Q for USMB Progressives

[Jarhead]

No, I'm quite certain that a large portion of the transactions in our economy occur in a free market.

I'm wondering what time period Frank is referring to when he says we "got here by adhering to free markets".

I cant answer for Frank.

But I poersonally believe it has been an on going scenario for 2 centuries.[

And with continued regulations and what I perceive to be an INCREASE in regulations.....I question whether or not some of our issues are governmental interference with the free market.

The auto bailouts for example....necessary? Many say yes.

But for Ford? It was actually a punishment for having a sound business model. They chugged along...doing what they can to stay in the black.....and when their competition blew it? They were rewarded with a bailoujt.....and Ford's advantage that was earned with patience? Completely elimninated.

I'm not sure we can look at the current situation and conclude that current markets are any less free than they were at any time in our history, the Ford example notwithstanding. We have higher levels of international trade, more businesses per capita, more stringent enforcement of intellectual property rights and the highest levels of market transactions in our history.

Our economy has always been a free market economy with government involvement to protect rights and promote economic efficiency. At times that involvement has been far greater than it is today - yet our economy flourished during those times.

not trying to be adversarial...but I am truly curious...other than war time (40's in particular), when would you say government involvement was greater than it was today?

 

[8537]

I cant answer for Frank.

But I poersonally believe it has been an on going scenario for 2 centuries.[

And with continued regulations and what I perceive to be an INCREASE in regulations.....I question whether or not some of our issues are governmental interference with the free market.

The auto bailouts for example....necessary? Many say yes.

But for Ford? It was actually a punishment for having a sound business model. They chugged along...doing what they can to stay in the black.....and when their competition blew it? They were rewarded with a bailoujt.....and Ford's advantage that was earned with patience? Completely elimninated.

I'm not sure we can look at the current situation and conclude that current markets are any less free than they were at any time in our history, the Ford example notwithstanding. We have higher levels of international trade, more businesses per capita, more stringent enforcement of intellectual property rights and the highest levels of market transactions in our history.

Our economy has always been a free market economy with government involvement to protect rights and promote economic efficiency. At times that involvement has been far greater than it is today - yet our economy flourished during those times.

not trying to be adversarial...but I am truly curious...other than war time (40's in particular), when would you say government involvement was greater than it was today?

The government was far more involved in the economy during the Depression and from the end of WW2 until the early 1980's. The entire period of Keynesian ascendance. That period also coincides with the creation of rise of the middle class, the most sustained economic growth in our history and a 30-year period of relative stability in the financial sector.

I don't take your posts as adversarial at all. It's an interesting topic of discussion.

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay, sure... You typed all that data from memory. You copied it from some favorite Thom Hartmann hack style site or previous document you created, added commentary (which looks remarkably like other stuff I've seen before) and it's still the same nonsense it was back then.

This Reagan is satan crap doesn't fly here.

Reagan took over with the total national debt less than $1 trillion. He cut taxes for the wealthy. I remember the political ad which showed a millionaire able to buy a Mercedes with the savings and my wife and I saved about $8 a month. The most weighted tax cuts in the country's history. Add to that the fact that tax deductions such as car loans, personal loans, regular bank loans......anything except home mortgages were taken away from the middle class of America. In other words while he was funding high dollar tax cuts for the wealthy with borrowed money he began to damage ordinary working America. Hell....you didn't think this mess happened over night did you. Trickle Down was that warm piss running down a working American's back.

By the time he and George Herbert Walker Bush finished their three term spending spree the national debt had quadrupled. Same way with George W. Bush. He took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the debt again.

You can deny it all you want to but it's the truth and it's recorded for all time in the records. I don't blame you for being ashamed of the son-of-a-bitch. His memory problems were already in the forefront before he ever left office. The last couple of years he was in the white house Nancy's astrologist made the big decisions.

You really are that blinded by hate and envy aren't you?

Let me ask you, if the debt being over a trillion dollars total is a bad thing, then are you condemning Obama for putting this nation in debt over 1.7 trillion dollars PER YEAR in NEW SPENDING? Where are your words of outrage for that asshat, asshat?

 

[Big Fitz]

has Frank or anyone else come back to tell us when this period of "adhering to free markets" happened?

Mr. Nick pointed it out to you. Read again.

I will reiterate and state that the period of free markets started fading between 1912 and was almost completely gone by 1952

Mind you, many of those limitations to the free market NEEDED to happen because Lassaiez Faire capitalism is just as dangerous as out of control government and it took us since Eli Whitney and decades of the English Knitting Mill methods to figure it out. During that time though, nations involved in free capitalism (or as close as we can get on earth) experienced explosive economic growth and improvement to the quality of their lives. Since the enactment of the reforms, the growth has happened much more slowly, BUT far less volatility to society was endured.

Now I can't wait till a new level of governmental reform starts kicking off in this nation to trim back out of control statists and power hungry collectivists, reducing this nation's government back to what was intended: a small fiscally responsible but generally out of the way government in the day to day lives of it's citizens, leaving them to solve matters among themselves.

 

[8537]

has Frank or anyone else come back to tell us when this period of "adhering to free markets" happened?

Mr. Nick pointed it out to you. Read again.

I will reiterate and state that the period of free markets started fading between 1912 and was almost completely gone by 1952

I read it - I even responded! So you consider the post-civil war period as an example of free markets - and you think we should return to the economic policies of that time?

Really?

Mind you, many of those limitations to the free market NEEDED to happen because Lassaiez Faire capitalism is just as dangerous as out of control government and it took us since Eli Whitney and decades of the English Knitting Mill methods to figure it out. During that time though, nations involved in free capitalism (or as close as we can get on earth) experienced explosive economic growth and improvement to the quality of their lives. Since the enactment of the reforms, the growth has happened much more slowly, BUT far less volatility to society was endured.

No, seriously- it was a period of wild financial panics, ongoing and pervasive deflation and a steep decline in work safety and the condition of the working class

 

[8537]

Okay, sure... You typed all that data from memory. You copied it from some favorite Thom Hartmann hack style site or previous document you created, added commentary (which looks remarkably like other stuff I've seen before) and it's still the same nonsense it was back then.

This Reagan is satan crap doesn't fly here.

Reagan took over with the total national debt less than $1 trillion. He cut taxes for the wealthy. I remember the political ad which showed a millionaire able to buy a Mercedes with the savings and my wife and I saved about $8 a month. The most weighted tax cuts in the country's history. Add to that the fact that tax deductions such as car loans, personal loans, regular bank loans......anything except home mortgages were taken away from the middle class of America. In other words while he was funding high dollar tax cuts for the wealthy with borrowed money he began to damage ordinary working America. Hell....you didn't think this mess happened over night did you. Trickle Down was that warm piss running down a working American's back.

By the time he and George Herbert Walker Bush finished their three term spending spree the national debt had quadrupled. Same way with George W. Bush. He took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the debt again.

You can deny it all you want to but it's the truth and it's recorded for all time in the records. I don't blame you for being ashamed of the son-of-a-bitch. His memory problems were already in the forefront before he ever left office. The last couple of years he was in the white house Nancy's astrologist made the big decisions.

You really are that blinded by hate and envy aren't you?

Let me ask you, if the debt being over a trillion dollars total is a bad thing, then are you condemning Obama for putting this nation in debt over 1.7 trillion dollars PER YEAR in NEW SPENDING? Where are your words of outrage for that asshat, asshat?

Obama has not created 1.7 Trillion per year in new spending.

 

[Big Fitz]

has Frank or anyone else come back to tell us when this period of "adhering to free markets" happened?

Mr. Nick pointed it out to you. Read again.

I will reiterate and state that the period of free markets started fading between 1912 and was almost completely gone by 1952

I read it - I even responded! So you consider the post-civil war period as an example of free markets - and you think we should return to the economic policies of that time?

Really?

Mind you, many of those limitations to the free market NEEDED to happen because Lassaiez Faire capitalism is just as dangerous as out of control government and it took us since Eli Whitney and decades of the English Knitting Mill methods to figure it out. During that time though, nations involved in free capitalism (or as close as we can get on earth) experienced explosive economic growth and improvement to the quality of their lives. Since the enactment of the reforms, the growth has happened much more slowly, BUT far less volatility to society was endured.

No, seriously- it was a period of wild financial panics, ongoing and pervasive deflation and a steep decline in work safety and the condition of the working class

And yet, it had the most precipitous CLIMB in both productivity and wealth the world ever saw.

The fact you don't like the manner in which it happened does not change facts.

I am not advocating a return to such silliness as 16 hour workdays, or child labor or many worker safety regulations. I never have and have consistently have stated I do not agree with Lassaiez Faire capitalism because it is proven to not be in a public's best interest for both stable growth and pleasant lifestyles. All these were achieved by many reforms through the 4 decades I mentioned. Unfortunately about 90% of every reform done AFTER 1952 has been pretty much an overstep and injurous to both the ability to prosper well, individual freedom or quality of life of the citizenry.

Broad wide guardrails with well painted lines on the economic superhighway is what I advocate for everyone to travel forward safely and at a HIGH rate of speed. Those who wish to not participate can take easy off ramps and be gone down whatever economic dirt road they desire, but don't try to barricade the highway to force everyone else to follow their stupidity.

 

[Big Fitz]

Reagan took over with the total national debt less than $1 trillion. He cut taxes for the wealthy. I remember the political ad which showed a millionaire able to buy a Mercedes with the savings and my wife and I saved about $8 a month. The most weighted tax cuts in the country's history. Add to that the fact that tax deductions such as car loans, personal loans, regular bank loans......anything except home mortgages were taken away from the middle class of America. In other words while he was funding high dollar tax cuts for the wealthy with borrowed money he began to damage ordinary working America. Hell....you didn't think this mess happened over night did you. Trickle Down was that warm piss running down a working American's back.

By the time he and George Herbert Walker Bush finished their three term spending spree the national debt had quadrupled. Same way with George W. Bush. He took over a balanced annual budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the debt again.

You can deny it all you want to but it's the truth and it's recorded for all time in the records. I don't blame you for being ashamed of the son-of-a-bitch. His memory problems were already in the forefront before he ever left office. The last couple of years he was in the white house Nancy's astrologist made the big decisions.

You really are that blinded by hate and envy aren't you?

Let me ask you, if the debt being over a trillion dollars total is a bad thing, then are you condemning Obama for putting this nation in debt over 1.7 trillion dollars PER YEAR in NEW SPENDING? Where are your words of outrage for that asshat, asshat?

Obama has not created 1.7 Trillion per year in new spending.

Then explain why the 2009 budget has a 1.7 trillion dollar shortfall. That's debt, you know. Filled in by borrowing from somewhere else or printing money.

 

[8537]

You really are that blinded by hate and envy aren't you?

Let me ask you, if the debt being over a trillion dollars total is a bad thing, then are you condemning Obama for putting this nation in debt over 1.7 trillion dollars PER YEAR in NEW SPENDING? Where are your words of outrage for that asshat, asshat?

Obama has not created 1.7 Trillion per year in new spending.

Then explain why the 2009 budget has a 1.7 trillion dollar shortfall. That's debt, you know. Filled in by borrowing from somewhere else or printing money.

Well, it's a combination of a decline in revenues and increases in spending above and beyond the 2009 discrepancy of 1.3T that Obama was handed. That budget had 3.5T in spending. The 2011 budget has 3.8T. An increase of 300B, not 1.7T

 

[Big Fitz]

Obama has not created 1.7 Trillion per year in new spending.

Then explain why the 2009 budget has a 1.7 trillion dollar shortfall. That's debt, you know. Filled in by borrowing from somewhere else or printing money.

Well, it's a combination of a decline in revenues and increases in spending above and beyond the 2009 discrepancy of 1.3T that Obama was handed. That budget had 3.5T in spending. The 2011 budget has 3.8T. An increase of 300B, not 1.7T

RIIIIiiiiiiight.

Let's just ignore the increased spending and continuation of failed BUSH policies known as TARP and the bailout and Quantitative Easing. Three things I've had huge problems about.

Sorry, but P-BO continued it, they're his fault now too. He could have been fiscally responsible and stopped them cold back when he was elected or when he was signing pardons for drug dealers this year.

I'll let someone else who has the charts on speed dial post them.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Thats because your a few slices short of a loaf.

It sucks being owned in just a few words doesnt it?

LMAO!! I think you meant YOU'RE
Ever heard of grammar school

LOL When you are such a crying litttle bitch that must highlight a dropped E.

Then we know you have had your ass kicked again.

I can believe that...I key 65-70wpm. Now, again.....explain to me how an inadvertent stroke could result in the difference in YOUR and YOU'RE. iT'S IGNORANCE....get used to it.

 

[Big Fitz]

LMAO!! I think you meant YOU'RE
Ever heard of grammar school

LOL When you are such a crying litttle bitch that must highlight a dropped E.

Then we know you have had your ass kicked again.

I can believe that...I key 65-70wpm. Now, again.....explain to me how an inadvertent stroke could result in the difference in YOUR and YOU'RE. iT'S IGNORANCE....get used to it.

And? A 4 year old could key 500 words a minute, but if it's all just spastic jibberish which is similar to your libberish, it still means nothing.

High speed ignorance is still YOUR ignorance.

 

[Cammmpbell]

LOL When you are such a crying litttle bitch that must highlight a dropped E.

Then we know you have had your ass kicked again.

I can believe that...I key 65-70wpm. Now, again.....explain to me how an inadvertent stroke could result in the difference in YOUR and YOU'RE. iT'S IGNORANCE....get used to it.

And? A 4 year old could key 500 words a minute, but if it's all just spastic jibberish which is similar to your libberish, it still means nothing.

High speed ignorance is still YOUR ignorance.

I'm not the one who just learned the difference in YOUR and YOU'RE

 

[Mustang]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

The only "redistribution" (of wealth) that has been going on for the last few decades is from the middle class to the wealthy.

 

[DiamondDave]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

The only "redistribution" (of wealth) that has been going on for the last few decades is from the middle class to the wealthy.

Wrong answer.. The wealthy still pay the majority of tax in total and in percentage...

There are NUMEROUS programs that give entitlement handouts to 'poor' individual citizens who pay nothing in to the income tax system that is indeed funded by those who pay the majority of income taxes... that is governmental redistribution

Gaining wealth by your own employment, investment, gamble, or whatever else is NOT redistributing wealth away from the 'middle class' or any other class for that matter

 

[8537]

Then explain why the 2009 budget has a 1.7 trillion dollar shortfall. That's debt, you know. Filled in by borrowing from somewhere else or printing money.

Well, it's a combination of a decline in revenues and increases in spending above and beyond the 2009 discrepancy of 1.3T that Obama was handed. That budget had 3.5T in spending. The 2011 budget has 3.8T. An increase of 300B, not 1.7T

RIIIIiiiiiiight.

Let's just ignore the increased spending and continuation of failed BUSH policies known as TARP and the bailout and Quantitative Easing. Three things I've had huge problems about.

You said Obama has created 1.7T in new spending every year. He has not.

 

[Mustang]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

The only "redistribution" (of wealth) that has been going on for the last few decades is from the middle class to the wealthy.

Wrong answer.. The wealthy still pay the majority of tax in total and in percentage...

There are NUMEROUS programs that give entitlement handouts to 'poor' individual citizens who pay nothing in to the income tax system that is indeed funded by those who pay the majority of income taxes... that is governmental redistribution

Gaining wealth by your own employment, investment, gamble, or whatever else is NOT redistributing wealth away from the 'middle class' or any other class for that matter

I don't know if you noticed, or not, but this thread isn't about taxes. It's about the redistribution of wealth. And it just so happens to be a fact that there IS a redistribution of wealth going on in this country, and it's decidedly UPWARDS, even as the tax rates for the wealthy have been going down, significantly, for decades.

Additionally, Newt's latest tax proposals would eliminate capital gains and slash taxes even further on the wealthy who, again, are paying the lowest federal taxes in decades.

What IS happening is this: even while profits are up, and income for the wealthiest Americans is also up, wages for average Americans are down and still dropping.

The wealthiest Americans have a distinct advantage over everyone else. They buy the laws, and the policies, and tax loopholes and the tax breaks they want because they give massive campaign contributions to politicians of both political parties.

Did you know the following? In the last 3 years, 30 large American companies paid more in lobbying than they did in taxes. Why?

29 out of the 30 companies featured in the study managed through various legal tax-dodging measures to pay no federal income taxes at all from 2008 through 2010. The lone exception, FedEx (FDX), paid a three-year tax rate of 1%, nowhere near the 35% called for by the federal tax code.


See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/rBt7cU

So, when was the last time you managed to pay no federal taxes on your income?

The problem with a lot of middle class conservatives these days is that you guys are dupes for a political system that is increasingly giving you and everyone below the top earners in this country the shaft, and it's happening to 90% + of American income earners in this country regardless of political affiliation. Fortunately, for the very wealthy (and unfortunately for the rest of us) you guys are carrying the water for the very people who are shafting all of us.

Don't be a dupe! Please wake up!

Edit to add:

I forgot something. Here's some more information from the same article.

In fact, the report explains, the 29 companies that paid no tax actually received tax rebates over those three years, "ranging from $4 million for Corning (GLW) to nearly $5 billion for General Electric (GE)." The total value of the rebates received was nearly $11 billion; combined profits during the same period were $164 billion.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Well, it's a combination of a decline in revenues and increases in spending above and beyond the 2009 discrepancy of 1.3T that Obama was handed. That budget had 3.5T in spending. The 2011 budget has 3.8T. An increase of 300B, not 1.7T

RIIIIiiiiiiight.

Let's just ignore the increased spending and continuation of failed BUSH policies known as TARP and the bailout and Quantitative Easing. Three things I've had huge problems about.

You said Obama has created 1.7T in new spending every year. He has not.

You damn right he has not. The annual interest on the Reagan-Bushes debt was about $450 billion the year Obama assumed command of the white house. That's over a trillion dollars in three years. Republicans aren't smart when it comes to correctly tabulating the damage they've done.

 

[Dragon]

Wrong answer.. The wealthy still pay the majority of tax in total and in percentage...

That is a CONSEQUENCE of the income redistribution upward over the fast three decades. The wealthy pay an increasing share of taxes because they hog an increasing share of income. The one follows from the other.

Gaining wealth by your own employment, investment, gamble, or whatever else is NOT redistributing wealth away from the 'middle class' or any other class for that matter

It is when the rules of the economic game are changed to make it easier to become rich and harder to enter the middle class; when trade, tax, labor, and immigration policy are set up to hold wages down and allow profit margins to explode upwards; when the financial industry is deregulated to encourage investment into non-job-creating quick-return money-shuffling schemes amounting to con games.

Or did you think the rich and corporations pay millions of dollars to political campaigns of both parties just 'cause they're good-hearted? That's an investment, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

true...

and the hypocrisy is interesting as well.

For example.....it is OK for someone with a liberal bias to "shop around" and find the best price for an item in an effort to minimize cost and maximize spending power......but if a business owner does the same? It is inexcusable greediness

Define "shop around" for a business owner.

A business owner is paying a combined salary for three receptionists of 100K a year. Add on the cost of payroll.....115K a year. A salesman presents to him a voice mail system that costs 30K...with expected 100% depreciation over a 5 year period....so costing him 6K a year This voicemail system will eliminate the need for 2 of his 3 receptionists.....saving him around 70K a year. He has a net savings of 64K a year. Is he wrong to purchase the voicemail system at the cost of 2 jobs?

If he has no legal obligations to maintain the employees, of course he is right to terminate their employment without prejudice (no business appeal on uninsurance claims).