New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Liberal Economics 101.

Would you tell your mortgage company that the reason you refused to pay it this month was because you decided that all the money you earned was "my" money and that their claims on it are false?
 

Lukey

Senator
If you were laughed at it was by Sgt Rock, Old Man River, Predicto or the other Bush low lifes....I heard Andrew Natsios on Nightline say that it was going to cost no more than $1.7 billion and that they were allocating no more money for rebuilding Iraq. The bill that Kerry was supposed to have voted for before he voted against was an appropriation bill for the war. The first version was a loan to Iraq. The administration and the repubs voted against it. The bill came back with the money as a flat out gift and Kerry voted against it but the repubs passed it.
I think I got the most abuse from JoeBlam over that. And, by the way, I also voted for Kerry in 2004 so I understood how that deal went down. It was a dumb thing to say (like "the trees are the right height" of "I've been to 57 states") but I don't see those as reasons to not vote for someone.
 

Bruce

Council Member
Yes. It is a proxy for new business creation. The capital class isn't looking to tie up their money in a long term investment because they see all Obama's efforts to confiscate as much of it as possible and they want to be able to move it off shore if it gets too bad. This is why raising taxes on the rich never works. They will find ways to avoid paying them.
So with that statement you're implying that the rich don't mind tax cuts for them to enrich themselves nor federal military credit card spending but when time to pay they blame it on entitlement's and would move their money that has'nt been moved already to another country. I guess that says it all as far as who the real americans are. Or should i say that says it all for who the real communist's are. Looks like we need a change in our rich folk's.
 
This is total bullshit from Lukey. During times of high marginal taxation, the very rich lived wonderful lives despite the high rates. What they did was invest for the long term and keep their assets intact which led to an economy that took the longer view instead of short term profits at the expense of a long term outlook. You also had an incentive to keep your family business going far longer than today because to sell it would mean you would incur a massive taxable event. If I had a business that was making money year in and year out, had 200 employees and was worth 100 million dollars, would I be more inclined to sell it for a profit of 100 million if my taxes were 10% or 90%? If I sold it, what would happen to those 200 jobs?
 

Bruce

Council Member
This is total bullshit from Lukey. During times of high marginal taxation, the very rich lived wonderful lives despite the high rates. What they did was invest for the long term and keep their assets intact which led to an economy that took the longer view instead of short term profits at the expense of a long term outlook. You also had an incentive to keep your family business going far longer than today because to sell it would mean you would incur a massive taxable event. If I had a business that was making money year in and year out, had 200 employees and was worth 100 million dollars, would I be more inclined to sell it for a profit of 100 million if my taxes were 10% or 90%? If I sold it, what would happen to those 200 jobs?
At this particular point in time with all that has been exposed and revealed as to our oligarchy I would suggest that the revolution is long over due. Teapartiers are just a front group for bilking the masses. I would go for confiscating the wealth of Romney,Newt and other's in the carpetbagger category and expelling them to Siberia. Seems as though any logical action is always quelled by the super rich that keep telling me they know what's good for the mass'es. I'll make this one concession which I believe to be fair as to the percentage of protection of my freedoms and wealth. Since FOX fair and balanced said this morning that each person owes 45,000.00 american dollars to pay off the debt, I'll pay 10,000.00 american dollars for each immediate family member right now if the super rich match my 10,000 with 35,000.00. I'll meet Romney at the bank.
 

Lukey

Senator
This is total bullshit from Lukey. During times of high marginal taxation, the very rich lived wonderful lives despite the high rates. What they did was invest for the long term and keep their assets intact which led to an economy that took the longer view instead of short term profits at the expense of a long term outlook. You also had an incentive to keep your family business going far longer than today because to sell it would mean you would incur a massive taxable event. If I had a business that was making money year in and year out, had 200 employees and was worth 100 million dollars, would I be more inclined to sell it for a profit of 100 million if my taxes were 10% or 90%? If I sold it, what would happen to those 200 jobs?
What they didn't do was pay more in taxes, because, as you point out there was less wealth creation because capital tended to get locked up for the long haul, whether or not that was the best, highest use. And a lot of investments just didn't get made back then. It's no coincidence that the huge entreprenurial surge in the US started after Reagan started lowering marginal rates on the rich.

There is likely just as much evidence that that sort of tax policy is bad for the economy (and job creation) as there is that it is beneficial.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Reagan opened the door for a mass influx of Vulture Capitalism, I know one thing, it has been bad for the middle class in this country by any freaking metric you want to conjure.
 

Lukey

Senator
Reagan opened the door for a mass influx of Vulture Capitalism, I know one thing, it has been bad for the middle class in this country by any freaking metric you want to conjure.
That had little (if anything) to do with the decline of the middle class. That was the result of the technology revolution and globalization. After WWII, the USA had the world markets almost to itself as it was the only developed economy with intact infrastructure. The companies had an incentive to give the unions whatever they asked for to keep the production lines operating because they could pretty much sell everything they could produce. That wasn't sustainable as it was inevitable that other countries would develop the capacity to produce as good as the US economy. And as that played out, automation and technology reduced the well paying work available to those with limited education. It was a one-two punch to the (union) labor intensive production model. More recent technological developments have reduced the intellectual work that the middle class has traditionally done (everything from cartoon art to systems analysis) and has further exacerbated this economic trend. The best thing we can do at this point to reverse the decline in these kinds of jobs is to become more internationally competitive - reduce taxation, streamline regulations, get rid of the minimum wage, etc...
 
Wealth creation occurs regardless of the liquidity of that wealth. Who is more wealthy? A man whose family has owned 10 miles of beach front property in Malibu for 50 years or the guy who sold out in 1983? Some financial planner with a stake in converting that asset to cash would make the argument that your opportunity cost is too high to keep that much cash sitting around in real estate. But he would be wrong. If you actually knew any truly wealthy people you would know one thing and one thing only:

Wealthy people do not spend all their money, that is why they are wealthy.

I am surrounded by old money living in the greater Santa Barbara area. Most of these families never sold their businesses or liquidated their assets. The ones that did end up losing it all sooner or later. You seem to relish the behaviour of lottery winners rather than the steady plodding wealth creator that never sells, never liquidates and keeps adding value and wealth generation after generation.
 

Bruce

Council Member
That had little (if anything) to do with the decline of the middle class. That was the result of the technology revolution and globalization. After WWII, the USA had the world markets almost to itself as it was the only developed economy with intact infrastructure. The companies had an incentive to give the unions whatever they asked for to keep the production lines operating because they could pretty much sell everything they could produce. That wasn't sustainable as it was inevitable that other countries would develop the capacity to produce as good as the US economy. And as that played out, automation and technology reduced the well paying work available to those with limited education. It was a one-two punch to the (union) labor intensive production model. More recent technological developments have reduced the intellectual work that the middle class has traditionally done (everything from cartoon art to systems analysis) and has further exacerbated this economic trend. The best thing we can do at this point to reverse the decline in these kinds of jobs is to become more internationally competitive - reduce taxation, streamline regulations, get rid of the minimum wage, etc...
So in an economy where the folks are already set back by economic forces of failed trade,inflation and global sharing of our wealth (The policies of corporate america) we're to illiminate any safety net's that help the masses and return to the failed policies that we just cast out as injurious to the United States as a whole. We're supposed to drop minimum wage to .50 cents per hour and pay off the national debt all the while paying homage to China,Saudi's and other's? I can agree with the repubs on this one statement. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands". Look's like the enemy is Lukey!
 

Lukey

Senator
Wealth creation occurs regardless of the liquidity of that wealth. Who is more wealthy? A man whose family has owned 10 miles of beach front property in Malibu for 50 years or the guy who sold out in 1983? Some financial planner with a stake in converting that asset to cash would make the argument that your opportunity cost is too high to keep that much cash sitting around in real estate. But he would be wrong. If you actually knew any truly wealthy people you would know one thing and one thing only:

Wealthy people do not spend all their money, that is why they are wealthy.

I am surrounded by old money living in the greater Santa Barbara area. Most of these families never sold their businesses or liquidated their assets. The ones that did end up losing it all sooner or later. You seem to relish the behaviour of lottery winners rather than the steady plodding wealth creator that never sells, never liquidates and keeps adding value and wealth generation after generation.
I work for an "old old money" family so I don't just live near them - I know them very well. And where did I say wealth creation wouldn't occur? I said it would (as it has in the past) lead to distortions in the investment practices of the wealthy that would likely be detrimental to the economy. As for your example, it depends on what the guy who sold did with the proceeds. If he funded Microsoft or Apple with the proceeds he would be better off than the guy who held.
 

Lukey

Senator
So in an economy where the folks are already set back by economic forces of failed trade,inflation and global sharing of our wealth (The policies of corporate america) we're to illiminate any safety net's that help the masses and return to the failed policies that we just cast out as injurious to the United States as a whole. We're supposed to drop minimum wage to .50 cents per hour and pay off the national debt all the while paying homage to China,Saudi's and other's? I can agree with the repubs on this one statement. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands". Look's like the enemy is Lukey!
LOL! Your threats don't scare me. I probably have more (and nicer) guns than you do. The only way to succeed in the world economy is to out compete the competition. We can't do that while supporting 100 million unproductive citizens in a middle class lifestyle at the expense of the dwindling minority of people with the ability to save and invest. It is the economic equivalent of eating your seed corn...
 

OldGaffer

Governor
LOL! Your threats don't scare me. I probably have more (and nicer) guns than you do. The only way to succeed in the world economy is to out compete the competition. We can't do that while supporting 100 million unproductive citizens in a middle class lifestyle at the expense of the dwindling minority of people with the ability to save and invest. It is the economic equivalent of eating your seed corn...
You have the same philosophy as Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas, that 100 million will get fed one way or another, even if its off the corpses of the oligarchs and their minions. Once you have been stood against the wall, your fortune is quite meaningless to your remains.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
The money is of course theirs. The intelligent use of that money is what is being discussed. Bush argued that the surplus is "your money, you know best how to spend it". That was not a conservative statement. I'm a fiscal conservative and was alarmed at Reagan's budgets. He cut taxes and increased spending. He tripled the national debt and you think that was conservative? Bush41 raised taxes, but still added another trillion to the national debt. Clinton increased taxes, cut spending, produced a surplus (depending on who's numbers you use)....

You ignore that Reagan used deficit spending because of the economy. His deficits helped reduce unemployment....and he raised taxes to attempt to bring the deficits under control. The result of the economic policies of Reagan Bush was another recession during Bush's term. Clinton took office during a recession. As we recovered he raised taxes and cut spending in a way that did not radically change the economic situation. Bush took office and was saying that we have a surplus, let me give it back to you (which was certain to make the deficit worse)....then the recession of 2001 started and Bush was saying we need the tax cuts to spur the economy.....that is because he wanted tax cuts and didn't care about the purpose or results. Read Paul O'Neill's "Price of Loyalty".....

Face it, Bush trashed the economy with his tax cuts, wars, prescription drug program and the misuse of the SEC and other government agencies and their enforcment roles.

Obama is using deficit spending to stabilize the economy and encourage growth. He has used tax cuts as Reagan did. He has used deficit spending to keep those hit by the Bush recession from taking too hard a hit. Is that a bad thing? Yes we will have to increase taxes and cut spending in the future, but we have to do it in a transitional way, not a revolutionary way. Ron Paul would throw us into a depression....the others, Newt..Santorum and Romney would have a negative impact in the near term.
took 4 paragraphs to get to obama.

so. democrat debts = good

republican debt = bad

you're a fiscal conservative.

got it.

middle (chuckle) view.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
You have the same philosophy as Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas, that 100 million will get fed one way or another, even if its off the corpses of the oligarchs and their minions. Once you have been stood against the wall, your fortune is quite meaningless to your remains.
yes. we have the communist view.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
Reagan opened the door for a mass influx of Vulture Capitalism, I know one thing, it has been bad for the middle class in this country by any freaking metric you want to conjure.
you guys want to talk about anything except obama.

'cause he's the 1st president in US history to have to deal with the situation left to him by his predecessor.

and remember his rallying cry during the campaign.... he's done ya might as well vote for me. I probably can't do anything but I'll be sure and cite the appropriate scape goat and the media will reinforce that.... Courage !!
 

OldGaffer

Governor
yes. we have the communist view.
It cleaned out the Oligarchy quite nicely, and if this country becomes a full out Oligarchy with 1% owning 100% of the country, expect to see some action, I fully expect you to be manning the barricades in defense of your beloved masters.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
Wealth creation occurs regardless of the liquidity of that wealth. Who is more wealthy? A man whose family has owned 10 miles of beach front property in Malibu for 50 years or the guy who sold out in 1983? Some financial planner with a stake in converting that asset to cash would make the argument that your opportunity cost is too high to keep that much cash sitting around in real estate. But he would be wrong. If you actually knew any truly wealthy people you would know one thing and one thing only:

Wealthy people do not spend all their money, that is why they are wealthy.

I am surrounded by old money living in the greater Santa Barbara area. Most of these families never sold their businesses or liquidated their assets. The ones that did end up losing it all sooner or later. You seem to relish the behaviour of lottery winners rather than the steady plodding wealth creator that never sells, never liquidates and keeps adding value and wealth generation after generation.
wealth is wealth. it can be calculated. what are you talking about?
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
When you are talking about a deficit that became $1.4 trillion in his last year, the money spent on education or foreign aid are trivial....we spent at least a trillion in Iraq and some experts now say it was over $3 trillion...
I guess that explains why obama was able to submit a budget this year reflecting that tremendous savings....

oh, wait....

nevermind
 
Top