A Couple of Questions for 1Nemesis

Do you think the federal government is spending to much? If yes, what solution would you propose?

What do you think a reasonable profit is for a corporation? As a percentage. Obviously the dollar amount would vary based on the size of the corporation.

Do you think the federal government is spending to much? If yes, what solution would you propose?

What do you think a reasonable profit is for a corporation? As a percentage. Obviously the dollar amount would vary based on the size of the corporation. Originally Posted by Laz

Way too ambiguous and way too subjective, you've asked this already and I rejected it for the same reasons. You need to do your research and figure out what it is that you disagree with in Obama's economic policies and why you think they failed and challenge me on it.

Even if it's not directed to me, couldn't resist

Do you think the federal government is spending to much? If yes, what solution would you propose? Originally Posted by Laz

In a nutshell, yes. Entitlements are way out of control and no one is dying any quicker. I say this not making a philosophical argument of having or not having a safety net, but more on the premise that the economics just don't work. As it is, the path is unsustainable.

There are also other things that I don't think are helpful use of $$. For one, the unemployment payment window is waaay too long.

What do you think a reasonable profit is for a corporation? Originally Posted by Laz

the capitalist in me says whatever it can get from allocating resources efficiently. But I'm only half joking. To actually put a cap on profits from businesses would kill any incentive to invest or be successful in this country.

Obviously, there's a limit to what society will accept (e.g. sweatshops, child labor) and certain regulations are meant to curtail that type of "exploitation". However, any way you dice it it still amounts to reducing incentives to invest in the U.S.

In an age where the U.S. major trading partners (the E.U.) are struggling and developing nations have the luxury of having low cost for a bit, until the standard of living increases to demand higher wages, we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot more than we already have.

"what it is that you disagree with in Obama's economic policies and why you think they failed and challenge me on it."

One thing that pisses me off about him is that he bashes Wall St. publicly but passes policy that helps them, or at least policy that is a lot milder than his rhetoric might suggest. POTUS, tell me where you stand and act that way. Don't insult my intelligence by thinking I'm too dumb to put two and two together (makes 4 most of the time).

Disclaimer: I voted for Obama in 08.

Even if it's not directed to me, couldn't resist



In a nutshell, yes. Entitlements are way out of control and no one is dying any quicker. I say this not making a philosophical argument of having or not having a safety net, but more on the premise that the economics just don't work. As it is, the path is unsustainable.

There are also other things that I don't think are helpful use of $$. For one, the unemployment payment window is waaay too long.



the capitalist in me says whatever it can get from allocating resources efficiently. But I'm only half joking. To actually put a cap on profits from businesses would kill any incentive to invest or be successful in this country.

Obviously, there's a limit to what society will accept (e.g. sweatshops, child labor) and certain regulations are meant to curtail that type of "exploitation". However, any way you dice it it still amounts to reducing incentives to invest in the U.S.

In an age where the U.S. major trading partners (the E.U.) are struggling and developing nations have the luxury of having low cost for a bit, until the standard of living increases to demand higher wages, we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot more than we already have.

"what it is that you disagree with in Obama's economic policies and why you think they failed and challenge me on it."

One thing that pisses me off about him is that he bashes Wall St. publicly but passes policy that helps them, or at least policy that is a lot milder than his rhetoric might suggest. POTUS, tell me where you stand and act that way. Don't insult my intelligence by thinking I'm too dumb to put two and two together (makes 4 most of the time).

Disclaimer: I voted for Obama in 08. Originally Posted by snake_tony

"One thing that pisses me off about him is that he bashes Wall St. publicly but passes policy that helps them, or at least policy that is a lot milder than his rhetoric might suggest. POTUS, tell me where you stand and act that way."

I don't know Tony, you might want to reconsider your stance on that one for many reasons that are a little complicated but if you like I can share them with you here.
On a quick note, in 2008 Obama had huge campaign donations from Wall Street and the big banks, the largest in history in fact, but for this 2012 election, they have abandoned him and the Democratic Party and now donate to the Republican Party at a 5-1 ratio.
Obviously Obama and the Democrats are doing something that they don't like and I can tell you the rest if your willing to sit through it.

Yah I get all that. I guess every once in a while I just get tired of the rhetoric not matching the policy.

Obviously, it's a flawed point on my part, since politicians could never be completely honest in public. Hence why so much gets done behind closed doors.

Way too ambiguous and way too subjective, you've asked this already and I rejected it for the same reasons. You need to do your research and figure out what it is that you disagree with in Obama's economic policies and why you think they failed and challenge me on it. Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

It is difficult to have a discussion when there is no common foundation to build on. You want to discuss issues in isolation when they need to be evaluated in context.

A perfect example is the belief that massive overspending does not have a short term impact on the economy. Large deficits will lead to higher taxes and companies or individuals will spend based on what they anticipate will be happening in the future. Uncertainty will lead to conservative low risk decisions. Hire only when absolutely necessary because the cost of hiring someone is unknown.

The problem we have now is there is no willingness by the democrats as well as many republicans to make the necessary unpopular decisions to solve the problem. They would rather pander to the public and blame everyone else for the problems they helped create and are avoiding.

I'm just a simple business owner. Screw all the policys. Seems to me flat tax is where we should be. Everyone pays their fair share. Make it high enough to get us out of debt short term. Then scale it back.....Just a simple plan....

I know. This is off subject.. sorry in advance..

Yah I get all that. I guess every once in a while I just get tired of the rhetoric not matching the policy.

Obviously, it's a flawed point on my part, since politicians could never be completely honest in public. Hence why so much gets done behind closed doors. Originally Posted by snake_tony

I understand the frustration with the rhetoric that's for sure.

I'm just a simple business owner. Screw all the policys. Seems to me flat tax is where we should be. Everyone pays their fair share. Make it high enough to get us out of debt short term. Then scale it back.....Just a simple plan....

I know. This is off subject.. sorry in advance.. Originally Posted by borla

Nothing to be sorry about Borla, we are talking economic policy and taxes are part of it. That flat tax idea has been around for awhile and it sounds great, but the problem is when you start crunching the numbers those of us on the bottom of the scale get screwed royally and that includes small business owners like yourself.

(Borla, as in the exhaust? I have a Borla stainless cat-back on my T/A RamAir and it's sounds like a beast!)

It is difficult to have a discussion when there is no common foundation to build on. You want to discuss issues in isolation when they need to be evaluated in context.

A perfect example is the belief that massive overspending does not have a short term impact on the economy. Large deficits will lead to higher taxes and companies or individuals will spend based on what they anticipate will be happening in the future. Uncertainty will lead to conservative low risk decisions. Hire only when absolutely necessary because the cost of hiring someone is unknown.

The problem we have now is there is no willingness by the democrats as well as many republicans to make the necessary unpopular decisions to solve the problem. They would rather pander to the public and blame everyone else for the problems they helped create and are avoiding. Originally Posted by Laz

"A perfect example is the belief that massive overspending does not have a short term impact on the economy. Large deficits will lead to higher taxes and companies or individuals will spend based on what they anticipate will be happening in the future. Uncertainty will lead to conservative low risk decisions. Hire only when absolutely necessary because the cost of hiring someone is unknown."

Ok Laz, we'll do your discussion and I'll reply to this statement this way:
Your wrong and I disagree because you have no evidence of such an assertion. Now what would you have to do to prove that your statement is correct Laz?
You see Laz, for you it's a "belief" but for me, it has to be the truth supported by facts before I can say I believe it.

I'm just a simple business owner. Screw all the policys. Seems to me flat tax is where we should be. Everyone pays their fair share. Make it high enough to get us out of debt short term. Then scale it back.....Just a simple plan....

I know. This is off subject.. sorry in advance.. Originally Posted by borla

The flat tax is better than what exists now but the more I think about it the more I like the fair tax. As long as it replced the income tax and was not an addition to it the fair tax would broaden the tax base and tax goods manufactured overseas equally with US produced goods. Those items could lower the average tax per person and increase manufacturing in the US by eliminating a lot of the financial incentive for manufacturing overseas.

"A perfect example is the belief that massive overspending does not have a short term impact on the economy. Large deficits will lead to higher taxes and companies or individuals will spend based on what they anticipate will be happening in the future. Uncertainty will lead to conservative low risk decisions. Hire only when absolutely necessary because the cost of hiring someone is unknown."

Ok Laz, we'll do your discussion and I'll reply to this statement this way:
Your wrong and I disagree because you have no evidence of such an assertion. Now what would you have to do to prove that your statement is correct Laz?
You see Laz, for you it's a "belief" but for me, it has to be the truth supported by facts before I can say I believe it. Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

I would suggest you use simple logic or common sense but that is clearly not your strong suit.

Large deficits will lead to higher taxes because debt has to be paid back. The only way to do that is cut spending, so that the current tax revenue is redirected to paying debt instead of providing services, or raise taxes. The politicians have proven to be incapable of having the guts to tell people we are broke and act responsibly so that only leaves one alternative. We could inflate our way out of the debt but that is the same as a tax since it reduces the value of everyones savings.

As for companies not hiring you need to ask yourself what would you do in this economic environment. Would you take the risk of hiring someone without knowing what the impact of Obamacare is going to be, will your demand justify having the employee for a long term. New hires are not inexpensive when you consider training and the time it takes for them to become productive. It is a smarter decision to make do with the employees you have or possibly hire temp employees so that you are not on the hook long term. There are surveys that demonstrate this but it is simple logic.

If this does not satisfy you, to bad because I really don't care. I do not have a strong desire to prove myself correct. If you think my statement is wrong then prove it or ignore it.

I would suggest you use simple logic or common sense but that is clearly not your strong suit.

Large deficits will lead to higher taxes because debt has to be paid back. The only way to do that is cut spending, so that the current tax revenue is redirected to paying debt instead of providing services, or raise taxes. The politicians have proven to be incapable of having the guts to tell people we are broke and act responsibly so that only leaves one alternative. We could inflate our way out of the debt but that is the same as a tax since it reduces the value of everyones savings.

As for companies not hiring you need to ask yourself what would you do in this economic environment. Would you take the risk of hiring someone without knowing what the impact of Obamacare is going to be, will your demand justify having the employee for a long term. New hires are not inexpensive when you consider training and the time it takes for them to become productive. It is a smarter decision to make do with the employees you have or possibly hire temp employees so that you are not on the hook long term. There are surveys that demonstrate this but it is simple logic.

If this does not satisfy you, to bad because I really don't care. I do not have a strong desire to prove myself correct. If you think my statement is wrong then prove it or ignore it. Originally Posted by Laz

John Maynard Keynes
Keynesian economic theory not Neo Classical Theory. Stock market broke 13,000 yesterday; completely lays waste to your Obama's bad for business crap, so that means 401k's and independents Laz, forget about 2012….


CNN:

President Obama gets critical boost as Dow clears 13,000
"With Tuesday's rally on Wall Street, President Obama picks up not just another talking point for the 2012 campaign, but a place in history as the fifth best-performing president when it comes to the stock market, behind FDR, Coolidge, Clinton, and Eisenhower.

"It's a pretty good record," said Erin Burnett. "It's psychologically important. It creates a feeling that the economy is on the right track and getting better."

Psychology, Burnett says, leads to actual jobs–and all of that means a potentially significant boost to President Obama's chances at reelection.

Of particular interest is independent voters–fully forty percent of the electorate. Of voters who make $75,000 or more, 85 percent own stocks. "That's a lot of people who are feeling a lot better than they were four years ago."

Oh-oh!!
http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...-clears-13000/

The problem is that the people who make 75k are are also like 10% of the country and they feeling VERY marginalized by a president who seems to fucking hate them for not being unemployed and on governement assistance.

The problem is that the people who make 75k are are also like 10% of the country and they feeling VERY marginalized by a president who seems to fucking hate them for not being unemployed and on governement assistance. Originally Posted by Grifter

What basis do you have to make that assumption?