Tax the rich, lose the rich

[Rozman]

Its really funny to see the righties worship at the alter of the unber wealthy

Actually, we admire the success of the people that create the jobs in this countrry.

It gives us drive to acheive success ourselves.

As a result, this layed off jerk of years ago, opted to become one of those job creators.

ANd now I have a nice group of people working witrh me and a nice book of clients appreciative of my service.

You can go back to sleep now TM.

I don't think he can hear you,he's by the door waiting for the Postman to drop off his Government check.

 

[Hum Dinger]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

It's apparent that you do not know what logic is. Obviously, you have predetermined conclusions, then try to create some 'logic' to prove these predetermined conclusions.

That is not logic. Until you stop making predetermined conclusions and learn to look at the facts combined with logic as a means of determining your conclusions without prejudice, you are not using logic.

Fact - Consumer spending is low because millions of people have been laid off.

Fact - There has been no major loss of real assets by by businesses.

Fact - There is a huge demand for business loans.

Fact - The theory of supply and demand in a competitive society is that if a demand exists, business competition will fill that demand.

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?

Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

Why is it that only the Government has made any effort at causing an economic recovery, while the private sector capitalists do nothing.

The answer to these questions is that we currently have a generation of investors that learned their investment 'skills' during the boom times of the 80s & 90s, when it was hard to fail and profitability was high.

These people have no idea how to function in the current economic environment. They refuse to take risk and they refuse to recognize the advantages of the current economic environment.

Why did all those ingeniuos investors sell stock back in March 2009? I bought and my money has tripled.

If any of this economic gurus had a brain they'd be buying houses like hotcakes right now.

It's times like these that economic empires are born.

 

[bucs90]

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?
Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

I edited out all the unnecessary libberish in your post and will respond to the two statements you made the most clearly define your flawed thinking.

They haven't filled the demand for credit because those demanding credit aren't trustworthy. People ran up massive credit debts without a means to pay for it. Thus, like scorned children, they aren't going to get any new credit until the parents stabilize their losses. Common f'in sense.

Second, they haven't taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market because most of the labor market is actually not beneficial. You have a massive quantity of overeducated, spoiled liberal kids with their brainwashing certificates, aka college degrees, demanding huge salaries with no experience because they feel they are so smart the company can't afford NOT to have them (See your own earlier posts).

So, that sums it up for ya. The people behaved like a bunch of teeny boppers at the mall with daddy's credit card. So, the parents took the credit away, and ain't giving it back til it's stablized the loss and the kids get trustworthy again.

By the way, a major part in that whole scenario was the liberal agenda to pressure banks to offer loans to families who had no business owning a house and then they didn't pay their bills. But the libs pushed that agenda, threatened banks with racism labels if they didn't comply. See early-mid 90's-08 for the years that occurred.

So, all you liberal "workers of the world unite" crowd........you've got only yourselves to blame.

 

[oreo]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

It's apparent that you do not know what logic is. Obviously, you have predetermined conclusions, then try to create some 'logic' to prove these predetermined conclusions.

That is not logic. Until you stop making predetermined conclusions and learn to look at the facts combined with logic as a means of determining your conclusions without prejudice, you are not using logic.

Fact - Consumer spending is low because millions of people have been laid off.

Fact - There has been no major loss of real assets by by businesses.

Fact - There is a huge demand for business loans.

Fact - The theory of supply and demand in a competitive society is that if a demand exists, business competition will fill that demand.

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?

Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

Why is it that only the Government has made any effort at causing an economic recovery, while the private sector capitalists do nothing.

The answer to these questions is that we currently have a generation of investors that learned their investment 'skills' during the boom times of the 80s & 90s, when it was hard to fail and profitability was high.

These people have no idea how to function in the current economic environment. They refuse to take risk and they refuse to recognize the advantages of the current economic environment.

Why did all those ingeniuos investors sell stock back in March 2009? I bought and my money has tripled.

If any of this economic gurus had a brain they'd be buying houses like hotcakes right now.

It's times like these that economic empires are born.

It's not that investors are dumb. They currently cannot afford to be buying up houses like hotcakes. Banking requirements right now are very strict for obvious reasons. You have a lot of CASH--plus excellent credit--and believe it or not a JOB to qualify for a loan now-a-days. That's the missing equation. Those who have lost their jobs--have been living off of their savings (cash) and even more cashing in their 401'K's to survive. The minut minority that have been able to ride out the stock market--through all it's losse's and gains--have lost fortunes. If anyone tells you that they are making money in this type of market--they're lying.

I am a 30+ year small business owner--and the ONLY reason a business would want to borrow money right now is to pay down existing debt. No bank in the world is going to do that. Banks want to see good sales and see profit from the business to loan them money. Otherwise we end up in another Fannie/Freddie collapse. Banks aren't seeing that so they aren't loaning money to business--and we as taxpayers certainly do not want to be guaranteeing those loans. And business--especially small business have been selling off assets to make ends meet. I have.

There is NO DEMAND for goods and services and that is the PROBLEM.

When there is demand for goods and services--banks will start making loans--employers will start hiring--etc. etc.--and all without 1 single dollar of stimulus money or taxpayer guaranteed loans being needed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?
Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

I edited out<snip >

I edited out Bucs nonsense. Either he can play the game correctly, or he can go bugger himself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

It's apparent that you do not know what logic is. Obviously, you have predetermined conclusions, then try to create some 'logic' to prove these predetermined conclusions.

That is not logic. Until you stop making predetermined conclusions and learn to look at the facts combined with logic as a means of determining your conclusions without prejudice, you are not using logic.

Fact - Consumer spending is low because millions of people have been laid off.

Fact - There has been no major loss of real assets by by businesses.

Fact - There is a huge demand for business loans.

Fact - The theory of supply and demand in a competitive society is that if a demand exists, business competition will fill that demand.

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?

Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

Why is it that only the Government has made any effort at causing an economic recovery, while the private sector capitalists do nothing.

The answer to these questions is that we currently have a generation of investors that learned their investment 'skills' during the boom times of the 80s & 90s, when it was hard to fail and profitability was high.

These people have no idea how to function in the current economic environment. They refuse to take risk and they refuse to recognize the advantages of the current economic environment.

Why did all those ingeniuos investors sell stock back in March 2009? I bought and my money has tripled.

If any of this economic gurus had a brain they'd be buying houses like hotcakes right now.

It's times like these that economic empires are born.

It's not that investors are dumb. They currently cannot afford to be buying up houses like hotcakes. Banking requirements right now are very strict for obvious reasons. You have a lot of CASH--plus excellent credit--and believe it or not a JOB to qualify for a loan now-a-days. That's the missing equation. Those who have lost their jobs--have been living off of their savings (cash) and even more cashing in their 401'K's to survive. The minut minority that have been able to ride out the stock market--through all it's losse's and gains--have lost fortunes. If anyone tells you that they are making money in this type of market--they're lying.

I am a 30+ year small business owner--and the ONLY reason a business would want to borrow money right now is to pay down existing debt. No bank in the world is going to do that. Banks want to see good sales and see profit from the business to loan them money. Otherwise we end up in another Fannie/Freddie collapse. Banks aren't seeing that so they aren't loaning money to business--and we as taxpayers certainly do not want to be guaranteeing those loans. And business--especially small business have been selling off assets to make ends meet. I have.

There is NO DEMAND for goods and services and that is the PROBLEM.

When there is demand for goods and services--banks will start making loans--employers will start hiring--etc. etc.--and all without 1 single dollar of stimulus money or taxpayer guaranteed loans being needed.

While the economy would have crashed without the stimulus. What a screaming loon.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?
Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

They haven't filled the demand for credit because those demanding credit aren't trustworthy. People ran up massive credit debts without a means to pay for it. Thus, like scorned children, they aren't going to get any new credit until the parents stabilize their losses. Common f'in sense.

So your saying that the root cause of the economic crisis is that 'Main St.' businesses massively defaulted on their loans back in 2008?

Well, that's a new one! Plain silly. 'nuff said.

Second, they haven't taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market because most of the labor market is actually not beneficial. You have a massive quantity of overeducated, spoiled liberal kids with their brainwashing certificates, aka college degrees, demanding huge salaries with no experience because they feel they are so smart the company can't afford NOT to have them (See your own earlier posts).

No doubt that the past 40 years has seen a huge overevaluation of college degrees, while the colleges have been churning them out without quality standards. Meanwhile, there has been a devastating devaluation of labor. Either way, there is an abundance of labor of all levels on the market right now. Given that the overwhelming cost of business is usually the cost of employees, any smart investor would take advantage.

BTW - Just for the record - I do not have a college degree, yet I work in one of the worlds most advanced research centers and am paid on the level of a master's degree.

So, that sums it up for ya. The people behaved like a bunch of teeny boppers at the mall with daddy's credit card. So, the parents took the credit away, and ain't giving it back til it's stablized the loss and the kids get trustworthy again.

Yes, the credit & banking industry baited many people into taking on way to much debt. This started back in the 80s when we turned into a dedicated materialist society, and trickle-up economics was initiated.. It is amazing how many supposedly educated people fell into the trap. But the fact remains - the vast majority of the people and businesses are creditworthy but can't get credit.

You have to have a perfect credit score to get credit...like me.

By the way, a major part in that whole scenario was the liberal agenda to pressure banks to offer loans to families who had no business owning a house and then they didn't pay their bills. But the libs pushed that agenda, threatened banks with racism labels if they didn't comply. See early-mid 90's-08 for the years that occurred.

So, all you liberal "workers of the world unite" crowd........you've got only yourselves to blame.

The government programs account for less than 3% of the mortgage default.

The real problem is that the banks found out that given an ever evaluating real estate market they could make more money from a defaulting mortgage than a good mortgage. So they pushed sub-prime mortgages as much as possible. Not just on the poor, but on everyone at every economic level.

But they couldn't tell exactly which mortgage would default and which would not and therefore could not accurately value any individual mortgage. So they chopped up & combined portions of thousands of mortgages into 'derivative' packages. That way they could valuate the whole package based on historical statistical averages. They then took out loans using the packages as collateral.

But, the entire scheme was based on the assumption that real estate would always go up in value. They were wrong and the shit hit the fan.

The banking industry nearly collapsed, so all the CAPITALIST bankers COLLECTIVELY went to the government and demanded an 800 billion dollar giveaway - with no oversite and no strings attached. The government instead offered a bailout, but with oversite and a guaranteed payback. The banks were caught - they could not refuse.

So the banks did not make money off of the bailout.

Next the banks initiated 'Plan B':

In order to make up for their losses when the sub-prime loan scam backfired on them, they froze credit to businesses. They knew that freezing credit to businesses would cause massive layoffs. That would, in turn, cause a huge increase in mortgage defaults from which the banks would profit. Thus making up for the losses that the banks suffered when their scam backfired.

That is why we are in the current economic crisis. The non-banking private sector investors, who should be taking advantage of this situation - possibly even pushing the banks out of the way - are acting like a bunch of scared little girls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's reiterate that for the far right wing.
.
The huge banks went to the government for bail outs, not he other way.

The righties will not be permitted to rewrite American history.

 

[topspin]

I learn from these sites all the time. Both parties but more so the dems need to listen to people like Oreo.
Also dems need to pay more attention to this issue. The top can afford it, but dems don't get the passion those not in the top bracket have against class warfare. I don't agree, but I feel dems under estimate how many want to move up. And of course year by year what's considered rich for taxes will be lower and lower. ala alt min taxes.

 

[Hum Dinger]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

It's apparent that you do not know what logic is. Obviously, you have predetermined conclusions, then try to create some 'logic' to prove these predetermined conclusions.

That is not logic. Until you stop making predetermined conclusions and learn to look at the facts combined with logic as a means of determining your conclusions without prejudice, you are not using logic.

Fact - Consumer spending is low because millions of people have been laid off.

Fact - There has been no major loss of real assets by by businesses.

Fact - There is a huge demand for business loans.

Fact - The theory of supply and demand in a competitive society is that if a demand exists, business competition will fill that demand.

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?

Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

Why is it that only the Government has made any effort at causing an economic recovery, while the private sector capitalists do nothing.

The answer to these questions is that we currently have a generation of investors that learned their investment 'skills' during the boom times of the 80s & 90s, when it was hard to fail and profitability was high.

These people have no idea how to function in the current economic environment. They refuse to take risk and they refuse to recognize the advantages of the current economic environment.

Why did all those ingeniuos investors sell stock back in March 2009? I bought and my money has tripled.

If any of this economic gurus had a brain they'd be buying houses like hotcakes right now.

It's times like these that economic empires are born.

It's not that investors are dumb. They currently cannot afford to be buying up houses like hotcakes. Banking requirements right now are very strict for obvious reasons. You have a lot of CASH--plus excellent credit--and believe it or not a JOB to qualify for a loan now-a-days. That's the missing equation. Those who have lost their jobs--have been living off of their savings (cash) and even more cashing in their 401'K's to survive. The minut minority that have been able to ride out the stock market--through all it's losse's and gains--have lost fortunes. If anyone tells you that they are making money in this type of market--they're lying.

I am a 30+ year small business owner--and the ONLY reason a business would want to borrow money right now is to pay down existing debt. No bank in the world is going to do that. Banks want to see good sales and see profit from the business to loan them money. Otherwise we end up in another Fannie/Freddie collapse. Banks aren't seeing that so they aren't loaning money to business--and we as taxpayers certainly do not want to be guaranteeing those loans. And business--especially small business have been selling off assets to make ends meet. I have.

There is NO DEMAND for goods and services and that is the PROBLEM.

When there is demand for goods and services--banks will start making loans--employers will start hiring--etc. etc.--and all without 1 single dollar of stimulus money or taxpayer guaranteed loans being needed.

Great, what you've just described is known as a downward economic spiral. No big revelations there.

The problem you have is in differentiaiting 'investors' from 'people who would like to be investors' or 'people who always have been investors, but don't have any money to invest'.

There are people with money out there. Maybe not you. But they're there. Hell, I have a cousin who made millions just as this whole economic collapse happened.

Furthermore, there is HUGE DEMAND for every type of good and service that exists. Consumers just don't have any money.

Soo...

I guess that the only way out of this mess is a massive adjustment to wealth distribution. The more disposible income that consumers have and the more it is spread out, the more DEMAND will exist. Once demand exists, businesses should be able to get loans and an upward economic cycle should start.

But wait...Banks don't inspect anybodys books or look for immediate profits to determine anyone creditworthiness, now do they. They go on peoples credit history. Thay are used to the idea that businesses have boom & bust cycles and have always extended credit under the assumption that on the average, businesses will be profitable (or at least be able to pay their loans).

Could it be that banks true intentions are to cause busineeses to downsize? COuls it be that banks want as many lay offs as possible so that there are as many morgage defaults as possible.

Could it be that when the governement refused the 800 billions dollar giveaway that the banks demanded - the banks have lived up to their threat to destroy the American economy?

 

[Hum Dinger]

I learn from these sites all the time. Both parties but more so the dems need to listen to people like Oreo.
Also dems need to pay more attention to this issue. The top can afford it, but dems don't get the passion those not in the top bracket have against class warfare. I don't agree, but I feel dems under estimate how many want to move up. And of course year by year what's considered rich for taxes will be lower and lower. ala alt min taxes.

Bullshit!

Have you ever considered that there is constant ongoing class warfare of the wealthy against the working people of the world. It fueled by insatiatable greed.

Understand this:

If a person that owns a $200k home wants a substantially better home, they can get one ofr about $275k. But if a person that owns a $1mil home wants a subatntially better home they have to pay $1.25mil. The same principal applies to everything. The wealthier you are the more money it takes (exponentially) to move up to the next step of the socio-economic ladder.

Since everyone, except those of the strongest philosophy, wants to constantly improve their relative standard of living, the wealthy become insatiatably greedy relative to te incomes of the workers.

Employers pay more for their country club memberships than the annual salaries of their workers. That of ciurse isn't enough. After that they want a second or third house, a sail boat, a bigger sailboat. Next it's a lamborgini for their debutante daughters.

This greed is never ending. The only way that the ever obtain this upwards mobility is by screwing there employees. Instead of increasing salaries as profit go up, employers take all the profit and hold their employees wages frozen.

They are especially careful not to promote the most productive employees and to make certain that the employees who they depend on most are held down economically.

This war against the working people of the world is non-stop.

Di dyou ever wonder why the American people, who Bush called 'the hardest working people in the world', are number 12 in average standard of living? While the swiss, who produce less than 0.5% of the world's wealth have the highest standard of living?

The American workers is screwed each and ever day of their working life.

If we recieved fair compensation we'd all be retiring at 45.

Aw, but then your little dream of being uber-wealthy for no reason whatsoever, couldn't come true now could it?

 

[Wicked Jester]

I learn from these sites all the time. Both parties but more so the dems need to listen to people like Oreo.
Also dems need to pay more attention to this issue. The top can afford it, but dems don't get the passion those not in the top bracket have against class warfare. I don't agree, but I feel dems under estimate how many want to move up. And of course year by year what's considered rich for taxes will be lower and lower. ala alt min taxes.

Bullshit!

Have you ever considered that there is constant ongoing class warfare of the wealthy against the working people of the world. It fueled by insatiatable greed.

Understand this:

If a person that owns a $200k home wants a substantially better home, they can get one ofr about $275k. But if a person that owns a $1mil home wants a subatntially better home they have to pay $1.25mil. The same principal applies to everything. The wealthier you are the more money it takes (exponentially) to move up to the next step of the socio-economic ladder.

Since everyone, except those of the strongest philosophy, wants to constantly improve their relative standard of living, the wealthy become insatiatably greedy relative to te incomes of the workers.

Employers pay more for their country club memberships than the annual salaries of their workers. That of ciurse isn't enough. After that they want a second or third house, a sail boat, a bigger sailboat. Next it's a lamborgini for their debutante daughters.

This greed is never ending. The only way that the ever obtain this upwards mobility is by screwing there employees. Instead of increasing salaries as profit go up, employers take all the profit and hold their employees wages frozen.

They are especially careful not to promote the most productive employees and to make certain that the employees who they depend on most are held down economically.

This war against the working people of the world is non-stop.

Di dyou ever wonder why the American people, who Bush called 'the hardest working people in the world', are number 12 in average standard of living? While the swiss, who produce less than 0.5% of the world's wealth have the highest standard of living?

The American workers is screwed each and ever day of their working life.

If we recieved fair compensation we'd all be retiring at 45.

Aw, but then your little dream of being uber-wealthy for no reason whatsoever, couldn't come true now could it?

Seriously, you need to take a course in bussiness and economics......Reading your libberish is just pure entertainment.

All i'm hearing in your ramblings is your complete inability to recognize that you yourself are the reason for your failure in life. The reason that you are obviously just a pathetic miserable human being who feels the need to blame everybody else for your own doing.

And, me being one of those you obviously despise, a successful man, I still want to know just what the **** you think I owe you......Because in REALITY, I don't owe you a god damn thing.

 

[Adam1605]

Anyone who is familiar with economics knows the Lafer curve. Anyone who knows about the lafer curve understands that higher taxes do not always lead to higher tax revenue. In fact at a certain point raising taxes decreases tax revenue.

It doesn't make sense to tax any portion of society disproportionately. Tax cuts for everyone is a good idea. It stimulates economic growth. More money in circulation means more taxes, even at lower rates, and will increase government revenue as well as the standard of living for the public.

There is a reason that the majority of economists and business people are Republican. People who understand the economy favor the right.

I don't mean that as a slam though. There are obviously other important factors to consider when voting (social, international...ect) but I think history clearly shows that Republicans (or rather conservative economic theory) are better at economics.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Anyone who is familiar with economics knows the Lafer curve. Anyone who knows about the lafer curve understands that higher taxes do not always lead to higher tax revenue. In fact at a certain point raising taxes decreases tax revenue.

And anyone who is familiar with economics also knows that the Laffer curve is theory, not fact. It's not actually based on math.

It doesn't make sense to tax any portion of society disproportionately.

Yes it does. People who make more money can afford to pay more taxes, and they will. Seems to make quite a bit of sense, it's been working for quite a while now.

Plus, 81% of economists are in favor of a progressive income tax.

Tax cuts for everyone is a good idea. It stimulates economic growth.

So does spending.

More money in circulation means more taxes, even at lower rates, and will increase government revenue as well as the standard of living for the public.

You know what a curve looks like, right? Since you know all about the Laffer curve, you must know that there is a point where lowering taxes brings in less revenue, right? Where do you think we are respective to that point?

There is a reason that the majority of economists and business people are Republican. People who understand the economy favor the right.

You know that's not true either, right? According to a number of studies done, American economists are more than 2:1 Democrat.

I don't mean that as a slam though. There are obviously other important factors to consider when voting (social, international...ect) but I think history clearly shows that Republicans (or rather conservative economic theory) are better at economics.

What "history" would that be, exactly? Examples, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

theDoctorisin simply posts what he believes as if its informed commentary. It's not, and he is wrong.

 

[topspin]

Please don't piss Richard-H off to much guy's, in fact get him a cookie and a pat on the back. He doesn't like greed. Awwh, please tell me you teach kindergarden or some other thing that keeps you occupied and away from the real world.
Please take a look at a country that doesn't have the country club, sailboat set, or like I like to call us THE INVESTOR CLASS.
Tell me what you find.
Seriously that was cute, and would make for a great fairytale for preK.

 

[hipeter924]

I learn from these sites all the time. Both parties but more so the dems need to listen to people like Oreo.
Also dems need to pay more attention to this issue. The top can afford it, but dems don't get the passion those not in the top bracket have against class warfare. I don't agree, but I feel dems under estimate how many want to move up. And of course year by year what's considered rich for taxes will be lower and lower. ala alt min taxes.

Bullshit!

Have you ever considered that there is constant ongoing class warfare of the wealthy against the working people of the world. It fueled by insatiatable greed.

Understand this:

If a person that owns a $200k home wants a substantially better home, they can get one ofr about $275k. But if a person that owns a $1mil home wants a subatntially better home they have to pay $1.25mil. The same principal applies to everything. The wealthier you are the more money it takes (exponentially) to move up to the next step of the socio-economic ladder.

Since everyone, except those of the strongest philosophy, wants to constantly improve their relative standard of living, the wealthy become insatiatably greedy relative to te incomes of the workers.

Employers pay more for their country club memberships than the annual salaries of their workers. That of ciurse isn't enough. After that they want a second or third house, a sail boat, a bigger sailboat. Next it's a lamborgini for their debutante daughters.

This greed is never ending. The only way that the ever obtain this upwards mobility is by screwing there employees. Instead of increasing salaries as profit go up, employers take all the profit and hold their employees wages frozen.

They are especially careful not to promote the most productive employees and to make certain that the employees who they depend on most are held down economically.

This war against the working people of the world is non-stop.

Di dyou ever wonder why the American people, who Bush called 'the hardest working people in the world', are number 12 in average standard of living? While the swiss, who produce less than 0.5% of the world's wealth have the highest standard of living?

The American workers is screwed each and ever day of their working life.

If we recieved fair compensation we'd all be retiring at 45.

Aw, but then your little dream of being uber-wealthy for no reason whatsoever, couldn't come true now could it?

Seriously, you need to take a course in bussiness and economics......Reading your libberish is just pure entertainment.

All i'm hearing in your ramblings is your complete inability to recognize that you yourself are the reason for your failure in life. The reason that you are obviously just a pathetic miserable human being who feels the need to blame everybody else for your own doing.

And, me being one of those you obviously despise, a successful man, I still want to know just what the **** you think I owe you......Because in REALITY, I don't owe you a god damn thing.

He fails to understand that heavily taxing businesses and rich people doesn't help the economy or create any new jobs, especially in a recession. As for proof, Obama is trying the European tax to death scheme and that's just worked wonders.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit!

Have you ever considered that there is constant ongoing class warfare of the wealthy against the working people of the world. It fueled by insatiatable greed.

Understand this:

If a person that owns a $200k home wants a substantially better home, they can get one ofr about $275k. But if a person that owns a $1mil home wants a subatntially better home they have to pay $1.25mil. The same principal applies to everything. The wealthier you are the more money it takes (exponentially) to move up to the next step of the socio-economic ladder.

Since everyone, except those of the strongest philosophy, wants to constantly improve their relative standard of living, the wealthy become insatiatably greedy relative to te incomes of the workers.

Employers pay more for their country club memberships than the annual salaries of their workers. That of ciurse isn't enough. After that they want a second or third house, a sail boat, a bigger sailboat. Next it's a lamborgini for their debutante daughters.

This greed is never ending. The only way that the ever obtain this upwards mobility is by screwing there employees. Instead of increasing salaries as profit go up, employers take all the profit and hold their employees wages frozen.

They are especially careful not to promote the most productive employees and to make certain that the employees who they depend on most are held down economically.

This war against the working people of the world is non-stop.

Di dyou ever wonder why the American people, who Bush called 'the hardest working people in the world', are number 12 in average standard of living? While the swiss, who produce less than 0.5% of the world's wealth have the highest standard of living?

The American workers is screwed each and ever day of their working life.

If we recieved fair compensation we'd all be retiring at 45.

Aw, but then your little dream of being uber-wealthy for no reason whatsoever, couldn't come true now could it?

Seriously, you need to take a course in bussiness and economics......Reading your libberish is just pure entertainment.

All i'm hearing in your ramblings is your complete inability to recognize that you yourself are the reason for your failure in life. The reason that you are obviously just a pathetic miserable human being who feels the need to blame everybody else for your own doing.

And, me being one of those you obviously despise, a successful man, I still want to know just what the **** you think I owe you......Because in REALITY, I don't owe you a god damn thing.

He fails to understand that heavily taxing businesses and rich people doesn't help the economy or create any new jobs, especially in a recession. As for proof, Obama is trying the European tax to death scheme and that's just worked wonders.

Cutting their taxes did not seem to help us , dit it?

In the ten years since we cut their taxes we have seen a stagnant economy and limited job growth. Stop with the Bull Shit that raising their tax rate 3% is going to cost jobs

 

[topspin]

I'm still for taxing the top 2%, like Gietner said giving them tax cuts is about number 10 on the most affective stimulus options.
I just laugh at the full blown attack the rich nonsense.

 

[editec]

For example...

Statistics show that the tax cuts did not result in an increase in jobs.
Really?

OK...

Now logic says...

I do not recall there being a time where demand EXCEEDED the supply of goods and services so logic tells me that it was not the tax cuts that had anything to do with the lack of hiring...it was the demand for good and services....or the increase in technology...or a combination of both...or cheaper ways to manufacture or service such as outsourcing...or a combimnaton of all three.

Now the real argument is...will losing the cuts hurt job creation.

Looking at the stas....yuou would think not.

Applying logic:

Companies are not making money right now. They laid off. They are short staffed if there is an increase in demand. If demand increases, they will beed to hire. But they now have an even HIGHER financial burden on them with the tax cut roll backs along with the not making money for 2 years....so logically, I can see it likely hurting employment seeing as there is no credit out there for bridge loans to cover new employees.

Soi applying that "it didnt work" is an error

Logic is the purest form of debate.

It's apparent that you do not know what logic is. Obviously, you have predetermined conclusions, then try to create some 'logic' to prove these predetermined conclusions.

That is not logic. Until you stop making predetermined conclusions and learn to look at the facts combined with logic as a means of determining your conclusions without prejudice, you are not using logic.

Fact - Consumer spending is low because millions of people have been laid off.

TRUE- deflationary cycle.

Question...why did consumers NOT have enough money to begin with?

Fact - There has been no major loss of real assets by by businesses.

NOT SURE - Not being able to borrow money in the normally expected way is a lost asset

Fact - There is a huge demand for business loans.

Ah...I see. Well I guess we are on the same page, only we're using different language to describe the problem.

Fact - The theory of supply and demand in a competitive society is that if a demand exists, business competition will fill that demand.

And I think it reasonable to assume that demand precedes supply in a health economy, too.

Why then hasn't competitive banking practices filled the demand for credit?

My theory is that they KNOW that the supply/demand cycle is out of kilter and see no evidence that there's any way to right it.

Why haven't investors taken advantage of the incredibly beneficial labor market?

Because they understand that the consumer is broke.

Why is it that only the Government has made any effort at causing an economic recovery, while the private sector capitalists do nothing.

CLASSIC Tragedy of the commons. What would be right for the economy (for businesses to invest and hire) isn't the right thing for those businesses to do UNLESS all businesses do it.

The answer to these questions is that we currently have a generation of investors that learned their investment 'skills' during the boom times of the 80s & 90s, when it was hard to fail and profitability was high.

Yeah, I suppose there's truth to that.

These people have no idea how to function in the current economic environment. They refuse to take risk and they refuse to recognize the advantages of the current economic environment.

I think that's overstating their confusion. I don't think they're confused at all, really.

I think that they are doing what is right for them, but collectively what they are doing is wrong for the economy.

Why did all those ingeniuos investors sell stock back in March 2009? I bought and my money has tripled.

Timing is everything.

If any of this economic gurus had a brain they'd be buying houses like hotcakes right now.

I'm inclined not to agree.

If the economy recovers soon I suppose that will be true. If not then RE probably isn't a good investment right now

It's times like these that economic empires are born.

And its times like these when empires die, too.

The king is dead.

Hale the new king.​