Presidential Address Last Night

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312755303' post='2283115']

if you wouldnt mind expanding on my two options, i would like to answer that.

from past discussions, i am kind of a libertarian/liberal.
[/quote]
It honestly puzzles the hell out of me why anyone with libertarian leanings would even support Obama in the first place.

It's not like he's ever even given any indications that he would do anything to restrict the size, scope, or power of government.

And, of course, any principled libertarian would insist on privatizing everything cutting back government spending and taxation far, far more than the Republicans you beesh about (as would any truly principled conservative for that matter, but I digress).

But if "libertarian" just means to you being in support of the state giving marriage licenses to homosexuals or whatever, then, well, perhaps, maybe . . .

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312767950' post='2283182']
The other thing is that cutting taxes for the wealthy DOES NOT create jobs. The rich are NOT required to reinvest that money in the United States and often, they don't. There have been plenty of jobs created in the economic recovery, it's just that most of them have been created overseas. We have to get away from this idea that business is a "friend" of the community. Businesses are out for themselves, which is only natural. You can't blame them. But it's wrong-headed to think that if only we were cozier and nicer and friendlier to business, they would reinvest in the American economy. The bottom line is what it's all about. If they are paying people $3.00/hour in India with no insurance benefits, they will not bring the work back to the US unless the American workers come equally cheap.
[/quote]
So raising taxes on businesses will entice those corporate fat cats to hire more costly American labor again?

Logical.

[Jesus_lol]

I find it funny that no one with any real weight behind them talks about the "Defense" spending, when talks go on about shoring up the economy.

a Balanced budget, such as the Republicans seem to want would probably include some large cuts to the military.

Being the most militaristic nation in the world, dumping more into the military than the next 30 or so countries adds up to a huge amount.

And its not exactly a defense budget, as much as an offense budget. Americans arent paying through the nose to defend their homeland, they are paying through the nose to reduce other people's homelands to dust.

It probably wouldnt solve the debt problem 100%, but it would most likely be the biggest step they could possibly take without further ethical quandaries.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1312772170' post='2283215']
It honestly puzzles the hell out of me why anyone with libertarian leanings would even support Obama in the first place.

It's not like he's ever even given any indications that he would do anything to restrict the size, scope, or power of government.

And, of course, any principled libertarian would insist on privatizing everything cutting back government spending and taxation far, far more than the Republicans you beesh about (as would any truly principled conservative for that matter, but I digress).

But if "libertarian" just means to you being in support of the state giving marriage licenses to homosexuals or whatever, then, well, perhaps, maybe . . .
[/quote]

you know, when you said earlier that you werent trying to be snarky, you were just curious, i was holding out hope that you actually meant it.

I am certainly not all libertarian, only slightly leaning that way. unlike the tendency in your country to throw people into either the "entitled hippy" or the "heartless square" camps if the two party system, it is possible to hold a nuanced political position, acknowledging that sometimes you cant build a house with just one tool.

I oppose government involvement in such areas as privacy, and individual rights, ie I oppose the Patriot act, oppose the War on Drugs, and support the right to bear arms.

Of course a principled libertarian would insist on cutting back severely on govt spending. but that would be for everything, infrastructure, military, social spending, etc etc, whereas current Republican stuff only seems to cut back on stuff that helps the poor out, while continuing to give entitlements to industry.

i dont like either much, but at least the libertarian view seems more fair and honest.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1312772334' post='2283216']
So raising taxes on businesses will entice those corporate fat cats to hire more costly American labor again?

Logical.
[/quote]

So cutting taxes to millionaires, and removing restrictions on toxic business practices is the only way to go? how well did that work out last time? seemed to me the economy tanked pretty hard.

[StMichael]

As of right now, via http://www.usdebtclock.org/ the 3 programs amount to $2.5 Trillion. Overall the debt stands at almost $15 trillion. Only one of these programs are to be provided for by the Constitution, which is defense.

Last century we had 2 Great Depressions. One was handled quickly, the other was made to drag out for some 15 years. Most of have been taught the 2nd one, but never the 1st. That happened under Woodrow Wilson who did all he could to shred up the US Constitution.

From 1920, in a nation of roughly 100 million, unemployment went from 2.1 million to 4.9 million, national debt was $25 billion. You can read a little more here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880

Harding handled this by cutting taxes and spending. We saw this work effectively under Ronald Reagan who was a fan of Harding's successor Calvin Coolidge. The roaring 20's were roaring because of this. The 80's were equally as roaring.

What do we do? Before we even begin to phase out SS and Medicare, we need to kill off the "administrative branch" this are departments that answer to no one. That includes Obamacare. From the EPA to the DOE. These are where the majority of our spending lies.

No one who is in no position to pivot would lose any of what they paid for, some have suggested that the phase out should begin on those under 55 for SS, meaning anyone over that age will receive as promised.

Medicare needs to be at the state and local levels. Give it to them to manage. They know what they need, not a department as far away as 3,000 miles. If a state wants to prepare a phase out plan, then that is a state issue. Keep in mind we live in a republic. The states give power to the federal government, not the other way around.

Anyway, business must be unrestrained. In more ways than one. You ask about wages. But the question is the loss of purchasing power. The dollar has declined so much and more so under Obama thanks to QE2 and now QE3, I think an excellent case study exists. GM. GM as of 2006 had sold more cars than it ever did in its entire history. #1 in the world. Yet were cash poor and could not make a profit. Why? It cost them $75 per hour to make a car that Toyota was able to achieve at $30 per hour. Why? Inflated labor costs and legacy costs to labor. If one thing comes of the next election ridding us of the so-called minimum wage law would create jobs overnight. Not because business wants to abuse workers, but because we are killing off entry level jobs. I need a stock room boy. $7.25 per hour? Really. You have high school and college age workers who can't get jobs delivery pizza's because of this.

OK, so you believe that business would trample the weak. It really depends. More likely no more than today, maybe even less. Business would compete for the best and brightest. That would require wages, benefits, etc. Look at the extent Google went to, to retain top talent. Furthermore, if I was building something, I would try to find a right to work state. I don't want to have to have some crime boss telling me what to do and when I need to do it. Wherever unions controlled matters what is left in its wake? Look at Michigan. Believe it or not NYC was home to a vibrant milk industry. Had more than 25 different dairies. In the 5 boroughs. The unions fist chased Sealtest out, then turned on the smaller ones. Local dairies gone.

Now what does it take to start a business? Heck you can no longer pop up a lemonade stand without the dept of health closing down and ticketing kids. It isn't any different with anything else. Want to open a coffee house, dept of health, licenses, OSHA nonsense, insurance, etc. By the time you ring up your first sale, you are in the hole huge.

We need to stop using this wealthy vs non-wealthy mindset. Those without the ability to access capital can not pay wages. The federal government is not able to create jobs, but can certainly destroy them.


[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312767950' post='2283182']
I see your point, but the fact is that there are three money-sucking areas burdening the United States right now: Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending. Almost every employed American is taxed to fund the first two, regardless of whether they pay federal income taxes. It's frustrating that the government funds studies about the mating habits of fruit flies and other useless croutons. Yes, it's a waste of money. But we are NOT going bankrupt because of the fruit fly studies.

We're going bankrupt because everybody's Grandma is surviving long enough to go on Medicare and Social Security at 65 and living for a decade or two beyond that, a scenario not envisioned when the funding systems were set up. To solve the problem, we have to either cut Grandma's benefits or raise the SS or Medicare tax rate (again this is a different and separate tax from the income tax). Or, some combination of cutting and raising, which is probably what we will have to end up doing.

The other thing is that cutting taxes for the wealthy DOES NOT create jobs. The rich are NOT required to reinvest that money in the United States and often, they don't. There have been plenty of jobs created in the economic recovery, it's just that most of them have been created overseas. We have to get away from this idea that business is a "friend" of the community. Businesses are out for themselves, which is only natural. You can't blame them. But it's wrong-headed to think that if only we were cozier and nicer and friendlier to business, they would reinvest in the American economy. The bottom line is what it's all about. If they are paying people $3.00/hour in India with no insurance benefits, they will not bring the work back to the US unless the American workers come equally cheap.

If you examine the data since the 1980s, you'll see that wages for American workers have stagnated. The average American worker makes the same now that he did 30 years ago, in fact he makes less due to inflation. At the same time, the wealthiest 1% have gotten richer and richer. Literally their wealth has increased by leaps and bounds. Are today's wealthy people smarter than their parents? Do they work harder? Does that account for why their assets have exploded at the same time the middle class is in decline? Or is it because the breaks they were granted beginning in the 80s never DID trickle down?
[/quote]

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1312772334' post='2283216']
So raising taxes on businesses will entice those corporate fat cats to hire more costly American labor again?

Logical.
[/quote]

No. Raise taxes, lower taxes, it makes no difference. Like I said, they will not bring jobs back to the US unless the bottom line matches up. No amount of tax cuts will accomplish this. The only way to have the US workforce competitive with a workforce in Indonesia is to lower the minimum wage to $2-$4/hour, eliminate the five day work week and all employer-sponsored benefits. This scenario, while it is orthodox capitalism, is impractical for many reasons, not to mention likely immoral.

No. Businesses will not be bringing back jobs to America until wages rise in developing nations to the point that it affects the bottom line.

So, it's clear that regardless of the tax situation, the wealthy want to do business in developing nations. The labor situation makes that a given. However, have you ever noticed that rich people tend to want to actually live in first world nations like the United States? They are economically invested in the developing world but they want to lead their lives and raise their families in in comfortable, advanced and open societies. Ironically this leads to their being under-invested in both communities. It's sort of like trying to have it both ways.

What can society do in this situation? Tax the croutons out of these people for the privilege of living and earning income in a country like the United States. You have to pay to have a luxury home, a luxury car, so why not make them pay for living in a luxury country? If they don't like it they can always go live in the capitalist paradises where they manufacture their goods. Right?

I realize this post kind of makes me sound like a big left-winger. I'm not. Swear. I think this is just the straight up reality we are dealing with in our globalized economy right now.

[Vincent Vega]

Tell me why we haven't moved to Fair Tax, again?

[Maggyie]

First of all, how can you say that administrative costs are "where most of our spending lies"? it's just not true that the EPA and the DOE and the other alphabet agencies eat up most of our money. It's just flat out wrong. I realize they are the traditional arch-nemesis of conservatives. Pssssst, that's because organizations like the EPA and the DOE are associated with progressive causes like environmentalism and teacher's unions and so forth. NOT because they eat up money. I know Rush Limbaugh and the other talking heads like to say otherwise, but if you pin them down they'll admit it's about ideology and not about saving money.

They eat up a miniscule amount of money, comparatively. Tiny, tiny amount. If you were to close the EPA, shutter the DOE, and all the rest it would be a drop in the bucket in terms of our debt. There are a few GOP's like Paul Ryan who understand the situation, but most of them just want to keep pulling the wool over the conservative sheeples eyes and keep handing out rants about the Evil Liberal Government Bureaucracy. If we just close down the government agencies and make it easier for people to start coffee shops, everything will get better.

It's all about Medicare and Social Security. That's it. If we don't make changes to those two programs - it doesn't matter how many government agencies are closed. That would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Americans are living further into old age than was ever anticipated when these programs were developed. To be blunt, people are not dying off fast enough to make the books balance. We need to update these entitlement programs to reflect current demographic realities. They are still run according to guidelines created when life expectancy was 60 years. We can tax more, we can cut benefits, or we can do a combination of both. These are the only three options. Most nonpartisan experts think we should do a combination plan to soften the blow and spread the risk and pain.

Congress has pulled a fourth option out of its collective butt which involves kicking the can further down the road so that the old people don't get mad at them and vote them out of office THIS election. By the time the next election rolls around we will all be living with wolves and wiping our rear ends with maple leaves, but that's not an immediate concern.

The United States has no problem at all creating minimum wage jobs. Almost all of the job creation in the recovery has been at the low end of the spectrum. Companies have no problem paying stock boys $7.25 an hour. We have many, many McJobs available and they often go unfilled. The labor market at the bottom rungs is actually fairly competitive. The jobs crisis in the United States is a MIDDLE CLASS jobs crisis. Nobody is complaining about not being able to find work as a barista; they're complaining because they can't find a job that pays the $30.000-$40,000 a year that they need to support their families. This has been accelerating as a problem as manufacturing positions are destroyed and replaced with service positions, which traditionally pay less.

With regard to GM vs. Toyota, yes the unions shot themselves in the foot big time with that. Toyota still provides a reasonable middle-class income for families which is the way it should be done. It should be noted, though, that these two companies have switched trajectories lately: GM is doing fabulous for the first time in a long time, and Toyota is a complete shambles and in serious decline in the market. So much for non-union labor.


[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1312774332' post='2283224']
As of right now, via [url="http://www.usdebtclock.org/"]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url] the 3 programs amount to $2.5 Trillion. Overall the debt stands at almost $15 trillion. Only one of these programs are to be provided for by the Constitution, which is defense.

Last century we had 2 Great Depressions. One was handled quickly, the other was made to drag out for some 15 years. Most of have been taught the 2nd one, but never the 1st. That happened under Woodrow Wilson who did all he could to shred up the US Constitution.

From 1920, in a nation of roughly 100 million, unemployment went from 2.1 million to 4.9 million, national debt was $25 billion. You can read a little more here: [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880"]http://www.cato.org/...php?pub_id=9880[/url]

Harding handled this by cutting taxes and spending. We saw this work effectively under Ronald Reagan who was a fan of Harding's successor Calvin Coolidge. The roaring 20's were roaring because of this. The 80's were equally as roaring.

What do we do? Before we even begin to phase out SS and Medicare, we need to kill off the "administrative branch" this are departments that answer to no one. That includes Obamacare. From the EPA to the DOE. These are where the majority of our spending lies.

No one who is in no position to pivot would lose any of what they paid for, some have suggested that the phase out should begin on those under 55 for SS, meaning anyone over that age will receive as promised.

Medicare needs to be at the state and local levels. Give it to them to manage. They know what they need, not a department as far away as 3,000 miles. If a state wants to prepare a phase out plan, then that is a state issue. Keep in mind we live in a republic. The states give power to the federal government, not the other way around.

Anyway, business must be unrestrained. In more ways than one. You ask about wages. But the question is the loss of purchasing power. The dollar has declined so much and more so under Obama thanks to QE2 and now QE3, I think an excellent case study exists. GM. GM as of 2006 had sold more cars than it ever did in its entire history. #1 in the world. Yet were cash poor and could not make a profit. Why? It cost them $75 per hour to make a car that Toyota was able to achieve at $30 per hour. Why? Inflated labor costs and legacy costs to labor. If one thing comes of the next election ridding us of the so-called minimum wage law would create jobs overnight. Not because business wants to abuse workers, but because we are killing off entry level jobs. I need a stock room boy. $7.25 per hour? Really. You have high school and college age workers who can't get jobs delivery pizza's because of this.

OK, so you believe that business would trample the weak. It really depends. More likely no more than today, maybe even less. Business would compete for the best and brightest. That would require wages, benefits, etc. Look at the extent Google went to, to retain top talent. Furthermore, if I was building something, I would try to find a right to work state. I don't want to have to have some crime boss telling me what to do and when I need to do it. Wherever unions controlled matters what is left in its wake? Look at Michigan. Believe it or not NYC was home to a vibrant milk industry. Had more than 25 different dairies. In the 5 boroughs. The unions fist chased Sealtest out, then turned on the smaller ones. Local dairies gone.

Now what does it take to start a business? Heck you can no longer pop up a lemonade stand without the dept of health closing down and ticketing kids. It isn't any different with anything else. Want to open a coffee house, dept of health, licenses, OSHA nonsense, insurance, etc. By the time you ring up your first sale, you are in the hole huge.

We need to stop using this wealthy vs non-wealthy mindset. Those without the ability to access capital can not pay wages. The federal government is not able to create jobs, but can certainly destroy them.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1312773732' post='2283220']

you know, when you said earlier that you werent trying to be snarky, you were just curious, i was holding out hope that you actually meant it.

I am certainly not all libertarian, only slightly leaning that way. unlike the tendency in your country to throw people into either the "entitled hippy" or the "heartless square" camps if the two party system, it is possible to hold a nuanced political position, acknowledging that sometimes you cant build a house with just one tool.

I oppose government involvement in such areas as privacy, and individual rights, ie I oppose the Patriot act, oppose the War on Drugs, and support the right to bear arms.[/quote]
Fair enough.

I don't claim to know your opinion on every topic; I was just a little surprised as most of your posts I've read on here have been in favor of more government regulation of the economy, socialization, taxing, and spending - exactly the opposite of the stance a libertarian would take.

[quote]Of course a principled libertarian would insist on cutting back severely on govt spending. but that would be for everything, infrastructure, military, social spending, etc etc, whereas current Republican stuff only seems to cut back on stuff that helps the poor out, while continuing to give entitlements to industry.


i dont like either much, but at least the libertarian view seems more fair and honest.[/quote]
Of course, I'd disagree that most of the government spending on social programs favored by liberals does in fact help the poor in the long-run. Since the vast increases in social spending in the US following Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the '60s, we've seen the growth and perpetuation of a permanent underclass.

And I'd say that supporting a military is one of the few legitimate purposes for government spending - going back to the American founding - but in order to achieve a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, military spending will definitely have to be cut back from current levels.

I don't think the government is entitled to anyone's income (the government had no power to tax incomes until the 16th amendment in 1913), but I'm against bailouts and corporate welfarism. Firms unable to conduct business must be allowed to fail.


[quote]So cutting taxes to millionaires, and removing restrictions on toxic business practices is the only way to go? how well did that work out last time? seemed to me the economy tanked pretty hard.

[/quote]
No, we should end corporate welfarism, abolish the Fed, and return to an actual free market economy.

The "toxic business practices" which caused the economy to tank were specifically enabled by the federal government, and were largely the result of government-backed financial entities. If we're going to start sending people to prison for the economic debacle, we should start with those in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as Freddie and Fannie. The Fed's policies created artificially cheap credit, and created a bubble doomed to burst.

The real problem was not too little government interference in the economy, but too much.

If you're interested in the real reasons for the economic debacle, from a libertarian/paleo-con perspective, I'd strongly suggest reading,[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005DI6W5Q/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1596985879&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1RN74F72CXXYWQ861272"] [i]Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts will Make Things Worse[/i], by Thomas Woods, Jr.[/url]

[BG45]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312779262' post='2283245']
First of all, how can you say that administrative costs are "where most of our spending lies"? it's just not true that the EPA and the DOE and the other alphabet agencies eat up most of our money. It's just flat out wrong. I realize they are the traditional arch-nemesis of conservatives. Pssssst, that's because organizations like the EPA and the DOE are associated with progressive causes like environmentalism and teacher's unions and so forth. NOT because they eat up money. I know Rush Limbaugh and the other talking heads like to say otherwise, but if you pin them down they'll admit it's about ideology and not about saving money.

They eat up a miniscule amount of money, comparatively. Tiny, tiny amount. If you were to close the EPA, shutter the DOE, and all the rest it would be a drop in the bucket in terms of our debt.
[/quote]

You so just made me think of something I read the other week. NASA's entire budget is $1 billion less than we spend on the cost of air conditioning troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312777438' post='2283235']
What can society do in this situation? Tax the croutons out of these people for the privilege of living and earning income in a country like the United States. You have to pay to have a luxury home, a luxury car, so why not make them pay for living in a luxury country? If they don't like it they can always go live in the capitalist paradises where they manufacture their goods. Right?[/quote]
While the offshoring of jobs is a very real problem, unfortunately, your advice is based not in facts and real solutions to problems, but is based entirely on emotions and the politics of envy.

Let's say we take your advice and tax the croutons out of all "rich people" (however the government deems to define "rich"). Tax 'em back to the stone age!
What will you have accomplished (other than the satisfaction of seeing those fat capitalist pigs get their come-uppance)?
How will that make you, me, or anyone else, any better off?

If the U.S. government punishes people simply for a high income, they certainly won't be any more inclined to invest in growth and hire more American workers. We'll simply see a further drain in jobs currently existing in the US. Obviously, some people are hired in America, otherwise we'd all be completely unemployed. Taxing rich people for their "luxury" certainly won't get me a better job. It's generally the rich that are hiring.

And if the government punishes people for being successful in America by taxing the croutons out of them as you advocate, then businessmen looking to make a profit and be successful very likely leave America altogether, and move to where taxes are lower and success not punished by the state. Then they will definitely NOT be contributing to the American economy and creating American jobs.
Luxury and wealth cannot be sustained in a country which punishes financial success and practices socialist state redistribution of wealth.
America will cease being a land of opportunity which people around the world flock to, but will eventually become another third-rate socialist banana republic.
Contrary to socialist myth, the wealth of nations is created by private enterprise, not by the state.


[quote]I realize this post kind of makes me sound like a big left-winger. I'm not. Swear.[/quote]

I'm afraid I'll simply have to accept your word on that one.

Socialism remains socialism, whether you label yourself a lefty or not.