The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: wavespank on September 04, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
-
Do you thing a three month (one quarter) suspension of federal taxes would be an effective kick start to the economy? It isn't a bailout as people would just be keeping more of what they earn.
-
I think they were also talking about including all federal taxes, including SS. It might put more money into the system, but I still think extending all of the Bush tax cuts would do more. However, I think they are wanting something that people would see right away, but if they don't extend the tax cuts, then people will be worse of starting January 1.
-
I don't think it would be effect at all. Why only three months? After the three months is up, would it give the government a reason to raise taxes to make up for three months of no taxes? If we kept more of what we earned, wouldn't we owe more at the end of the year?
-
The idea would be that three months of income are tax exempt.
-
The idea would be that three months of income are tax exempt.
Never happen, they can not allow the masses to see how much is actually withheld.
As a thought experiment it would put more money into the system, but it would not solve the underlying problem of poor confidence that is a direct result of not knowing what the **** the government is going to do next.
-
The idea would be that three months of income are tax exempt.
No, business need to know what the future is as far as expenses (taxes, healthcare, etc) before they feel comfortable investing money in new hires and equipment. Keep the Bush tax cuts. Obama won't do it though.
-
Extending the Bush tax cuts is the answer. This gimmick of tax free for a certain length of time is just a band aid approach just like the credit for clunkers and credits for home owners. After they expire, then what. Auto sales and home sales tank afterwards. Business will not put on more employees with this 3 month tax free plan.
-
Do you thing a three month (one quarter) suspension of federal taxes would be an effective kick start to the economy? It isn't a bailout as people would just be keeping more of what they earn.
It would certainly put a little extra money in the pockets of people and corporations to spend, but at most it would be a minimal short term stimulus.
3 months is just 3 months. Look what happened to the housing market when the tax credits expired. Sales for both new and existing homes were worse in July and August than at any time since the late seventies/early eighties when you couldn't get a mortgage with even AAA credit at anything below 12%, and that is IF you could find a lender.
Short term fixes aren't the answer. We need a permanent flat tax of somewhere between 15-18%, 20% max on all incomes, personal, and corporate.
Of course we also need a constitutional Amendment preventing the Fed's from thinking up any new taxes on top of it.
-
Never happen, because it's "racist", "only for the rich", etc. The Cheeto-munching, bong-toking, do-nothing denizens of the DUmp would claim it "unfair" because as they do not have any jobs, they would see no benefits.
BTW--I know how much is taken out of my check. I actually had to demonstrate that to a liberal friend of mine when he thought he was "only" paying 12 percent of his income in taxes. Oh, he wasn't happy when I was done with him.
-
Never happen, because it's "racist", "only for the rich", etc. The Cheeto-munching, bong-toking, do-nothing denizens of the DUmp would claim it "unfair" because as they do not have any jobs, they would see no benefits.
BTW--I know how much is taken out of my check. I actually had to demonstrate that to a liberal friend of mine when he thought he was "only" paying 12 percent of his income in taxes. Oh, he wasn't happy when I was done with him.
I hope you added fuel taxes, phone taxes, alcohol taxes, energy taxes, disposal fees, cable/internet taxes, health care taxes, all the taxes built into the price of everything we purchase...........
-
I don't think it'd work for several reasons (Only one of which is that it would change the perception of the bond markets from 'Lackluster recovery' to 'The Fed is desperate, this must be much worse than we thought, there is nothing backing the bonds we're holding, Holy Shit!!'). I also don't think there is any real chance of it actually happening.
-
I think we have dug ourselves such a big hole that the only solution is a period of higher taxation like in the 1950s decreased social spending and increased infrastructure investment that will be used by business. The social spending can be offset by government jobs for those willing to work on infrastructure projects that are frankly an issue of national security due to our reliance on foreign oil.
This includes some alternative energy, rail, and Nuclear power with a permanent storage facility and the state that holds it compensated by the other states for the risk of having the facility.
I also think that we need to have an honest and open discussion on the immigration issue and whether during a period of economic crisis it is wise to have an open border or to be issuing H1-B1 visas and education visas at the rate that we are. I think it is important we take care of our own first than help the rest of the world.
A period of sacrifice for 5-10 years by all Americans to ensure the survival of the next generation.
-
Giving the most direct relief to the working families for a few months while going into Christmas would be a great short term boost for those families, help the retail sector move some products, lower the costs of feeding families and help drop transportation costs for tons of folks.
It is not a solution. I'd view it as a "stimulus" (bad word these days) that keep the government out of the middle and helps folks see as close to 100% of what they earn for a short time. When the public sees what good they can do with the tax money compared to what Gov has traditionally done, it will awaken the people on all sides of the political debate and open their eyes to the truths that are are hidden from them.
-
I think we have dug ourselves such a big hole that the only solution is a period of higher taxation like in the 1950s decreased social spending and increased infrastructure investment that will be used by business. The social spending can be offset by government jobs for those willing to work on infrastructure projects that are frankly an issue of national security due to our reliance on foreign oil.
This includes some alternative energy, rail, and Nuclear power with a permanent storage facility and the state that holds it compensated by the other states for the risk of having the facility.
I also think that we need to have an honest and open discussion on the immigration issue and whether during a period of economic crisis it is wise to have an open border or to be issuing H1-B1 visas and education visas at the rate that we are. I think it is important we take care of our own first than help the rest of the world.
A period of sacrifice for 5-10 years by all Americans to ensure the survival of the next generation.
Oh, yeah. Higher taxes is what we need is crock of crap. DU is thataway. What we need is to take a hatchet to spending.
The stimulus has worked so well let's do more is idiotic also. Government spending to create jobs at a cost of almost $200k per job is going to bankrupt us. Lower taxes with less regulations will create certainty for small business to hire employees not some lame brain federal spending boondoggle.
-
Inventory recession solution that takes consumer debt off their books onto the government or just created government debt. Keynsian nonsense in my opinion.
-
Debt. You are arguing over either side of the keynsian equation using a different stimulus method. Tax rate in the 50s was high to pay for ww2.
-
Debt. You are arguing over either side of the keynsian equation using a different stimulus method. Tax rate in the 50s was high to pay for ww2.
You are the one spouting a lot of nonsense about raising taxes. No country in the world has spent it's way into prosperity. So, higher taxes and more stimulus is not the answer. Obama has tried 800 billion dollars worth of stimulus and it has failed miserably.
-
I think I'm advocating austerity and sacrifice to hand the next generation a clear and reasonable balance sheet.
-
I think I'm advocating austerity and sacrifice to hand the next generation a clear and reasonable balance sheet.
Higher taxes and more government spending does not equal austerity. That is what you have advocated in previous posts. Lower taxes, reduced spending and less regulations is the ticket to a better balance sheet and economic growth.
-
You cut spending in some sectors and you increase spendin in others, net cuts. I assume every business in the country adjust. We aren't paying down our debt with tax
cuts.
-
Do you thing a three month (one quarter) suspension of federal taxes would be an effective kick start to the economy? It isn't a bailout as people would just be keeping more of what they earn.
Lower taxes = good.
Higher taxes = bad.
Even if Obama is lowering taxes, I'm all in favor of it. But why stop at 3 months?
The payroll tax is a huge job-killer. FICA, FUTA, SUTA, MC. It penalizes employers
for hiring people. Liberal Dems started that idiocy. But the GOP has helped perpetuate it.
It is really stupid to penalize employers for hiring people, especially if there aren't enough jobs.
-
Lower taxes = good.
Higher taxes = bad.
Even if Obama is lowering taxes, I'm all in favor of it. But why stop at 3 months?
The payroll tax is a huge job-killer. FICA, FUTA, SUTA, MC. It penalizes employers
for hiring people. Liberal Dems started that idiocy. But the GOP has helped perpetuate it.
It is really stupid to penalize employers for hiring people, especially if there aren't enough jobs.
Why stop there, I'm perfectly happy with abolishing the income tax all together and going back to funding federal operations with imports.
Why punish good behavior and reward bad behavior.
-
You cut spending in some sectors and you increase spendin in others, net cuts. I assume every business in the country adjust. We aren't paying down our debt with tax
cuts.
We will not be paying down our debt with higher taxes. Politicians just spend more and create more government employees. Government employee jobs need to be cut along with their fat salaries. Business has adjusted. They will not hire with Obama's socialistic plan for higher taxes, cap and trade, new regulations and a great deal of uncertainty. The burden of government debt lies squarely on government. Where you get the idea that it rests with business is beyond comprehension.
-
We will not be paying down our debt with higher taxes. Politicians just spend more and create more government employees. Government employee jobs need to be cut along with their fat salaries. Business has adjusted. They will not hire with Obama's socialistic plan for higher taxes, cap and trade, new regulations and a great deal of uncertainty. The burden of government debt lies squarely on government. Where you get the idea that it rests with business is beyond comprehension.
Want me to pull up business contracts with the government. I can start with GE.
-
Want me to pull up business contracts with the government. I can start with GE.
You'd also have to prove that the business GE does with the government could be done more cheaply some other way.
-
Our excessive tax on business is the exact reason so many build and invest overseas. We'd have more jobs and more revenue with a lower tax rate.
-
You'd also have to prove that the business GE does with the government could be done more cheaply some other way.
You sure pick a crooked company like GE that is under investigation in NY and has been fined by the SEC for $50 million and then there is the 3 ex GE bankers indicted for bid rigging. Yep, when you have crooks and cheats, you can do things more cheaply I would assume.
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong--I could be wrong--but all I heard floated was a proposal for a "tax holiday"--meaning we don't pay for 3 months, and have to pay that much more when we file by April 15, 2011. Big deal.
We all know Obama and any Dem is constitutionally--ha!--incapable of pushing for genuine tax cuts, even temporary ones--ie, a 3-month tax "holiday" in which the taxes are really eliminated.
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong--I could be wrong--but all I heard floated was a proposal for a "tax holiday"--meaning we don't pay for 3 months, and have to pay that much more when we file by April 15, 2011. Big deal.
We all know Obama and any Dem is constitutionally--ha!--incapable of pushing for genuine tax cuts, even temporary ones--ie, a 3-month tax "holiday" in which the taxes are really eliminated.
Like the much-touted tax break for first-time home buyers...that requires annual payments on your 1040?
-
You'd also have to prove that the business GE does with the government could be done more cheaply some other way.
GE has settled quite a few fraud cases with the government. Lets stop pretending either group is more honest than the other.
-
Our excessive tax on business is the exact reason so many build and invest overseas. We'd have more jobs and more revenue with a lower tax rate.
Is that why so many jobs have been outsourced since the tax rates have been reduced, starting in 1981?
-
Is that why so many jobs have been outsourced since the tax rates have been reduced, starting in 1981?
Regulations mixed with a government unable to have a moral equivalency in trade policy.
You should tariff the hell out of any dictatorship. Whether it is communist, fascist, or a kingdom. We have some greedy people in the US who would love a dictatorship here.
-
Regulations mixed with a government unable to have a moral equivalency in trade policy.
You should tariff the hell out of any dictatorship. Whether it is communist, fascist, or a kingdom. We have some greedy people in the US who would love a dictatorship here.
Very true.
-
Is that why so many jobs have been outsourced since the tax rates have been reduced, starting in 1981?
This is typical Liberal Democrat ideology. No jobs were ever outsourced until Reagan came into office - right?
That is just stupid. You must be from HCPP.
US taxes are oppressive. Why? They're oppressive because of the nanny-state that began with Liberal Democrats & FDR.
-
This is typical Liberal Democrat ideology. No jobs were ever outsourced until Reagan came into office - right?
That is just stupid. You must be from HCPP.
US taxes are oppressive. Why? They're oppressive because of the nanny-state that began with Liberal Democrats & FDR.
No need to get hostile.
-
You are the one spouting a lot of nonsense about raising taxes. No country in the world has spent it's way into prosperity. So, higher taxes and more stimulus is not the answer. Obama has tried 800 billion dollars worth of stimulus and it has failed miserably.
Every country has spent its way into prosperity. The rise of the nation state and construction of a public infrastructure is the foundation for the expansion and success of modern economies everywhere. I can't see that this is even controversial. There could be no Capitalism without the nation state and the associated robust public infrastructure. The countries and regions that did not build public infrastructure, such as Spain, spoiled by easy colonial riches, remained economically backward. The modern nation state exits for the purpose of building and maintaining infrastructure, and the infrastructure exists for the purpose of supporting commerce.
No schools, no roads and public transportation, no communications infrastructure, no military to protect trade, no health boards, no weights and measures, no public research, no inspection and regulation of trade, no protection of natural resources - that all equals no Capitalism and no economic prosperity. As I said, I can't see how there can be any controversy about that, as it is simply historical fact. No intelligent observers deny that, regardless of their political ideas or loyalties.
I agree that the Obama plan failed miserably.
-
Every country has spent its way into prosperity. The rise of the nation state and construction of a public infrastructure is the foundation for the expansion and success of modern economies everywhere. I can't see that this is even controversial. There could be no Capitalism without the nation state and the associated robust public infrastructure. The countries and regions that did not build public infrastructure, such as Spain, spoiled by easy colonial riches, remained economically backward. The modern nation state exits for the purpose of building and maintaining infrastructure, and the infrastructure exists for the purpose of supporting commerce.
No schools, no roads and public transportation, no communications infrastructure, no military to protect trade, no health boards, no weights and measures, no public research, no inspection and regulation of trade, no protection of natural resources - that all equals no Capitalism and no economic prosperity. As I said, I can't see how there can be any controversy about that, as it is simply historical fact. No intelligent observers deny that, regardless of their political ideas or loyalties.
I agree that the Obama plan failed miserably.
When you spend more than you take in, the day of reckoning comes knocking on your door. Going into enormous debt is a FAKE PROSPERITY. You see it with bankruptcies and home foreclosures. You see it with failed banks. You see it with failed auto companies, etc. etc. etc., and most of it did not have a damn thing to do with Obama getting those entities in that shape.
-
Every country has spent its way into prosperity. The rise of the nation state and construction of a public infrastructure is the foundation for the expansion and success of modern economies everywhere. I can't see that this is even controversial. There could be no Capitalism without the nation state and the associated robust public infrastructure. The countries and regions that did not build public infrastructure, such as Spain, spoiled by easy colonial riches, remained economically backward. The modern nation state exits for the purpose of building and maintaining infrastructure, and the infrastructure exists for the purpose of supporting commerce.
It wouldn't be controversial if the President would stand back and let the free enterprise system and free market ideals that have made us so great do their job.
But he can't and he won't because he beleives them to be inhearently unfair and are things he doesn't believe in.
So he's going to try and send Big GovernmentTM to the rescuse because like other Socialists in the Democrat party he believs tha ONLY the Government can fix the economy.
No schools, no roads and public transportation, no communications infrastructure, no military to protect trade, no health boards, no weights and measures, no public research, no inspection and regulation of trade, no protection of natural resources - that all equals no Capitalism and no economic prosperity. As I said, I can't see how there can be any controversy about that, as it is simply historical fact. No intelligent observers deny that, regardless of their political ideas or loyalties.
Where the divide comes...and what you Libs can't seem to comprehend is when it comes to who is supposed to do what. And given a couple of your above comments (military being used to protect trade0 you're confused yourself.
The Federal governments powers are very limited...for a reason. Taxes...national defense...and a handful of others are the ONLY things they are supposed to do.
Everything else was purposely put into the hands of the individual states.
You are trying to tell us...and failing miserably I might add...that we OWE our prosperity to the Federal government and that just isn't the case. We are prosperous as a nation DESPITE the meddling of the Federal Government.
But you Womb to Tomb Liberal/Socialists can't fathom that idea. It's foreign to you.
I agree that the Obama plan failed miserably.
[/quote]
-
We have some greedy people in the US who would love a dictatorship here.
They're called liberals and they want to dictate every facet of everyone's life from prenatal care (assuming you pass the socio-economic prerequisites to be born) to schooling, to job training, to caloric, sodium and trans-fatty acid intakes, to what sort of light bulbs you have in your house, the car you drive and what kind of end-of-life/end-your-life care you receive.
And along they way their regulatory schemes punish anyone not savvy enough to come running to their office with piles of money.
-
Do you thing a three month (one quarter) suspension of federal taxes would be an effective kick start to the economy? It isn't a bailout as people would just be keeping more of what they earn.
Not really because it may cause a blip in consumer spending but that blip won't be enough to re-gas the productivity side of the economy. It'll clear out languishing surplus inventories and that's about it but it won't reach back into the manufacturing side.
Companies need a reason to hire.
-
Is that why so many jobs have been outsourced since the tax rates have been reduced, starting in 1981?
No more like the out of control growth of demands by labor unions and over regulation and taxiation anytime an anti-business Dem gets elected has forced companies to send their employees overseas just to survive.
ALl you have to do is look at what labor unions have done to the auto industry to understand why it's cheaper to outsource.
Or better yet...take a look at Hollywood. There's a reason they use Toronto as a substitute for NYC these days.
-
Every country has spent its way into prosperity. The rise of the nation state and construction of a public infrastructure is the foundation for the expansion and success of modern economies everywhere. I can't see that this is even controversial. There could be no Capitalism without the nation state and the associated robust public infrastructure.
The early creation of infrastructure that you're talking about was nearly all accomplished by private industry in the United States. It's more than a bit silly to concentrate on infrastructure buildout NOW as a primary reason for economic success, but even in your example, the success is all PRIVATELY achieved--NOT achieved by the government in question.
No one disagrees that the stable nation-state is a sine qua non for political stability and, following from that, the stability and public safety that fosters and allows PRIVATE industry, the exchange of goods and currency by private citizens with no other government intervention except the wonderfully spurring action of taxation.
You might as well say that all of human civilization is a consequent of earth having an atmosphere as part of the reason there's life at all on earth. Necessary but not even remotely sufficient--or proximate to the actual result.
NO nation has ever spent itself into prosperity.
-
The early creation of infrastructure that you're talking about was nearly all accomplished by private industry in the United States. It's more than a bit silly to concentrate on infrastructure buildout NOW as a primary reason for economic success, but even in your example, the success is all PRIVATELY achieved--NOT achieved by the government in question.
No one disagrees that the stable nation-state is a sine qua non for political stability and, following from that, the stability and public safety that fosters and allows PRIVATE industry, the exchange of goods and currency by private citizens with no other government intervention except the wonderfully spurring action of taxation.
You might as well say that all of human civilization is a consequent of earth having an atmosphere as part of the reason there's life at all on earth. Necessary but not even remotely sufficient--or proximate to the actual result.
NO nation has ever spent itself into prosperity.
Rome, Great Britain, and the US
Infrastructure that facilitates trade and spending on forces to protect said trade routes.
That is how we and the other two spent our way into prosperity.
-
GE has settled quite a few fraud cases with the government. Lets stop pretending either group is more honest than the other.
No pretending...if you want to point at private businesses and suggest the government could spend less money doing the job a different way, you have to show HOW they could get it done for less.
Personally, being in a business that has heavy government regulation, I've seen firsthand that the government not only wastes the taxpayer money it takes in, it also wastes the money of businesses by writing and enforcing regulations that do very little, if any, good.
-
Is that why so many jobs have been outsourced since the tax rates have been reduced, starting in 1981?
Taxes in other countries are less. Why would they invest in a country that costs them both higher taxes and higher wages? Conversely, since we all know that businesses merely pass on the majority of their tax costs to consumers, so we pay it all in the end anyway, we d be better off with far lower corporate tax rates and more people working.
-
No pretending...if you want to point at private businesses and suggest the government could spend less money doing the job a different way, you have to show HOW they could get it done for less.
Personally, being in a business that has heavy government regulation, I've seen firsthand that the government not only wastes the taxpayer money it takes in, it also wastes the money of businesses by writing and enforcing regulations that do very little, if any, good.
Being an auditor for two large corporations I've seen some entities foolishly spend money as well, mostly on executive perks while the company was facing major problems, caused by said executives.
I'm not happy with either oligarchy going around right now.
We have a major cultural problem right now with entitlement and waste and being a penny wise and a pound foolish.
I will agree many government regulations can be absolutely foolish at times. I for one hate HIPAA.
-
Rome, Great Britain, and the US
Infrastructure that facilitates trade and spending on forces to protect said trade routes.
That is how we and the other two spent our way into prosperity.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif)
Infrastructure? :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif)
Infrastructure? :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Did I say we are doing it. Pull that chart up from 1958 when Ike was in the White House.
:tongue:
-
Being an auditor for two large corporations I've seen some entities foolishly spend money as well, mostly on executive perks while the company was facing major problems, caused by said executives.
I'm not happy with either oligarchy going around right now.
We have a major cultural problem right now with entitlement and waste and being a penny wise and a pound foolish.
I will agree many government regulations can be absolutely foolish at times. I for one hate HIPAA.
Corporations aren't perfect, they're just more efficient than government. Corporations answer to their owners. Government IS "the owner."
I work in an area where changing government regulations have forced us to spend an additional $2000 every month for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Our income is also severely limited by regulation. If regulations were written with the intent to allow businesses to make a reasonable profit or margin, say maybe 6 - 8 %, while enforcing "best practices," this would be fine. However, by the time all the different agencies write their regulations, businesses are left trying to - like healthcare - pay their bills with income that covers 67% of the costs of doing business. Arguing for even more taxes, regulation, and oversight...as liberals do...will cause the inevitable result of complete failure.
-
Did I say we are doing it. Pull that chart up from 1958 when Ike was in the White House.
:tongue:
Out of time...work calls. :(
-
Corporations aren't perfect, they're just more efficient than government. Corporations answer to their owners. Government IS "the owner."
I work in an area where changing government regulations have forced us to spend an additional $2000 every month for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Our income is also severely limited by regulation. If regulations were written with the intent to allow businesses to make a reasonable profit or margin, say maybe 6 - 8 %, while enforcing "best practices," this would be fine. However, by the time all the different agencies write their regulations, businesses are left trying to - like healthcare - pay their bills with income that covers 67% of the costs of doing business. Arguing for even more taxes, regulation, and oversight...as liberals do...will cause the inevitable result of complete failure.
I like regulations that prohibit practices. I don't like regulations that dictate how something is done. If something is determined to be too dangerous simply ban it, don't look for a way to make it safe.
For instance I like regulations that ban certain things being used in building materials. I don't like regulations that determine how something has to be manufactured.
-
Being an auditor for two large corporations I've seen some entities foolishly spend money as well, mostly on executive perks while the company was facing major problems, caused by said executives.
But unlike the government they do not extract their revenues from people courts and cops.
-
But unlike the government they do not extract their revenues from people courts and cops.
No they send lobbyist to DC to ask DC to do that for them.
-
Rome, Great Britain, and the US
Infrastructure that facilitates trade and spending on forces to protect said trade routes.
That is how we and the other two spent our way into prosperity.
And it was done quite a long time ago, by, as I pointed out, by private industry and not by government entities--not in modern times, in any case, or not successfully in modern times. Are you familiar, for example, with the history of the first American transcontinental railroads? Which, I might add, are completely irrelevant now?
Of course infrastructure facilitates trade--and it's private industry that is responsible for infrastructure buildout in the most prosperous modern nations. That includes roads.
But once the bridges, tunnels, railroads, and canals are built--again, by PRIVATE INDUSTRY, not by governments--that's it. They add no more to economic growth beyond that facilitation. You can't just keep building bridges, tunnels, high-speed rails, and the lot and expect to have a vibrant economy. Bridges to where? Bridges to nowhere? How many bridges are needed to ford a river for any given economic region?
This argument is a sideshow. As I said, no one disputes that you need a stable political situation for private industry to do well. But that's all. Spending directly by done by government, throwing money at banks and businesses, especially when done by the most central government of any nation, is Keynesian crap and it fails miserably, and that's the spending we're talking about. The money needs to simply be left in those businesses hands to start with and THEN we will have prosperity.
-
And it was done quite a long time ago, by, as I pointed out, by private industry and not by government entities--not in modern times, in any case, or not successfully in modern times. Are you familiar, for example, with the history of the first American transcontinental railroads? Which, I might add, are completely irrelevant now?
Of course infrastructure facilitates trade--and it's private industry that is responsible for infrastructure buildout in the most prosperous modern nations. That includes roads.
But once the bridges, tunnels, railroads, and canals are built--again, by PRIVATE INDUSTRY, not by governments--that's it. They add no more to economic growth beyond that facilitation. You can't just keep building bridges, tunnels, high-speed rails, and the lot and expect to have a vibrant economy. Bridges to where? Bridges to nowhere? How many bridges are needed to ford a river for any given economic region?
This argument is a dieshow. As I said, no one disputes that you need a stable political situation for private industry to do well. But that's all. Spending directly by done by government, especially the most central government of any nation, is Keynesian crap and it fails miserably, and that's the spending we're talking about.
Roman Roads, British Navy, and the Interstate Highway system was built by a private entity. News to me.
I guess the army that sacked carthage was managed by the haliburton of the day.
The hoover damn sucks also.
-
Rome, Carthage--Could you possibly stay within this millennium?
I guess it IS news to you. Highway building is awarded to private contractors.
-
Rome, Carthage--Could you possibly stay within this millennium?
I guess it IS news to you. Highway building is awarded to private contractors.
Silly me I thought the Feds gave the states money to build it.
-
Silly me I thought the Feds gave the states money to build it.
No, not silly you. Money which, of course, came from the taxpayers, and thus had its origin, as all treasury funds do, in private industry.
But the states built nothing, and the federal government built nothing. They awarded contracts to private vendors. Infrastructure such as roads are a rare--extremely rare, rare as hen's teeth-- example of where some central planning is helpful, because roads by their nature require an interconnected webwork structure, and too many contractors planning the overall structure of such an edifice would result in chaos. I notice no one is proposing ANY other area EXCEPT infrastructure where government intervention in the business of business yields a positive end-result.
But--and let's be crystal here--the actual building is accomplished by private contractors.
-
I like regulations that prohibit practices. I don't like regulations that dictate how something is done. If something is determined to be too dangerous simply ban it, don't look for a way to make it safe.
Contradict yourself much? You claim you don't like regs that dictate how things get done and in the next breath say you're all for just such a practice.
For instance I like regulations that ban certain things being used in building materials. I don't like regulations that determine how something has to be manufactured.
Again...you are for something before you're against it. Senator Kerry is that you? You're arguing two sides of the same damn coin.
-
Silly me I thought the Feds gave the states money to build it.
The Feds have their own highway crews?
:whatever:
Seriously...are you really that obtuse when it comes to how things get build in this country?
-
GE has settled quite a few fraud cases with the government. Lets stop pretending either group is more honest than the other.
You are the one that picked GE as a shinning example. These crooks have also been implicated in selling banned military parts to Iran.
-
The Feds have their own highway crews?
:whatever:
Seriously...are you really that obtuse when it comes to how things get build in this country?
I live near one of the first highway projects in the nation. It was built by PA. You call it I76 right now.
The feds gave the states 90% of the money to build the interstate system and they funded 10% of their own. Ike was a budget hawk like no other and insisted on a gas tax to fund the 90% that built the highway.
Ike is another guy :usflag:
-
I live near one of the first highway projects in the nation. It was built by PA. You call it I76 right now.
Good for you.
The feds gave the states 90% of the money to build the interstate system and they funded 10% of their own. Ike was a budget hawk like no other and insisted on a gas tax to fund the 90% that built the highway.
Actually the legislation that started this was began under FDR. It just happened to finally get done when Ike was in office.
Condiering all of the taxes that were eimplemented to start this program I'd hardly call him a "budget hawk."
Not to mention he refused to cut taxes...led the country through three recessions and in the grand fashion of his war time boss...oversaw the largest public works program in the nation up to that time.
Yeah I can see more and more why you Libs choose Ike as one of your favorite Republicans.
Ike is another guy :usflag:
The only reason you Libs like Ike is because you enjoy mis using a certain quote of his from his goodbye address.
-
I think I can like Ike for more than a farewell address.
There was also that small thing of being part of the greatest group of men the country ever assembled to lead the nation to beat Fascism.
-
Isn't it great how the feds created Microsoft, Kraft, General Electric, Ford, Exxon-Mobil, Apple, J Walter Thompson, Wal-Mart, JP MorganChase, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and all the other great success stories of American business? Gosh, where would they be without the great and wonderful federal government? Thank goodness the federal government spent the money to found all the companies on the Fortune 500.
-
Isn't it great how the feds created Microsoft, Kraft, General Electric, Ford, Exxon-Mobil, Apple, J Walter Thompson, Wal-Mart, JP MorganChase, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and all the other great success stories of American business? Gosh, where would they be without the great and wonderful federal government? Thank goodness the federal government spent the money to found all the companies on the Fortune 500.
The problem with a company generally starts to happen, after the men who founded it die or leave.
I have no problem with capitalism. I have an extreme problem with the corporate structure.
-
The problem with a company generally starts to happen, after the men who founded it die or leave.
I have no problem with capitalism. I have an extreme problem with the corporate structure.
That makes as much sense as saying I like football players...I just hate the sport of football.
-
The problem with a company generally starts to happen, after the men who founded it die or leave.
I have no problem with capitalism. I have an extreme problem with the corporate structure.
I sense a bitter or fired employee or one who has gotten passed over for a promotion.
-
I sense a bitter or fired employee or one who has gotten passed over for a promotion.
I actually got promoted a great deal at Lincoln, just didn't want to live in Indiana.
Possibly I might just be a jackass.
There are good companies, there are bad companies. I've seen good companies go bad with a change in management and vice versa.
Things move faster than they did 20 years ago.
My dad went from working for what was thought as one of the most awesome companies in the world to working for a dog overnight at Lucent.
I was hired by Arthur Andersen in 2001. I went from having the best job offer in my class, to everyone feeling sorry for me...in one night.
A boss I worked for went from awesome to fired from the firm for feeding information to his son in law to sue hospitals he audited.
Maybe I'm just unlucky lol.
I'm becoming accustomed to not rely on anything. Trusting the management seems to be a bad idea.
-
I actually got promoted a great deal at Lincoln, just didn't want to live in Indiana.
Possibly I might just be a jackass.
There are good companies, there are bad companies. I've seen good companies go bad with a change in management and vice versa.
Things move faster than they did 20 years ago.
My dad went from working for what was thought as one of the most awesome companies in the world to working for a dog overnight at Lucent.
I was hired by Arthur Andersen in 2001. I went from having the best job offer in my class, to everyone feeling sorry for me...in one night.
A boss I worked for went from awesome to fired from the firm for feeding information to his son in law to sue hospitals he audited.
Maybe I'm just unlucky lol.
I'm becoming accustomed to not rely on anything. Trusting the management seems to be a bad idea.
Possibly I might just be a jackass.
Gets my vote! I've been here a while and at CU before the meltdown, you haven't exactly warmed our hearts!
Especially given the fact you admit you were one of the accountants from a firm that certainly contributed to many of the middle class losing their butts on their retirement, due to, how shall I say it, "accounting manipulation"?!
Whether you worked on their accounts or not, makes me wonder how many others "your" company screwed by not reporting the facts!
And you have the nerve to call Lucent out?
Gimme a frikkin' break!
-
I think I can like Ike for more than a farewell address.
There was also that small thing of being part of the greatest group of men the country ever assembled to lead the nation to beat Fascism.
Ya wanna 'splain why you are a DemonRat then? Every single man I have known from WWII was a stout conservative! And I've known plenty!
-
Hired never worked a day there, in the Philadelphia office.
Like I said, I went from everyone thinking I was awesome to everyone feeling sorry for me in about a day.
I never performed an hour of work. Funny feeling.
Oh and I got tainted I was hired by them in other interviews for a while, again never did a day a work for them just accepted a job offer after graduation.
Interesting when they imploded re-interviewing. Nothing is guaranteed in life, that was just a weird few months.
Of course as bad as things were in 2001, half my classmates in accounting and myself were hired before December. You had a 3.0, you had a job.
Times have changed a little.
-
Ya wanna 'splain why you are a DemonRat then? Every single man I have known from WWII was a stout conservative! And I've known plenty!
Bush II left a bad taste in my mouth. I come from a GOP family.
There are things I support that are democratic. I'm not going to go on the social issues. Frankly they aren't important for a while.
-
A friend of mine graduated with 3 of his friends from college, all in about the same class rank. All 4 interviewed and were offered jobs at the same firm in NY. My buddy decided to follow in his dad's footsteps and opened a small pizza place instead. His 3 friends took the jobs, and thought they were on top of the world. The building they worked together in for 11 months has not been rebuilt yet.
-
A friend of mine graduated with 3 of his friends from college, all in about the same class rank. All 4 interviewed and were offered jobs at the same firm in NY. My buddy decided to follow in his dad's footsteps and opened a small pizza place instead. His 3 friends took the jobs, and thought they were on top of the world. The building they worked together in for 11 months has not been rebuilt yet.
Yeah, I took a tour there in 2000 for class. The first time I was in a sky scraper in Philly after 9-11 I did a few looks at the windows.
Remember humvees with machine guns on the Philly bridges. Freaked my co-workers in Indiana out when we did an audit in 2003. After 6 months I was so used to it I didn't even notice till they were freaking out. Kind of odd how you can grow to expect things.
There are no guarantees in life.
How does your buddy feel about the fact nothing has been built there yet.
-
Maybe I'm just unlucky lol.
I'm becoming accustomed to not rely on anything. Trusting the management seems to be a bad idea.
Quit being a cry baby. Cause with your attitude you will always be a loser. You should get down on your knees and pray to God that you live in the greatest country in the world with opportunities beyond belief. Your pessimism will lead to a very unhappy life.
-
Quit being a cry baby. Cause with your attitude you will always be a loser. You should get down on your knees and pray to God that you live in the greatest country in the world with opportunities beyond belief. Your pessimism will lead to a very unhappy life.
Thank you. I finally get it. I found the common thread.
Joseph Heller God Bless You.
I'm taking sometime off thinking of politics. None of this matters. My mind is at peace.
I apologize for my interruption into your board and thank you for letting me get to know you.
-
Thank you. I finally get it. I found the common thread.
Joseph Heller God Bless You.
I'm taking sometime off thinking of politics. None of this matters. My mind is at peace.
I apologize for my interruption into your board and thank you for letting me get to know you.
I'm a Noob here. But I enjoyed your posts Allentown Jake. I hope you reconsider.
-
I'm a Noob here. But I enjoyed your posts Allentown Jake. I hope you reconsider.
He's leaving because whatever experiment he was using us for is over.
That and the fact that we are beginning to present him with facts he can not refute with Liberal spin.
If he follows the course he did last time...he's on his way back to some DU-esque website to call all of us POS's