Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

. The mystery is not that the economic growth and jobs recovery rate is so slow; it's that anyone is surprised to discover that you can't just keep pummeling the economy with wave after wave of bad policy decisions and proposals, and expect any other result.
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It is no mystery to anyone with half a brain. The USofA consumers borrowed themselves into a shitstorm of a hole. Since our spending fueled the worlds economic growth , its no god damn wonder that this recovery is like no other. Our savings were depleted and transferred to wealthy bankers in the transfer to a FIRE economy that started under Reagan.

You guys are to much of ideologues to acknowledge it and therefore nothing will be done to rectify it. Your party is really the only one that can fix it, yet when in power you threw fuel on the fire or better stated to the FIRE economic model.

. Your second paragraph is a good example of that. Where did anyone here "give Reagan credit for all this BS?" (Whatever in the hell you meant by "this BS.")

! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I gave Reagan credit for starting this boneheaded way of spending. You defend it with "Oh yea, well at least he didn't spend as much as Obama!"

That is the kinda of shit I have to respond to? Pleassssssssssssssse

I fight juvenile with juvenile.

WTF, what's this "your party" crap?"

Please indicate where I ever said I was a Republican. (I most decidedly am not.) In fact, sadly, we've reached the point where neither of our dysfunctional major parties seem capable of anything other than preventing the other from cramming through a ruinous agenda. (For the record, I'm a very libertarian-leaning independent.)

For such an aggressive noisemaker, you sure have a limited grasp of economics and economic history.

Why don't you make at least a little bit of an effort to craft cogent, intelligent arguments? All you ever seem to do is construct a Straw Man or start popping off about whatever random thought happens to enter your addled mind.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx
Originally Posted by Rudyard K

From your own article:

"The irony is that, by many measures, public companies are doing quite well in the Obama economy. The S&P 500 Index ($INX) is up about 35% since Inauguration Day. Profits are expected to rise 36% in 2010, Bloomberg reports. And companies are sitting on a near-record $2 trillion in cash, money they could use to invest and create jobs. "

Am i reading that right? CEO's are withholding $2 trillion from the economy, and they're wondering why nobody can afford to buy stuff? And they're the smart guys?

I work for a multi billion dollar corporation. You can cut their tax rate to 0%, and i'm here to tell ya, they're not hiring a soul. And they're not investing an additional penny. They'll hire when they have to, not when they can, as is evidenced by your link. They'll invest when they see a potential increase in business from doing so, and not before. In other words, they'll hire and invest when people are able to purchase their product or service, irrespective of what Obama (or any other President, for that matter) does or doesn't do. And with more and more money being tied up in the hands of fewer and fewer people, is it any wonder there's not enough money for everyone else to buy stuff? That's not Masters level economics, that's just 3rd grade math.

It's a problem that's been festering for decades, again, long before Obama came along. So i think your CEO's need to stop whining, stop outsourcing, and stop lowering salaries while increasing their own, and accept the fact that their policies are a bigger problem than Obama's.

And besides, when you have a CEO comparing Obama's tax policy to Hitler invading Poland, you'll never convince me these guys have any semblance of common sense.

Me thinks if Obama was offering to cut their individual tax rates to 5%, they'd think he was the bestest President ever!!

All you ever seem to do is construct a Straw Man or start popping off about whatever random thought happens to enter your addled mind. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How many times are you going to use the "Is not!" argument with WTF?

I work for a multi billion dollar corporation. You can cut their tax rate to 0%, and i'm here to tell ya, they're not hiring a soul. And they're not investing an additional penny. They'll hire when they have to, not when they can, as is evidenced by your link. They'll invest when they see a potential increase in business from doing so, and not before.!! Originally Posted by Doove

The issue is not corporate tax rates, it is uncertainty. What could be scares them more than at any time in recent history & Obama has done nothing to assuage this.

From your own article:

"The irony is that, by many measures, public companies are doing quite well in the Obama economy. The S&P 500 Index ($INX) is up about 35% since Inauguration Day. Profits are expected to rise 36% in 2010, Bloomberg reports. And companies are sitting on a near-record $2 trillion in cash, money they could use to invest and create jobs. "

Am i reading that right? CEO's are withholding $2 trillion from the economy, and they're wondering why nobody can afford to buy stuff? And they're the smart guys?

I work for a multi billion dollar corporation. You can cut their tax rate to 0%, and i'm here to tell ya, they're not hiring a soul. And they're not investing an additional penny. They'll hire when they have to, not when they can, as is evidenced by your link. They'll invest when they see a potential increase in business from doing so, and not before. In other words, they'll hire and invest when people are able to purchase their product or service, irrespective of what Obama (or any other President, for that matter) does or doesn't do. And with more and more money being tied up in the hands of fewer and fewer people, is it any wonder there's not enough money for everyone else to buy stuff? That's not Masters level economics, that's just 3rd grade math.

It's a problem that's been festering for decades, again, long before Obama came along. So i think your CEO's need to stop whining, stop outsourcing, and stop lowering salaries while increasing their own, and accept the fact that their policies are a bigger problem than Obama's.

And besides, when you have a CEO comparing Obama's tax policy to Hitler invading Poland, you'll never convince me these guys have any semblance of common sense.

Me thinks if Obama was offering to cut their individual tax rates to 5%, they'd think he was the bestest President ever!! Originally Posted by Doove

And I guess the sad thing for you is...None of them really give a shit what you think...and you've got nothing but mouth to offer them to do otherwise. Maybe when you start giving a shit what they think...instead of whining about what others have that you do not...those that do have something to offer will start offering it.

What capital doesn't like is political uncertainty. And it doesn't matter whether you think capital should believe things are politically uncertain...it matters whether they think things are politically uncertain.

It must suck to have such wisdom that no one else can see.

The issue is not corporate tax rates, it is uncertainty. What could be scares them more than at any time in recent history & Obama has done nothing to assuage this. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Not only has Obama done nothing to assuage the uncertainty, he's done plenty to add to it!

What capital doesn't like is political uncertainty. And it doesn't matter whether you think capital should believe things are politically uncertain...it matters whether they think things are politically uncertain. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Word!

All this is somewhat reminiscent of the New Dealers' campaign against what FDR called "economic royalists." That, along with the Fed's tightening of bank reserve requirements, caused the painful second (and fortunately last) stage of the Great Depression, the 1937-38 downturn. The political class overreacted to wealth-envy sentiment, and the natural consequence was that a lot of capital decided to take an extended vacation.

The government fired its guns at the "economic royalists", but millions of innocent bystanders were the ones who really got hurt.

And I guess the sad thing for you is...None of them really give a shit what you think...and you've got nothing but mouth to offer them to do otherwise. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I doubt they really care what you think either. So don't flatter yourself.

Maybe when you start giving a shit what they think...instead of whining about what others have that you do not.

Do you always have to put words in people's mouths to try to win an argument? I don't begrudge that other people have more than me, nor do i begrudge that other people have a lot more than me. All i'm suggesting is that the pie is limited, and the more that gets eaten up by 400 people, the less that leaves for the other 300,000,000. Dispute that or don't, and save the analysis into my reasons for pointing it out.

What capital doesn't like is political uncertainty. And it doesn't matter whether you think capital should believe things are politically uncertain...it matters whether they think things are politically uncertain.

There is always uncertainty. We have a Presidential election every four years. CEO's have zero idea who will be President in 28 months. If political uncertainty played as much a role as you wish to claim, we'd always be in a recession. Economics are like political elections, after the fact everyone likes to sit around and give their theories as to why this happened or why that happened. Fact is, nobody really knows. Even the supposed "prosperous" times under Bush were relatively tepid. I say it's because the bottom 98% have access to less and less of the pie, aka buying power, you say it's because of political uncertainty. I say that when people buy their products, they'll hire and invest no matter how much political uncertainty there is. I'm guessing i'm just as right as you are.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that my original point was that this all started under Bush. Again, deny that or don't. Or you can just hurl insults.

It must suck to have such wisdom that no one else can see.

And here i thought the liberals were the elitists.

WTF, what's this "your party" crap?"
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

My guess is nationally you vote Republican

Why don't you make at least a little bit of an effort to craft cogent, intelligent arguments? All you ever seem to do is construct a Straw Man or start popping off about whatever random thought happens to enter your addled mind. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Just because it does not fit you simple mindedness narrative and you can not follow random thoughts does not mean it is not intelligent , it may mean you need to expand your horizon.

The issue is not corporate tax rates, it is uncertainty. What could be scares them more than at any time in recent history & Obama has done nothing to assuage this. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Really, why is that? Is it because he is up aganist a party of NO? If so is that his fault or the opposition party? It is a matter of perspective. Of course if you are Pro Republican you see it as Obamas fault. He has said exactly what he wants to do. He wants to make permanant tax cuts for 95% of taxpayers. Had Ted Kennedy not died we would have had a much much better Health care bill, such is life. But even the Republicans agreed we needed to reform health care. There is always uncertainity. Appoint the muther fucker King if you want to eliminate uncertainty! LOL

. And with more and more money being tied up in the hands of fewer and fewer people, is it any wonder there's not enough money for everyone else to buy stuff? That's not Masters level economics, that's just 3rd grade math. Originally Posted by Doove

That is exactly right.
Old business's hardly create jobs , yet these old bastards control the purse strings to all the politicians and all they want are tax cuts for their fat asses. We really want to stimulate job growth we'd invest in start-ups and quit listening to old generational and corporate wealth that has grown fat and lazy and only wants tax cuts and hand outs. They do not care about our huge deficits, they are just raiding this country's coffers and will transfer their wealth overseas. True patriots they are! Can you follow any of these musing their Captain?

http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/09/wanna-create-jobs-its-the-startup-stupid/

It’s true that small businesses do generate most jobs. However, if we define “small” by age rather than size, then young firms (fewer than five years old) primarily create job growth, according to a recent study by the University of Maryland and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies.
“Startups tend to be small, so most of the truth to the popular perception [around small businesses] is driven by the contribution of startups to net growth,” the study said.
Startups account for only 3 percent of total U.S. private employment but generate 20 percent of total gross job creation.
By contrast, firms 10 years or older with more than 500 workers account for 45 percent of the private sector, but also 40 percent of job creation and destruction.
In other words, startups proportionally generate far more jobs in relation to its slice of U.S. employment than large companies, which also cut jobs nearly as much as they create them.

I doubt they really care what you think either. So don't flatter yourself. Originally Posted by Doove

Do you always have to put words in people's mouths to try to win an argument? Originally Posted by Doove

LOL...out of the mouths of babes. I never claimed they do give a shit wnat I think. I've been talking about what capital thinks. You can't even follow your own thoughts...i.e. don't put words in other mouths.

There is always uncertainty. We have a Presidential election every four years. CEO's have zero idea who will be President in 28 months. If political uncertainty played as much a role as you wish to claim, we'd always be in a recession. Economics are like political elections, after the fact everyone likes to sit around and give their theories as to why this happened or why that happened. Fact is, nobody really knows. Even the supposed "prosperous" times under Bush were relatively tepid. I say it's because the bottom 98% have access to less and less of the pie, aka buying power, you say it's because of political uncertainty. I say that when people buy their products, they'll hire and invest no matter how much political uncertainty there is. I'm guessing i'm just as right as you are. Originally Posted by Doove

Ok. And the sun always rises in the east. Who gives a shit?..and what does that have to do with the price of eggs. Capital both verbally and through deed are saying their perception is that "this" current uncertainty makes them want to sit on the fence. One can stand on a soap box and tell them they are fools...or one can try to formulate thought processes to change that perception. You appear to choose the former...as do many of you like minded buddies. That seems to be working real well.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that my original point was that this all started under Bush. Again, deny that or don't. Or you can just hurl insults. Originally Posted by Doove

Since I don't know what "this" is...its hard to say when it started. If you're talking about the economic doldrums...then Yes, those doldums started under Bush's term. Now what?

OTOH, if you're talking about the policies and concepts that were put in place that caused many of the doldrums...then that has been happening under various adminsitrations and various congresses for the last several decades. But when there is a car wreck in front of you on the highway...you've only got time to glance in the rear view mirror...you had better pay attention to what's in front of you. You...and quite frankly his highness...spend all your time talking about what happened behind you...instead of what is happening today.

What is important is what is happening today...and how does it affect the perceptions of those that apply capital for job growth. Like it or not, those perceptions suck.

My guess is nationally you vote Republican Originally Posted by WTF

Your guess is wrong. I have voted Libertarian for many years. I told you that in an HPF thread after you kept starting sentences with "The candidate you support.." (referring to McCain). Got a memory problem as well as a reading comprehension problem?

Just because it does not fit you simple mindedness narrative... Originally Posted by WTF

It's funny to see a statement like that coming from you! You're the champion of simple-minded narrative.

...because you can not follow random thoughts does not mean it is not intelligent , it may mean you need to expand your horizon. Originally Posted by WTF

I can follow random thoughts as well as anyone, but why would I want to expend the effort to follow and respond to all the random thoughts of some clueless fool who always seems to be trying to combine the traits of an internet troll and a clown?

WTF, you need to learn a lot more and lecture a lot less.

Ahh, let us remember that G.W. Bush inherited a balanced budget from Bill Clinton who was actually reducing the Debt owed by this country, which would have enabled a balanced budget much father in the future, instead Bush immediately returend us to deficit spending and corporate give aways.

All i'm suggesting is that the pie is limited Originally Posted by Doove

That is your fundamental problem. Its not.

That is your fundamental problem. Its not. Originally Posted by pjorourke

you, sir, are correct, the very difference between those holding to the american dream and little rodents trying to snatch a quick bite of carrion.

Pie size limitations are created by politicians who seek to purchase votes with other people's money.