulus is defined as a boost. I'm not saying that roads, bridges, and dams don't need to be built and maintained. What I'm saying is that I don't buy that spending a bunch of taxpayer money on doing all of that is going to create an economic boom (boost) and lead us out of this recession.

So we should go further into debt to employ people on short term public works jobs? What happens when the jobs are done? Will the private sector magically be stabilized so that those people can be employed there? And I don't care how low interest rates are, if a government, corporation, or individual is deeply in debt with no real plan on how to get out of said debt, then the borrowing cost is irrelevant. It's still debt and we, as a nation, have not figured out how to pay down our debt.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I am for eliminating wasteful spending. I don't consider entitlement benefits wasteful. Not to say there isn't inefficiency and waste in Medicare that shouldn't be fixed.

I am okay with Obama rationale 50/50 in tax revenue and spending cuts. We have 1.4 trillionand raised 700 billion over a ten year period. Another 400 billion saved in interest put us at 2.5 trillion over ten years. We need to get to 4 trillion over ten years to stabilize the deficit with GDP growth. So we should get remaining 1.5 trillion with a 50/50 approach.

Pass Senator Sanders tax reform bill which will end camen islands tax havens and tax breaks to oil companies. It will raise 600 billion in revenue. Then do rest in cuts to the military and Medicare reform which is needed. Medicare is one of big drivers of our debt so reform is needed with Medicare.

I would like millionaire and billionaire tax brackets at 41 and 49 percent but that is not realistic in terms of it passing. I think the proposal above is. As a liberal I don't want any domestic cuts. Obama is willing to go 50/50 and the GOP should meet him halfway.

As for why don't like they billionaires. It is because they hide money overseas. Spend money to kill unions. At times don't provide health care or pay decent wages.

Would your plan apply to Hollywood liberals/ pro athletes who support Obama/ liberal elites in tv/ media too? Or just the "corporations" and "super rich" you don't like?

 

[Bluto]

Because it is not a stimulus. If you think roads won't get fixed so that people can drive on them, then you are dreaming. A stimulus is defined as a boost. I'm not saying that roads, bridges, and dams don't need to be built and maintained. What I'm saying is that I don't buy that spending a bunch of taxpayer money on doing all of that is going to create an economic boom (boost) and lead us out of this recession.

So we should go further into debt to employ people on short term public works jobs? What happens when the jobs are done? Will the private sector magically be stabilized so that those people can be employed there? And I don't care how low interest rates are, if a government, corporation, or individual is deeply in debt with no real plan on how to get out of said debt, then the borrowing cost is irrelevant. It's still debt and we, as a nation, have not figured out how to pay down our debt.

Uh hate to break it to you but roads do not get fixed all the time just because they need to be. A quick jaunt down many of the freeways here in Cali will prove that point. Apparently the American Society of Engineers seems to agree.

America's infrastructure crumbling, says American Society of Civil Engineers


Call me crazy bit that is exactly what ended the Great Depression. Massive government spending acted as a boost to create new wealth that created new spending power that created new markets. So yes it was a relatively long term fix.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Uh hate to break it to you but roads do not get fixed all the time just because they need to be. A quick jaunt down many of the freeways here in Cali will prove that point. Apparently the American Society of Engineers seems to agree.

America's infrastructure crumbling, says American Society of Civil Engineers

Civil Engineers helped ruined this country's infrastructure in the first place. Their opinions on infrastructure should be taken in the context of what shape X is in, not what is needed. They are after all engineers, not policy makers.

This infrastructure money bind has many positives. Now governments have to actually plan for what they needed, without the fattened budgets to build lifestyles that were never sustainable in the first place.

Call me crazy bit that is exactly what ended the Great Depression. Massive government spending acted as a boost to create new wealth that created new spending power that created new markets. So yes it was a relatively long term fix.

That is not at all what ended the great depression. Hitler did. "Oh but it was government spending!" ....government spending for a world war, not unneeded highways.

 

[chicago51]

[/B]

Would your plan apply to Hollywood liberals/ pro athletes who support Obama/ liberal elites in tv/ media too? Or just the "corporations" and "super rich" you don't like?

What are you asking? Do I think hollywood liberals should pay less taxes? Of course not.

Do I tend to like millionaires that pay their taxes better than those that avoid paying by stashing it in the Camen's? Well yes I do.

I tend to dislike cheaters regardless of income level.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1) Unless those millionaires stole the money from you or someone else, it's not your business.

2) It's silly to assume that millionaires pay no taxes and have all their money in the cayman islands or a swiss bank account. What if they pay every dime of taxes they're supposed to and set up those funds off shores for their families so they're not taxed on it?

 

[BobD]

This quote came from a CNN article I was just reading. It has nothing to do with what we talk about in this thread, but I found it kind of gross and a little shocking. So just FYI.

"Horse meat is not commonly eaten in the United States, but the country does export it to Canada and Mexico. Congress passed a bill in November 2011 that lifted a 5-year-old ban on the slaughter of horses for meat in the United States."

 

[Ndaccountant]

This quote came from a CNN article I was just reading. It has nothing to do with what we talk about in this thread, but I found it kind of gross and a little shocking. So just FYI.

"Horse meat is not commonly eaten in the United States, but the country does export it to Canada and Mexico. Congress passed a bill in November 2011 that lifted a 5-year-old ban on the slaughter of horses for meat in the United States."

rumor was that sarah jessica parker has been in hiding ever since.

 

[Bluto]

Civil Engineers helped ruined this country's infrastructure in the first place. Their opinions on infrastructure should be taken in the context of what shape X is in, not what is needed. They are after all engineers, not policy makers.

This infrastructure money bind has many positives. Now governments have to actually plan for what they needed, without the fattened budgets to build lifestyles that were never sustainable in the first place.



That is not at all what ended the great depression. Hitler did. "Oh but it was government spending!" ....government spending for a world war, not unneeded highways.

You're right engineers did screw up all kinds of stuff but so did coporations, politicians, farmers, planners, architects and they all are going to be part of the solution.

Thanks for supporting my point, its kind of moot what the spending was on. The fact remains that government spending did indeed lift the country out of the depression. As for the interstates thats a case of hind sight being 20/20. They were initially seen as strategic military development to allow for moving troops and weapons as much as anything else if I'm remembering correctly.

If we spent a fraction of what we did on WW2 in today's dollars undoing what in hindsight turned out to be screwball things engineers, architects, planners, farmers, government and corporations have done over the past 100 years and making our infrastructure more sustainable the recession and jobs crisis would be over tomorrow. Then we could focus on the long term debt problem.

Anyhow, who decides what is "needed"?

 

[Buster Bluth]

You're right engineers did screw up all kinds of stuff but so did coporations, politicians, farmers, planners, architects and they all are going to be part of the solution.

Thanks for supporting my point, its kind of moot what the spending was on. The fact remains that government spending did indeed lift the country out of the depression. As for the interstates thats a case of hind sight being 20/20. They were initially seen as strategic military development to allow for moving troops and weapons as much as anything else if I'm remembering correctly.

The expressway plan was a fraction of what it became, Eisenhower's initial vision was corrupted by lobbyists and ignorant Americans. It isn't hindsight, people had been saying it since the 1960s. The federal government, in a demonstrably racist fashion, plopped down thousands of miles of freeway (which function as walls in cities unless they're in-ground) with only minimal consulting from the locals. Only like 1% of cities were able to resist, New York, Denver (for a time), and San Fransisco.

If we spent a fraction of what we did on WW2 in today's dollars undoing what in hindsight turned out to be screwball things engineers, architects, planners, farmers, government and corporations have done over the past 100 years and making our infrastructure more sustainable the recession and jobs crisis would be over tomorrow. Then we could focus on the long term debt problem.

Anyhow, who decides what is "needed"?

The locals do, with state guidelines.

I would be in favor of reducing the military's budget from $711bil to $500bil (the 2005 budget, when they still ran two wars). If we felt like it, you could give every city in America with a population of over 200,000 1.9Billion ANNUALLY. DO that for five years, and see the prosperity.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You're right engineers did screw up all kinds of stuff but so did coporations, politicians, farmers, planners, architects and they all are going to be part of the solution.

Thanks for supporting my point, its kind of moot what the spending was on. The fact remains that government spending did indeed lift the country out of the depression. As for the interstates thats a case of hind sight being 20/20. They were initially seen as strategic military development to allow for moving troops and weapons as much as anything else if I'm remembering correctly.

If we spent a fraction of what we did on WW2 in today's dollars undoing what in hindsight turned out to be screwball things engineers, architects, planners, farmers, government and corporations have done over the past 100 years and making our infrastructure more sustainable the recession and jobs crisis would be over tomorrow. Then we could focus on the long term debt problem.

Anyhow, who decides what is "needed"?

Have to add something to this tho. We could never afford to undertake something on that scale. Prior to the endning of WWII, our debt to GDP ratio was much lower than it is today. In fact, it is close to double. We were able to move this lower in part due to increasing our exports 2X to 3X. That isn't happening today.

I agree that in theory spending the money seems like a great idea. I just don't see how that is plausible today given where we are starting...low interest rates or not.

 

[DSully1995]

This quote came from a CNN article I was just reading. It has nothing to do with what we talk about in this thread, but I found it kind of gross and a little shocking. So just FYI.

"Horse meat is not commonly eaten in the United States, but the country does export it to Canada and Mexico. Congress passed a bill in November 2011 that lifted a 5-year-old ban on the slaughter of horses for meat in the United States."

Its only gross through our eyes, im sure people cringe at our beef eating. Id be down to eat horse

 

[Bluto]

The expressway plan was a fraction of what it became, Eisenhower's initial vision was corrupted by lobbyists and ignorant Americans. It isn't hindsight, people had been saying it since the 1960s. The federal government, in a demonstrably racist fashion, plopped down thousands of miles of freeway (which function as walls in cities unless they're in-ground) with only minimal consulting from the locals. Only like 1% of cities were able to resist, New York, Denver (for a time), and San Fransisco.



The locals do, with state guidelines.

I would be in favor of reducing the military's budget from $711bil to $500bil (the 2005 budget, when they still ran two wars). If we felt like it, you could give every city in America with a population of over 200,000 1.9Billion ANNUALLY. DO that for five years, and see the prosperity.

Totally agree with that second point.

 

[BobD]

Its only gross through our eyes, im sure people cringe at our beef eating. Id be down to eat horse

Producing something we won't feed our own citizens seems so.......well...Chinese.

 

[DSully1995]

Producing something we won't feed our own citizens seems so.......well...Chinese.

Well the **** we do consume already aint that good either, candy/corn ruins the meat/milk

 

[chicago51]

Have to add something to this tho. We could never afford to undertake something on that scale. Prior to the endning of WWII, our debt to GDP ratio was much lower than it is today. In fact, it is close to double. We were able to move this lower in part due to increasing our exports 2X to 3X. That isn't happening today.

I agree that in theory spending the money seems like a great idea. I just don't see how that is plausible today given where we are starting...low interest rates or not.

This ties in to the conversation about Eisenhower and the interstate highways. We had crazy debt coming out of ww2 and brought it down by putting people to on projects like the interstate highway.

You what else we did? We tax the super rich 91 percent beyond a certain income level.

Would like to add during Eisenhower's presidency we actually strengthened social security.

Holy crap! Yes revenue and dare I say government stimulus actually got us out of debt.

Okay so we are not doing as well today in fact we have a billion dollar a day import/export. Why? Two reasons. First off Europe need a ton of stuff to rebuild. Okay that won't happen. Second reason we had a trade surplus was that we had import tariffs and so we could sell home produce stuff in the United States with protection from low wage countries.

So I'll bring this up again let's VAT tax imports.

BTW you notice when the national debt started to rise again? 1980 and with the exception of a brief 1990s decline in the debt to GDP ratio. What has been going on since then? Reaganomics and low top end tax rates. We need new tax brackets for those making over a million and those making over a billion.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

This ties in to the conversation about Eisenhower and the interstate highways. We had crazy debt coming out of ww2 and brought it down by putting people to on projects like the interstate highway.

You what else we did? We tax the super rich 91 percent beyond a certain income level.

Would like to add during Eisenhower's presidency we actually strengthened social security.

Holy crap! Yes revenue and dare I say government stimulus actually got us out of debt.

Okay so we are not doing as well today in fact we have a billion dollar a day import/export. Why? Two reasons. First off Europe need a ton of stuff to rebuild. Okay that won't happen. Second reason we had a trade surplus was that we had import tariffs and so we could sell home produce stuff in the United States with protection from low wage countries.

So I'll bring this up again let's VAT tax imports

No, what paid off our debt was getting PAID to rebuild Europe after the war.

Throw a ridiculous tax rate on the super rich now, you will see LESS revenue.

 

[chicago51]

No, what paid off our debt was getting PAID to rebuild Europe after the war.

Throw a ridiculous tax rate on the super rich now, you will see LESS revenue.

I'm not saying we go 91 percent but 49 percent rate for billionairs.

How would a taxing the super rich mean less revenue?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I'm not saying we go 91 percent but 49 percent rate for billionairs.

How would a taxing the super rich mean less revenue?

1.) Would you work for 0.51 of a dollar? I wouldn't.

2.) Furlough employees

3.) Throw money off-shore.

 

[chicago51]

1.) Would you work for 0.51 of a dollar? I wouldn't.

2.) Furlough employees

3.) Throw money off-shore.

We have a minimum wage.

Senator Bernie Sanders has a bill out now to block offshore tax havens.

Let me ask a couple things?

Say the middle class is doing well and have a strong purchasing power. The demand for services is high. Are the rich going to stop providing services they can make money on?

I don't think so. Jobs come from economic demand not money in banks accounts. A service is in demand, or something needs to be sold that's how jobs are created.

Say billionaire as all this extra money from tax savings. Now the demand for the service he provides is low. Is he going to create an excess amount of workers when he does not need them?

I think he would only hire the exact number of employees he needs to meet demand. All that extra money he has will not increase demand from the middle class so he likely puts the money in stocks and bonds which do little for job creation.

 

[chicago51]

I'm going to post the link when I am on a PC tomorrow.

There is going to be a constitutional amendment proposal that would reverse the decision of citizens united vs fair elections committee if passed.

If passed free speech would only apply to natural persons not abstract persons like corporations. Also money would not be considered speech.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

We have a minimum wage.

Senator Bernie Sanders has a bill out now to block offshore tax havens.

Let me ask a couple things?

Say the middle class is doing well and have a strong purchasing power. The demand for services is high. Are the rich going to stop providing services they can make money on?

I don't think so. Jobs come from economic demand not money in banks accounts. A service is in demand, or something needs to be sold that's how jobs are created.

Say billionaire as all this extra money from tax savings. Now the demand for the service he provides is low. Is he going to create an excess amount of workers when he does not need them?

I think he would only hire the exact number of employees he needs to meet demand. All that extra money he has will not increase demand from the middle class so he likely puts the money in stocks and bonds which do little for job creation.

Where do I start.

You want a marginal tax rate on billionaires to be 49% aka working for $0.51 per dollar.

No matter how much legislation you pass, you can not stop people from hiding money offshore. And the higher the tax rates, the more you are encouraging people to do so.


You are looking at this as strict $ terms, and completely forgetting opportunity cost.

I'm an Economics major, don't tell me how jobs are created. I come from a family that has created jobs for people.


Saying stocks and bonds don't create jobs is like saying putting money in savings doesn't increase the amount banks then lend out.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I'm going to post the link when I am on a PC tomorrow.

There is going to be a constitutional amendment proposal that would reverse the decision of citizens united vs fair elections committee if passed.

If passed free speech would only apply to natural persons not abstract persons like corporations. Also money would not be considered speech.

It won't pass.

Corporations are made up of people. Why don't they have the right to voice their opinion?