Recommended Posts
kallend 2,030
QuoteQuoteQuoteHow do you feel about those corporations that make deals with the local govt. so that they (the corp) gets to keep the sales taxes paid by their customers?
Nobody but a blind fool goes into business to purposely LOSE money. If that's the deal they make, then more power to them.
The purpose of a business is to maximize profit for it's shareholders (or owners), after all.
So you object to paying taxes to help poor people, but it's OK to pay taxes to make the Walton family or the Bush family even richer.
Show me where I've said that. No inferences - show me where I've said that exact thing: "I don't want to pay taxes because it will help poor people instead of rich people"
Prove it.
It's a perfectly reasonable inference from the things you've posted in this and other threads. You ARE against taxes in general, but have no problem with them when the beneficiaries are billionaires.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow do you feel about those corporations that make deals with the local govt. so that they (the corp) gets to keep the sales taxes paid by their customers?
Nobody but a blind fool goes into business to purposely LOSE money. If that's the deal they make, then more power to them.
The purpose of a business is to maximize profit for it's shareholders (or owners), after all.
So you object to paying taxes to help poor people, but it's OK to pay taxes to make the Walton family or the Bush family even richer.
Show me where I've said that. No inferences - show me where I've said that exact thing: "I don't want to pay taxes because it will help poor people instead of rich people"
Prove it.
It's a perfectly reasonable inference from the things you've posted in this and other threads. You ARE against taxes in general, but have no problem with them when the beneficiaries are billionaires.
Your "inference" is, as usual, incorrect. Please *do* try not to place your biases in regards to taxes on others (even if in reverse).
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Gawain 0
QuoteHow do the Bushites want to spin all this?
None needed, from the article you cited:
QuoteThe traditional sign of a recession is two or more quarters when economic activity declines rather than grows. That hasn't happened - the final reading of growth in the third quarter came in at a healthy 4.9 percent.
2008 may end up flat, but all this bs about recession will end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy...
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
joedirt 0
Quote
Facist pig Reagan...
That's because you put corporate profits before people, health, kids, education, jobs, everything...
Nice vote for Bush, genius...
Considering under your president...
I didn't realize you knew me so well. I won't try to have an objective conversation with you. I LOVE capitalism and won't apologize for it. I LOVE personal responsibility. I LOVE giving money to charity... but HATE being forced to. I hope you don't have kids your teaching this bullshit to. Beleive it or not I care about my kids more than money. That's why I'm gonna teach them about money, and how to make it, not beg for it.
Good luck pal
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>This seems to be a stinging rebuke of Bush economic/tax/spending policy.
Presidents do not control the economy. Tax cuts/hikes neither save nor condemn the economy. Even things like the Fed changing their interest rates have only a minor effect. Our economy is a beast that few understand and even fewer can influence.
Needless to say, now that the economy is turning down a bit, republicans will decide that the president's policies don't have much to do with the economy, and democrats will decide it is his mismanagement that led to the drop - which of course was 180 from what they believed when things were going well.
Presidents do not control the economy. Tax cuts/hikes neither save nor condemn the economy. Even things like the Fed changing their interest rates have only a minor effect. Our economy is a beast that few understand and even fewer can influence.
Needless to say, now that the economy is turning down a bit, republicans will decide that the president's policies don't have much to do with the economy, and democrats will decide it is his mismanagement that led to the drop - which of course was 180 from what they believed when things were going well.
Quote
Needless to say, now that the economy is turning down a bit, republicans will decide that the president's policies don't have much to do with the economy, and democrats will decide it is his mismanagement that led to the drop - which of course was 180 from what they believed when things were going well.
The voters are more consistent - when things are bad they punish the incumbents. If only the Democrats had a candidate like (Bill) Clinton again. Since they don't, still seems like a toss up.
Royd 0
Let me see if I can follow this logic. I raise chickens and have eggs for sale. You're hungry, but have no money. I am forced to give you $2 so that you can buy a dozen eggs from me. I think I've got it.QuoteIF you raise taxes on corps, have social programs that assure the poor eat and live, then they will spend that money and keep US corps in business by way of demand.
How about I give you a job gathering eggs or cleaning coops? Or would that be beneath you?
Quote
Presidents do not control the economy. Tax cuts/hikes neither save nor condemn the economy. Even things like the Fed changing their interest rates have only a minor effect. Our economy is a beast that few understand and even fewer can influence.
We have a market economy. When people quit spending, the economy flounders. People without jobs don't spend.
People bought houses based on their continued income. All facets of manufacturing in the US are struggling.
Having the Fed cut rates is not a fix. In the past, it was, because the amount of money was more controlled. There is plenty of money on the world market.
Zipp0 1
Quote>This seems to be a stinging rebuke of Bush economic/tax/spending policy.
Presidents do not control the economy.
No, but as I said before, their economic policies have a big influence.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
QuoteQuote
Presidents do not control the economy.
No, but as I said before, their economic policies have a big influence.
How?
In the short term, running a deficit is usually good for the economy. Worked great for Reagan, yes? It creates more revenue all around, at a price to be paid some time later.
And like with Carter in the 70s, there's not a hell of a lot that Bush can do about the price of oil and the effect that has on the economy. Fortunately the effect is much smaller than it used to be.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteHow?
The same way the CEO of a massive company has an influence on the profitability and sustainability of said company.
billvon 3,008
>The same way the CEO of a massive company has an influence on
>the profitability and sustainability of said company.
A CEO has direct, immediate and detailed control of how his company does business. A US president does not. At best he has a very loose and decoupled influence on how the companies of the US do business.
>the profitability and sustainability of said company.
A CEO has direct, immediate and detailed control of how his company does business. A US president does not. At best he has a very loose and decoupled influence on how the companies of the US do business.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteA CEO has direct, immediate and detailed control of how his company does business.
Not if it is a publicly traded company. Even less so in today's environment.
CEO of Ford has little control over the productivity of his front line employees. Has little control over the costs of base materials. Little control over the cost of money.
He has to answer to a board of directors who may actually dictate direction.
Yes it isn't identical, but there are a lot of similarities....scale is obviously different.
QuoteQuoteHow?
The same way the CEO of a massive company has an influence on the profitability and sustainability of said company.
While the US government is big, it is still just a small portion of the economy. And the President has far less leeway to fire people or cut projects than any CEO does.
Quite a few of the Dow companies are cyclical in revenues/profit, following the boom/recession pattern just as the overall economy.
Zipp0 1
Quote>The same way the CEO of a massive company has an influence on
>the profitability and sustainability of said company.
A CEO has direct, immediate and detailed control of how his company does business. A US president does not. At best he has a very loose and decoupled influence on how the companies of the US do business.
The president (at least this one) has direct and immediate control of the military. The military is his primary industry. The way he has chosen to employ that military has a huge global economic impact. The president's rhetoric about Iran has an impact on oil prices.
To say that the president does not affect the economy is just plain foolish.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteAnd the President has far less leeway to fire people or cut projects than any CEO does.
Really, ever try to fire a unionized employee?
billvon 3,008
>To say that the president does not affect the economy is just plain foolish.
I did not say he did not AFFECT the economy. Everyone who participates at all in our economy affects it. Heck, I could sell all the stock I own and cause a very small decrease in the price of a few stocks, which of course affects the economy as a whole.
I said he does not CONTROL the economy. Indeed, he has less control of it than, say, Wal-Mart does.
I did not say he did not AFFECT the economy. Everyone who participates at all in our economy affects it. Heck, I could sell all the stock I own and cause a very small decrease in the price of a few stocks, which of course affects the economy as a whole.
I said he does not CONTROL the economy. Indeed, he has less control of it than, say, Wal-Mart does.
SkyDekker 1,465
true, at this point the Japanese, Chinese and Europeans appear to be a better job at controling their economies.
QuoteQuoteAnd the President has far less leeway to fire people or cut projects than any CEO does.
Really, ever try to fire a unionized employee?
The financials are laying off 10s of thousands of employees. It's not that difficult.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThe financials are laying off 10s of thousands of employees. It's not that difficult.
And Reagan fired all the ATCs. If you really think it isn't hard to fire an underperforming unionized employee, then obviously you have never been in that situation.
I know the positions aren't similar. I understand the semantics argument between controling and influencing. In the end, the President of the US does have a very significant influence over the US economy and with that the world economy to a lesser degree.
As a state, it would now appear that other countries and regions (EU) have done a much better job in recent years of managing their economies.
>>To say that the president does not affect the economy is just plain foolish.
The US economy is a complex mechanism which does at times respond to a butterfly effect, meaning small changes in one sector can influence its over all health, or malaise in this case. lets look at some factors affecting the current recessive trend.
1) Sub prime lending collapse
2) A decline in the housing market
3) High oil prices
4) Reduced consumer spending
5) Fear of a bear market on Wall St.
6) Deceptive corporate earnings reports
7) Well known pundits spreading fear about a recession
8) Government policy changes
9) Declining value of the dollar
These are just a few examples, and each plays a small role but together they can create the perfect economic storm.
The US economy is a complex mechanism which does at times respond to a butterfly effect, meaning small changes in one sector can influence its over all health, or malaise in this case. lets look at some factors affecting the current recessive trend.
1) Sub prime lending collapse
2) A decline in the housing market
3) High oil prices
4) Reduced consumer spending
5) Fear of a bear market on Wall St.
6) Deceptive corporate earnings reports
7) Well known pundits spreading fear about a recession
8) Government policy changes
9) Declining value of the dollar
These are just a few examples, and each plays a small role but together they can create the perfect economic storm.
Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415
D S #3.1415
In October 2000, President Clinton signed a law increasing the annual cap of foreign worker visas (H-lBs) from 115,000 to 195,000 for three years.
CNN November 2007
No labor shortage exists
According to studies done independently by Duke, Harvard, Rand Corp, and the Urban Institute - there is no shortage of American engineering graduates.
Hillary June 2007
Hillary speech pushes for increase in H1-B high tech visas
Of course, through her series of appearances at events sponsored by Indian American companies she raised $3 million.
She proudly proclaimed that Tata, who has 7,900 foreign workers in the US, has hired 10 Americans in Buffalo. (Probably to handle the visa process)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites