FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Why does Rick Perry want to take my job away? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Why does Rick Perry want to take my job away?
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Rick Perry is running an ad in Missouri asking all "right thinking businessmen in the state" to pick up and move to Texas.

Yep, he's asking my boss to close his Missouri business and the jobs he provides and take them to a different state.

His reason for the move? Missouri's Democratic Governor vetoed a corporate tax cut. To Governor Perry, this is the same as raising taxes. and proof that Missouri has it out against business. Of course, that same law would have raised sales taxes on everyone except a few businesses.

Oh, and the fact that our sales tax is significantly less, and our property taxes are a lot less, all seemed to have slipped Governor Perry's mind.

Just thanks Governor. I hope your little political ploy at the State of Texas's expense is worth my job--though my boss is too smart to fall for it.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
That's always been the driving force behind Texas' "Job Growth."

They aren't creating new jobs, they're just moving jobs out of other states and moving them to Texas.

It's a race to the bottom.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
But Darth_Mauve! Think aboot it! If your state had lowered taxes the wealth would trickle down ~because magic~ and create MORE jobs in your state! Everybody wins!
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
More jobs, typically lower wage jobs! Why do you hate progress and everything that God built America on?

Are you a secret demoncrat Muslim or something?

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
But Darth_Mauve! Think aboot it! If your state had lowered taxes the wealth would trickle down ~because magic~ and create MORE jobs in your state! Everybody wins!

Can you please provide a link where anyone has ever said this is why taxes should be lowered?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm guessing you're referring to the term magic, rather than disputing the existence of trickle down economics as a tax policy?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
We can start with that.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
That didn't answer my question, and in any event the use of the word magic was pretty clearly facetious, and Elison was actually referring to trickle down economics.

Which brings me to my question, again: could you clarify whether or not you were objecting to the idea that trickle down economics is an economic policy supported by some politicians?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

What I was really objecting to is being so condescending towards an economic policy that is supported by some politicians. Disagreeing that is effective or does what they claim it does is one thing, but I object to facetiously calling their reasoning behind why it works "magic".

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Magic is real. I'm a Mathematician. That's about all I have to say.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, a Mathemagician, if you want to get technical.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post 
I used to be a mathematician but years of therapy, prescription drugs and women eventually cured me.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
(Pi + Pi^2)/Pi = 1 + Pi
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Any questions?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

What I was really objecting to is being so condescending towards an economic policy that is supported by some politicians. Disagreeing that is effective or does what they claim it does is one thing, but I object to facetiously calling their reasoning behind why it works "magic".

Well, alright, but please note that's not what you initially said, with your suggestion it wasn't even a thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

What I was really objecting to is being so condescending towards an economic policy that is supported by some politicians. Disagreeing that is effective or does what they claim it does is one thing, but I object to facetiously calling their reasoning behind why it works "magic".

Well, alright, but please note that's not what you initially said, with your suggestion it wasn't even a thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

It certainly is misleading, because nothing ever actually trickles down to the poorest members of the society, in this kind of system.

You have to own stock to actually see any money from "trickle-down", and most of the poorer people barely even know what stock IS, let alone how to buy it, how to choose a good stock, what a balanced portfolio might be, etc.. And, by definition, they rarely have enough money left over to BUY stock, even if they were to somehow get a hot stock tip.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

What I was really objecting to is being so condescending towards an economic policy that is supported by some politicians. Disagreeing that is effective or does what they claim it does is one thing, but I object to facetiously calling their reasoning behind why it works "magic".

Well, alright, but please note that's not what you initially said, with your suggestion it wasn't even a thing.
It's actually exactly what I initially said (or meant). I wasn't disputing the existence of a lower tax policy being supported by politicians. I was disputing that any politicians that support it don't describe the reason it works as "trickle down".
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I think trickle down economics is a misleading name.

It certainly is misleading, because nothing ever actually trickles down to the poorest members of the society, in this kind of system.

You have to own stock to actually see any money from "trickle-down", and most of the poorer people barely even know what stock IS, let alone how to buy it, how to choose a good stock, what a balanced portfolio might be, etc.. And, by definition, they rarely have enough money left over to BUY stock, even if they were to somehow get a hot stock tip.

Why do you think the only way to benefit from lower taxes is to buy stocks? That's a pretty ignorant thing to think.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Why do you think the only way to benefit from lower taxes is to buy stocks? That's a pretty ignorant thing to think.

Well, I suppose you could start your own business. That, of course, assumes that you have enough money to start a business, though.

Wait, why am I arguing with you? ROFL

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

Most entrepreneurs try to get away with the ABSOLUTE minimum re: working conditions, benefits, and pay. That's been my observation. They treat a few key employees well, and do their best to mistreat all the rest. Again, my observation.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Solution to Economics:

Artificially keep inflation rates negligible, print lots of money to increase Society's relative wealth.

Oh wait, this is already happening.

Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

Most entrepreneurs try to get away with the ABSOLUTE minimum re: working conditions, benefits, and pay. That's been my observation. They treat a few key employees well, and do their best to mistreat all the rest. Again, my observation.
How many entrepreneurs have you observed?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

Most entrepreneurs try to get away with the ABSOLUTE minimum re: working conditions, benefits, and pay. That's been my observation. They treat a few key employees well, and do their best to mistreat all the rest. Again, my observation.
How many entrepreneurs have you observed?
Several, but I'm not saying there are no exceptions. The exceptions aren't the point. Have you observed a different trend?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

Most entrepreneurs try to get away with the ABSOLUTE minimum re: working conditions, benefits, and pay. That's been my observation. They treat a few key employees well, and do their best to mistreat all the rest. Again, my observation.
How many entrepreneurs have you observed?
Several, but I'm not saying there are no exceptions. The exceptions aren't the point. Have you observed a different trend?
The point is the several you know don't make it the norm. How do you know the several entrepreneurs you know aren't the exception, with the rest of entrepreneurs that don't mistreat their employees being the rule? Several entrepreneurs that mistreat their employees isn't really a sample size to base a national economic policy on.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Why did Van Gogh cut off his left Ear?

So he could only hear the right thing.

Think about it.

Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
Wait, everyone can't superimpose their Mind's Eye over reality?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
The point is the several you know don't make it the norm. How do you know the several entrepreneurs you know aren't the exception, with the rest of entrepreneurs that don't mistreat their employees being the rule? Several entrepreneurs that mistreat their employees isn't really a sample size to base a national economic policy on.

How much do you know about the history of organized labor in this country?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Steve -

That's true historically, and I think you can find a lot of instances of worker abuse now as well. Anyone living off minimum wage is a good example.

But kids aren't exactly working in sweatshops.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Steve -

That's true historically, and I think you can find a lot of instances of worker abuse now as well. Anyone living off minimum wage is a good example.

But kids aren't exactly working in sweatshops.

Kids aren't working in sweatshops because we have laws about that, and we enforce them pretty thoroughly.

Those are pretty much the only reasons that we don't have sweatshops. You could argue that our culture frowns on that now, but culture is changeable, and I guarantee some enterprising Texan would find a way to bring back sweatshops right quick if they were legal. The cultural acceptance might lag by a few decades, but it would happen, at least in places that are already more economically conservative.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
The point is the several you know don't make it the norm. How do you know the several entrepreneurs you know aren't the exception, with the rest of entrepreneurs that don't mistreat their employees being the rule? Several entrepreneurs that mistreat their employees isn't really a sample size to base a national economic policy on.

How much do you know about the history of organized labor in this country?
You like to change your arguments a lot.

You started off saying the only people who benefit from lower taxes are those who buy stocks. Then you said people who have enough money to start a business do as well. Then you acknowledged the business creates jobs, but that based on your observations these jobs are worthless. Now it's no longer based on your observations, but based on the history of labor.

Please enlighten me how the history of labor shows that entrepreneurs creating jobs by building businesses is not a good thing.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:

Please enlighten me how the history of labor shows that entrepreneurs creating jobs by building businesses is not a good thing.

I didn't say it was a good or bad thing. You're the one implying, or outright saying, that it's an automatic good.

A lot of labor activists have been outright murdered during the struggle for basic rights like minimum wage, overtime pay, safe working conditions, etc.. Would you agree that fact doesn't support the conclusion that entrepreneurs are somehow universally/infinitely beneficial to society?

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is it said that the entrepreneur 'built the business'? He or she hardly did it alone, after all-and if they can be said to 'create jobs', can't their employees be said to have built their business, to an extent?

Anyway, I'd like if I can to pin you down on something: do you think trickle down economics is a good policy, and if so what *precisely* do you mean by the term? Because right now you've pivoted the discussion to 'why is creating jobs bad?' Which was never what anyone but you was talking about. It started by being about what helped the little guy, remember? In which case 'creates jobs' isn't enough. Wal-Mart creates jobs.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
WalMart helps Society.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
"Why is it said that the entrepreneur 'built the business'? He or she hardly did it alone, after all-and if they can be said to 'create jobs', can't their employees be said to have built their business, to an extent?"

Yes. That's why they get paid.

"Anyway, I'd like if I can to pin you down on something: do you think trickle down economics is a good policy, and if so what *precisely* do you mean by the term?"

Explain to me what you mean by trickle down economics and I'll tell you if I think it's a good policy.

"Because right now you've pivoted the discussion to 'why is creating jobs bad?' Which was never what anyone but you was talking about."

Why don't you reread the posts at 10:06 and 10:14 ET and tell me again who brought up creating jobs possibly being bad. I only said that starting businesses creates jobs, which helps the little guy, and as you pointed out is what we were originally talking about.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
GaalDornick, Rakeesh, you two are, in my personal opinion, very clever.

We need more jobs, lol.

Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
"Why is it said that the entrepreneur 'built the business'? He or she hardly did it alone, after all-and if they can be said to 'create jobs', can't their employees be said to have built their business, to an extent?"

Yes. That's why they get paid.

"Anyway, I'd like if I can to pin you down on something: do you think trickle down economics is a good policy, and if so what *precisely* do you mean by the term?"

Explain to me what you mean by trickle down economics and I'll tell you if I think it's a good policy.

"Because right now you've pivoted the discussion to 'why is creating jobs bad?' Which was never what anyone but you was talking about."

Why don't you reread the posts at 10:06 and 10:14 ET and tell me again who brought up creating jobs possibly being bad. I only said that starting businesses creates jobs, which helps the little guy, and as you pointed out is what we were originally talking about.

The guy who creates the business gets paid too, he just pays himself. I guess the argument would be that he's the one who took the risk, therefore he gets the most reward, but the vast majority of people don't have the resources to take the risk even if they wanted to, which I think is where the argument begins to collapse a bit.

Job creation isn't a benevolent enterprise.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
At this point, Gaal, I can't decide whether you're just being purposefully coy or you don't realize how few questions you're actually responding to. I'm about done trying to find out, since now you're insisting other people define the term you were defending in the first place!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post 
I really don't know what you're talking about. I've responded to every question you've asked me. I never defended the term, I said it was a misleading one that is used almost like a straw man argument. You insisted on using it again, so I'm asking you to clarify what it means before I can tell you if I agree with it. If you are referring to a policy where the wealthy become wealthier in hopes that it trickles down to the middle and lower class to help them as well, then no, I don't think it's a good policy at all. But I think it would be very difficult for you to find anyone that thinks that it is because it's essentially a straw man argument. Which was exactly my point in the first post I made in this thread.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
To those of us who grew up during the Reagan administration, that's pretty much EXACTLY what Republican economic policy means. It was called, literally, Reaganomics. Take a look at the wiki if you want.

So there's not much that's straw about that man. Not to anybody over 35 or so. Reagan was a staunch believer in reducing the capital gains tax. It's 15% now, pretty much entirely as a result of his beliefs.

Reagan also hated government regulation. Big surprise, right? I don't know his actual opinion on labor laws specifically, but I'd bet he wasn't a big fan of worker protections in a general sense.

Here's a typical quote from Reagan:

"The nine most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'".

He was nothing if not an ideologue.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Taken individually, those nine words are not only benign, but actually pretty crucial to survival as a modern society.

I think what he meant was "the most frightening sentence in the English language is..."

Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

Gaal, during this recession lower taxes have not led to higher job growth, instead corporations have decided to use savings to increase productivity by either making the remaining workers work harder (because afterall there's thousands of more workers willing to take their spot, in ALL fields) or by investing in new technologies that allow them to layoff more workers and make their portfolio better (and still leverage their workers to work harder because there's still thousands willing to take their place).

quote:

How many entrepreneurs have you observed?

****


The point is the several you know don't make it the norm. How do you know the several entrepreneurs you know aren't the exception, with the rest of entrepreneurs that don't mistreat their employees being the rule? Several entrepreneurs that mistreat their employees isn't really a sample size to base a national economic policy on.

Steven called you out on this perfectly well, you DON'T know the history of organized labour, nor the statistics that actually do paint an accurate picture of Corporate abuse of labour. Walmart in particular redefines Corporate malice.

The fact is, there is oodles of evidence, that you could easily find by google or looking up relevant academic scholarship to prove this.

quote:

How about the guy that does have enough money to start his own business then needs to hire employees to work in his business? You know, like create jobs.

From higher taxes "we" could afford to give everyone universal healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income and begin a massive unprecedented public works campaign to rebuild the United States coast to coast and have high speed rail that could bring someone from rural America to work in any major city and back again within the day like China has, and taxes wouldn't have to be much higher to boot. As economics of scale would kick in and lead to massive economic growth that would last a whole decade and the fruits of which would last at least three generations.

quote:

What I was really objecting to is being so condescending towards an economic policy that is supported by some politicians. Disagreeing that is effective or does what they claim it does is one thing, but I object to facetiously calling their reasoning behind why it works "magic".

How about deluded useful idiots (Ta Party) at best to actively evil (Koch) at worse? [Wink]

Also "that some politicians support"? Some politicians support vaginal ultrasounds and denying the vote to black and people without property, why does that make the argument justified or worthy of not being denigrated as the bat guano it is?

At least you didn't try to claim "there is scientific evidence for" as that would be a lie; as it turned out the ONE academic paper supporting lower taxes during a session turned out to have been fudging the numbers.

You should check out Paul Krugan, he's one of the more easily approachable economists in terms of his work out there. And look up Keynesian economics as well, basically we want higher taxes and government investment to restore economic growth because there's a lack of demand.

And lower taxes and all the bail out money in the world doesn't get a company to start hiring if there's no one with money to buy their products.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
Random nit-pick: Texas does have very high property tax, but we also have no state income tax. We have high sales tax, but none on food. I'm pretty poor so I wouldn't pay income tax anyway, and the property tax affects (almost) everyone, so I lost out when I moved here. But all in all, I think it's a fairer way to tax.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
It's really fascinating to see someone so wholeheartedlyand unabashedly embracing evil and failure. It's kind of surreal.

I'll give you this, Blayne: at least you're straightforward about it. That's kind of refreshing, even if what you're advocating is horrific.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan Frank--I don't see Blayne in this thread so I am not sure who you are condoning. I would guess Salazaar. Why are they considered actually Evil?
To just say an economic policy is "evil" is name-calling, which is not a useful argument.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Salazar is Blayne is Salazar.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah please don't my real name, and its Salazar dangit.

Dan Frank is I believe to be of the American Libertarian mainstream, up to and about but not quite "taxation to be used to give benefits to people I don't believe deserve it is theft" school of thought.

So anything slightly left of Anarcho-Capitalism is kinda like "palling around with socialists".

The sad thing is what I've talked about what the US should embrace has been the mainstream (and has worked) of American and European politics for all of the 20th century until Reagan and Thatcher showed up. And completely antithetical to Marxists as Marxists tend to believe anything that doesn't lead to the violent overthrow of the capitalists isn't Marxist but class traitors.

The gov't and inherently a part of the market, it has an effect on things there's no "invisible hand" Adam Smith laughed at the idea that there could be one. Taxation exists in modern times as a deflationary measure to destroy excess currency, because Federal and most national spending comes from the printing press and taxation scoops it back up once its in circulation. Money doesn't really exist anymore in the sense it used to, its neither wealth nor prosperity.

So you raise taxes to combat inflation when your printing or borrowing a lot of money to pay for infrastructure spending and jobs programs to combat recession caused by the reckless actions of the American investor class through the Reagan to Clinton years of deregulation.

Once the economy is growing steadily again then you can lower taxes taxes and work off the government debt until the next recession (which should be actively fought and forced to occur "earlier" before the damage is systemic).

People in a fairly "Hayekian" way of thinking know how to spend money and corporations are best healthy when its the people buying their products and services; but how can people buy things when they have no job to give them income? Without surplus growth there's no societal growth. So people straddled with debt, straddled with bad mortages, straddled with unemployment or impossibly high medical bills cannot help the economy grow.

Instead they add as lag, they stagnant the country in the same way within 50 years the environmental degradation of China plus demographics from the One Child Policy might also serve to slow Chinese economic growth through the 'health' deficit. An unhealthy populace is a populace that can't work, that can't produce, that can only serve to balloon costs.

Has a country of mostly poor people ever really been a great power? Only at certain impossibly high costs; Russia and China spring to mind. Large militaries and aggressive foreign policy and heavy state control to make up for the lack of a middle class. The American middle class is shrinking as a result of deregulation and anarcho-capitalist control at their expense.

So the people need jobs, they need income, they need access to education and healthcare; when they have it they are smarter, more educated, more informed, more productive, healthier and better able to contribute to society and society's GDP increases significantly over time.

"Reaganomic" policies all fundamentally claim the same thing, lower taxes and less regulation or "government intervention" will lead to more jobs and a higher standard of living through the rich having more money and thus creating more jobs.

But this isn't true, not historically, not scientifically. During a time of fundamentally lower regulations or taxation burden than ever in US history job growth has relative to the US economic size has not been at all close enough in growth rate to sustain the number of people entering the workforce; there's millions of unemployed with massive student debt, to the point that hundreds are just saying "eff it to hell" and leaving to work in other countries and writing off their debt.

Yet all the times for many countries when economic growth was higher? A healthy amount of government intervention and direction and regulation. The US's historically high growth rates through the 19th century in particular are a result of having massive amounts of unexploited land and high immigration but the highest ever recorded growth rate? WWII and centralized government direction and control.

A war is morally unacceptable and likely there isn't anyone "powerful" enough the US could take on to respark its economy on a WWII scale; on the other hand America's backbone is so fragile, old and decrepid that it would take millions of people and trillions of dollars to fix in a meaningful way; that's the ticket.


Fight the war to restore American infrastructure, and surpass anything anyone anywhere else in the world could do. China's building highspeed rail to link some of its largest cities, why can't America do that for ALL of its cities and then some?

Because of cry baby Tea Partyer's, the Koch brothers and the rest of American corporate class and their useful idiots.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not a libertarian. And Hayek was a bit of a hack who capitulated way too much to socialism. Try Mises maybe. Have you read Human Action?

Though I'm not too interested in having a protracted conversation with someone as deeply dug into a terrible ideology as you. I just felt like clarifying those points.

Also kind of amused that I get called out for calling Blayne's policies evil, but nobody objected to him calling me evil plus a useful idiot. Whatever. I don't want him censored: he thinks I'm evil and a useful idiot for liking the Kochs and the Tea Party folks, that's fine. He should say so. I think he's evil and an incredibly destructive idiot for advocating Krugman and Keynes, so I said so.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah please don't my real name, and its Salazar dangit.

Dan Frank is I believe to be of the American Libertarian mainstream, up to and about but not quite "taxation to be used to give benefits to people I don't believe deserve it is theft" school of thought.

So anything slightly left of Anarcho-Capitalism is kinda like "palling around with socialists".

The sad thing is what I've talked about what the US should embrace has been the mainstream (and has worked) of American and European politics for all of the 20th century until Reagan and Thatcher showed up. And completely antithetical to Marxists as Marxists tend to believe anything that doesn't lead to the violent overthrow of the capitalists isn't Marxist but class traitors.

The gov't and inherently a part of the market, it has an effect on things there's no "invisible hand" Adam Smith laughed at the idea that there could be one. Taxation exists in modern times as a deflationary measure to destroy excess currency, because Federal and most national spending comes from the printing press and taxation scoops it back up once its in circulation. Money doesn't really exist anymore in the sense it used to, its neither wealth nor prosperity.

So you raise taxes to combat inflation when your printing or borrowing a lot of money to pay for infrastructure spending and jobs programs to combat recession caused by the reckless actions of the American investor class through the Reagan to Clinton years of deregulation.

Once the economy is growing steadily again then you can lower taxes taxes and work off the government debt until the next recession (which should be actively fought and forced to occur "earlier" before the damage is systemic).

People in a fairly "Hayekian" way of thinking know how to spend money and corporations are best healthy when its the people buying their products and services; but how can people buy things when they have no job to give them income? Without surplus growth there's no societal growth. So people straddled with debt, straddled with bad mortages, straddled with unemployment or impossibly high medical bills cannot help the economy grow.

Instead they add as lag, they stagnant the country in the same way within 50 years the environmental degradation of China plus demographics from the One Child Policy might also serve to slow Chinese economic growth through the 'health' deficit. An unhealthy populace is a populace that can't work, that can't produce, that can only serve to balloon costs.

Has a country of mostly poor people ever really been a great power? Only at certain impossibly high costs; Russia and China spring to mind. Large militaries and aggressive foreign policy and heavy state control to make up for the lack of a middle class. The American middle class is shrinking as a result of deregulation and anarcho-capitalist control at their expense.

So the people need jobs, they need income, they need access to education and healthcare; when they have it they are smarter, more educated, more informed, more productive, healthier and better able to contribute to society and society's GDP increases significantly over time.

"Reaganomic" policies all fundamentally claim the same thing, lower taxes and less regulation or "government intervention" will lead to more jobs and a higher standard of living through the rich having more money and thus creating more jobs.

But this isn't true, not historically, not scientifically. During a time of fundamentally lower regulations or taxation burden than ever in US history job growth has relative to the US economic size has not been at all close enough in growth rate to sustain the number of people entering the workforce; there's millions of unemployed with massive student debt, to the point that hundreds are just saying "eff it to hell" and leaving to work in other countries and writing off their debt.

Yet all the times for many countries when economic growth was higher? A healthy amount of government intervention and direction and regulation. The US's historically high growth rates through the 19th century in particular are a result of having massive amounts of unexploited land and high immigration but the highest ever recorded growth rate? WWII and centralized government direction and control.

A war is morally unacceptable and likely there isn't anyone "powerful" enough the US could take on to respark its economy on a WWII scale; on the other hand America's backbone is so fragile, old and decrepid that it would take millions of people and trillions of dollars to fix in a meaningful way; that's the ticket.


Fight the war to restore American infrastructure, and surpass anything anyone anywhere else in the world could do. China's building highspeed rail to link some of its largest cities, why can't America do that for ALL of its cities and then some?

Because of cry baby Tea Partyer's, the Koch brothers and the rest of American corporate class and their useful idiots.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2