B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
So what? The country shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of greedy lunatics more concerned about their bottom line then helping America prosper.
Harry Dresden on
+3
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You couched it in language which begrudged the idea that this was an obviously hypocritical position to hold.
It isn't. Prove it is.
They are holding apparently contradictory ideas. One who advocates free market philosophies do not typically advocate an increase in the size of government spending and more government control of the economy. They hold the position because they do not want to risk everything with the financial and business community. They feel safe vehemently defending small businesses, which makes people feel more comfortable because hey, it isn't big billionaires that we all hate. Problem is attacking big business is bad for all business because it consequently affects smaller business, as well as purchasers of commodities and labor. Small businesses rely on larger companies to buy their raw materials, wholesale, IE whatever it takes to get the cheapest products for resale to stay in business and compete. If their wholesalers taxes go up, they raise their prices, which inevitably raises the cost to smaller business and all the way down to the very basic consumer. A president who supports business and the free-market would not get tangled up in stimulus spending, increased taxation, etc, etc.
Dude, not everything is a black & white situation. There's nuance on this subject. Being pro-capitalist doesn't automatically mean a person has to be anti-regulation. Same for attacking big business or the wealthy.
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
But Obamacare is the largest pro-business initiative since--
and economics is a science, believing in one or the other school of thought is not--
--wait, giving funds to wall street isn't supporting the market?
ObamaCare is not free-market
Giving funds to corporate lobbyists is not free-market.
This is... What is this. I don't even.
ObamaCare is a series of regulations designed to protect consumers and make the market more open. What is "not free-market" about opening up market places in each state so consumers can have real choices?
A government controlled health care system is not a private market.
Obviously not. Its a good thing that's not what Obamacare is, otherwise my statement would be incorrect. Are you arguing that imposing regulations on a market somehow switches it to being a government controlled market?
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Paul Krugman is also a Nobel Laureate in Economics.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
Since when are taxes levied on revenues? As far as I can remember from accounting classes taxes are levied on profits... EBIT and all that.
EDIT: It is gross income that is hit by taxes. So neither profits nor revenues. Should have paid more attention.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
The Nobel Laureate in Economics was created and is issued by an entirely separate group from the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Medicine.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
It's a technicality. What is colloquially known as the Nobel Prize in Economics is not actually one of the original prizes set out by Alfred Nobel, nor is it decided on by the Nobel Committee. It's a memorial prize dedicated to Alfred Nobel though...
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
The Nobel Laureate in Economics was created and is issued by an entirely separate group from the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Medicine.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market
What's wrong with Keynesian economics?
They're verboten because socialism.
I mean, sure they were RIGHT in the lead-up to the credit crunch in 2008 and yes Reaganomics were an easily-laughed at JOKE in 1992 but because a generation of young Republicans (excuse me, "Independents™") went to Friedmanite churches schools of business and then went into media (huh?) it is commonly accepted now that John Maynard Keynes was just short of Lenin and completely wrong about everything forever.
References include the Carter years of stagflation and a lot of condescending evangelical arguments about all bad things becing caused by Keynesian witchcraft or a lack of faith in the almighty invisible hand.
The actual "science" portion of economics is that the Keynes and Smith models are incomplete views of the whole, and Friedman is a hack who just rebranded Smith and pretended he was being original.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
The Nobel Laureate in Economics was created and is issued by an entirely separate group from the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Medicine.
You said peace twice.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
So nobel prize winning economists are wrong and every person who has ever tossed this notion around is wrong. I mean, where have you obtained your knowledge that is so superior to everybody else? Do you have a business that has ever been affected by government regulations or taxation? I'm just curious.
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
The Nobel Laureate in Economics was created and is issued by an entirely separate group from the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Medicine.
You said peace twice.
IT'S THAT IMPORTANT
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
This is true, I support minimal regulations that are well justified to keep the ball in the court when it comes to business, and a strong government to protect people from the aggression, violence, theft, etc from other citizens. There are shades of gray, but the fact that Obama attacks big business in general and regurgitates Keynesian economics doesn't make a strong case that he supports a free market.. not to mention giving taxpayer funds to wall street corporate lobbyists. It would be like if I was running on a progressive platform and then raised taxes on the poor.
Let us play a game.
Let us pretend that you are very pro-free-market. Let us now imagine that someone has implemented a bunch of regulations that are not very good for the free market, yet which give lots and lots of money to large corporations and their executives. (You can pretend these regulations are whatever you would like them to be. If you contend that such regulations are inherently impossible, you lose the game.)
Now you are tasked with talking to the public about the economy. The game is to express the problem of a system rigged to favor large corporations in a way that will not cause some guy on the internet to bitch about how you are anti-free-market. We are assuming, for the purposes of this game, that you are not defining "anti-free-market" as "disagrees with Subhuman about macroeconomic theory."
For bonus points in this game, please explain how Obama is simultaneously attacking corporations and sucking off corporate lobbyists who, ostensibly, are lobbying in favor of corporations. Is it some sort of S&M thing?
"Oh yeah baby, gimme that fat wad of taxpayer money! Give it to me, give me the whole 9 billion! Now tell me I'm bad! Tell me I'm a dirty whore! Tell me I'm a dirty corporate whore!"
Something like that?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
So what? The country shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of greedy lunatics more concerned about their bottom line then helping America prosper.
Well, there's another way to look at this... you think it's just some greedy company, but that company exists because somebody is supporting it through a voluntary transaction, purchasing something they want. If the regulations in place are to protect consumers, why should that company eat all of the additional costs? They're not arbitrarily raising prices, because as Moniker said, market forces dictate that they cannot... so if they are all raising their prices simultaneously because of government regulation, it can be argued that it would be fair for you to help pay the extra costs since you are benefiting from that regulation.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
True. Except for how it wouldn't. In the slightest. Like, at all.
Increase top marginal rates and bring capital gains equivalent to wages and suddenly the marginal dollar is better spent reinvested into the company's future growth rather than cashed out as a dividend payment. Other things, too, but that alone would have a significant impact without nationalizing anybody.
If the government imposes a regulation or a tax that costs the industry more revenue, what U.S law prevents them from raising the prices of the commodities they sell to other businesses or ordinary consumers?
None. Their competition in a market economy does that.
Exactly. When the industries are all unanimously affected, they can unanimously increase the cost of their commodities. To prevent companies from being able to do that would require more government. Responding to many posts, so I apologize if I don't get to all of yours, but it was suggested that there has to be a way in America to stop companies from being able to pass on costs of regulations to consumers. One guess off the top of my head would be to install price controls.
Only if they act in collusion with each other (which is rightfully illegal) or if they exist in a non-competitive sector of the economy where they are only extracting monopoly rents from their consumers. Which is, again, a bad thing that should rightfully be broken up by anti-trust laws in order to return competition.
And you keep going on about price controls as if they are about to be introduced tomorrow. Cite Obama or Pelosi or anyone advocating their implementation. Because right now you seem to be the only person who believes they're a useful approach.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
So what? The country shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of greedy lunatics more concerned about their bottom line then helping America prosper.
Well, there's another way to look at this... you think it's just some greedy company, but that company exists because somebody is supporting it through a voluntary transaction, purchasing something they want. If the regulations in place are to protect consumers, why should that company eat all of the additional costs? They're not arbitrarily raising prices, because as Moniker said, market forces dictate that they cannot... so if they are all raising their prices simultaneously because of government regulation, it can be argued that it would be fair for you to help pay the extra costs since you are benefiting from that regulation.
Except, again, they won't raise their prices at an equal rate and over a simultaneous period of time due to market competition.
More bad polls happened today, consistent with the narrative that the race is now tied. Whether that narrative is actually true I'll leave to you mild conspiracy theorists to hammer out.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Hey guys, so I don't really post in this thread or keep up with it (it moves way too fast).
I wanted to ask though, is Romney really ahead right now in the national polls? As in ahead in the race towards getting elected?
Sub-question, if the answer to the above is no, are we sure that rationale isn't some desperate liberal denial? I've been following the election but fairly loosely so I'm not quite up to date on current affairs.
Guek on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The polls are back to like, pre convention bumps. This bump from the debate is going to ebb.
Hey guys, so I don't really post in this thread or keep up with it (it moves way too fast).
I wanted to ask though, is Romney really ahead right now in the national polls? As in ahead in the race towards getting elected?
Sub-question, if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial? I've been following the election but fairly loosely so I'm not quite up to date on current affairs.
Hey guys, so I don't really post in this thread or keep up with it (it moves way too fast).
I wanted to ask though, is Romney really ahead right now in the national polls? As in ahead in the race towards getting elected?
Sub-question, if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial? I've been following the election but fairly loosely so I'm not quite up to date on current affairs.
Depends on which poll/aggregator of polls you use. Romney is up in RCP (mostly on the strength of Pew alone), but down slightly in Pollster with Obama recovering his lead. Ultimately all you can say for sure is that things are a lot tighter than they were a week or two ago, and as with anything you'll get a clearer picture as more data becomes available to drown out the noise. Another thing to bear in mind is that this covers national vote share rather than electoral college vote share, which doesn't always line up thanks to being stupid and anachronistic.
Not quite sure what your second question is about.
Hey guys, so I don't really post in this thread or keep up with it (it moves way too fast).
I wanted to ask though, is Romney really ahead right now in the national polls? As in ahead in the race towards getting elected?
Sub-question, if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial? I've been following the election but fairly loosely so I'm not quite up to date on current affairs.
#1. No.
#2. Huh?
#3. The gloom'n'doom is because Romney turned things around from, "take a miracle to win" to "horserace" by basically taking all his policy positions and either reversing them or drastically skewing them leftward and claiming they have always been his positions. Objectively, he lied, subjectively, he's told nothing BUT lies, and realistically he has no firm policy positions but a history of looting and greed at the cost of the people. Such a terrible candidate should be in line for a Mondale-style stomping and the fact that he isn't is demoralizing.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Mitt is a lying little shit.
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
...if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial?
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Conservatives want to deny that their horse in the race can't win the election by doing well in debates. It'll give Romney a slight temporary bump but he'll need more to close the deal. Underestimating Obama is a bad idea, though I'll enjoy watching them squirm when Biden & Obama's future performances in the debates are better.
...if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial?
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. All I asked was whether or not the current poll results that are being reported are actually indicative of a drastic change in the outlook of the upcoming election and if the answer is no, whether or not that reasoning is sound and not just wishful thinking on behalf of democrats.
I'm unsure as to whether or not I should trust the narrative that's being spun by the media, which is why I'm asking about it in the first place.
Posts
Yes, they are wrong. Because Nobel* Prize winning economists making different claims happen to have economic data proving that their models are more accurate representations of reality.
*There is no Nobel Prize winning economist because there is no Nobel Prize in economics.
So what? The country shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of greedy lunatics more concerned about their bottom line then helping America prosper.
I think Paul Krugman would disagree with you on that one.
Or is this one of those technicality things no one really cares about?
Obviously not. Its a good thing that's not what Obamacare is, otherwise my statement would be incorrect. Are you arguing that imposing regulations on a market somehow switches it to being a government controlled market?
Paul Krugman is also a Nobel Laureate in Economics.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
Since when are taxes levied on revenues? As far as I can remember from accounting classes taxes are levied on profits... EBIT and all that.
EDIT: It is gross income that is hit by taxes. So neither profits nor revenues. Should have paid more attention.
The Nobel Laureate in Economics was created and is issued by an entirely separate group from the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Medicine.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
It's a technicality. What is colloquially known as the Nobel Prize in Economics is not actually one of the original prizes set out by Alfred Nobel, nor is it decided on by the Nobel Committee. It's a memorial prize dedicated to Alfred Nobel though...
So the second one, got it.
Empirical evidence: Sweden.
They're verboten because socialism.
I mean, sure they were RIGHT in the lead-up to the credit crunch in 2008 and yes Reaganomics were an easily-laughed at JOKE in 1992 but because a generation of young Republicans (excuse me, "Independents™") went to Friedmanite churches schools of business and then went into media (huh?) it is commonly accepted now that John Maynard Keynes was just short of Lenin and completely wrong about everything forever.
References include the Carter years of stagflation and a lot of condescending evangelical arguments about all bad things becing caused by Keynesian witchcraft or a lack of faith in the almighty invisible hand.
The actual "science" portion of economics is that the Keynes and Smith models are incomplete views of the whole, and Friedman is a hack who just rebranded Smith and pretended he was being original.
You said peace twice.
pleasepaypreacher.net
IT'S THAT IMPORTANT
Let us play a game.
Let us pretend that you are very pro-free-market. Let us now imagine that someone has implemented a bunch of regulations that are not very good for the free market, yet which give lots and lots of money to large corporations and their executives. (You can pretend these regulations are whatever you would like them to be. If you contend that such regulations are inherently impossible, you lose the game.)
Now you are tasked with talking to the public about the economy. The game is to express the problem of a system rigged to favor large corporations in a way that will not cause some guy on the internet to bitch about how you are anti-free-market. We are assuming, for the purposes of this game, that you are not defining "anti-free-market" as "disagrees with Subhuman about macroeconomic theory."
For bonus points in this game, please explain how Obama is simultaneously attacking corporations and sucking off corporate lobbyists who, ostensibly, are lobbying in favor of corporations. Is it some sort of S&M thing?
"Oh yeah baby, gimme that fat wad of taxpayer money! Give it to me, give me the whole 9 billion! Now tell me I'm bad! Tell me I'm a dirty whore! Tell me I'm a dirty corporate whore!"
Something like that?
Well, there's another way to look at this... you think it's just some greedy company, but that company exists because somebody is supporting it through a voluntary transaction, purchasing something they want. If the regulations in place are to protect consumers, why should that company eat all of the additional costs? They're not arbitrarily raising prices, because as Moniker said, market forces dictate that they cannot... so if they are all raising their prices simultaneously because of government regulation, it can be argued that it would be fair for you to help pay the extra costs since you are benefiting from that regulation.
Only if they act in collusion with each other (which is rightfully illegal) or if they exist in a non-competitive sector of the economy where they are only extracting monopoly rents from their consumers. Which is, again, a bad thing that should rightfully be broken up by anti-trust laws in order to return competition.
And you keep going on about price controls as if they are about to be introduced tomorrow. Cite Obama or Pelosi or anyone advocating their implementation. Because right now you seem to be the only person who believes they're a useful approach.
Except, again, they won't raise their prices at an equal rate and over a simultaneous period of time due to market competition.
one and done lol
More bad polls happened today, consistent with the narrative that the race is now tied. Whether that narrative is actually true I'll leave to you mild conspiracy theorists to hammer out.
one and almost done lol
Gallup was the same as Monday I thought.
I wanted to ask though, is Romney really ahead right now in the national polls? As in ahead in the race towards getting elected?
Sub-question, if the answer to the above is no, are we sure that rationale isn't some desperate liberal denial? I've been following the election but fairly loosely so I'm not quite up to date on current affairs.
In theory.
Ultimately, the only poll that matters is the one that will take place in November 6.
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Depends on which poll/aggregator of polls you use. Romney is up in RCP (mostly on the strength of Pew alone), but down slightly in Pollster with Obama recovering his lead. Ultimately all you can say for sure is that things are a lot tighter than they were a week or two ago, and as with anything you'll get a clearer picture as more data becomes available to drown out the noise. Another thing to bear in mind is that this covers national vote share rather than electoral college vote share, which doesn't always line up thanks to being stupid and anachronistic.
Not quite sure what your second question is about.
#1. No.
#2. Huh?
#3. The gloom'n'doom is because Romney turned things around from, "take a miracle to win" to "horserace" by basically taking all his policy positions and either reversing them or drastically skewing them leftward and claiming they have always been his positions. Objectively, he lied, subjectively, he's told nothing BUT lies, and realistically he has no firm policy positions but a history of looting and greed at the cost of the people. Such a terrible candidate should be in line for a Mondale-style stomping and the fact that he isn't is demoralizing.
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Conservatives want to deny that their horse in the race can't win the election by doing well in debates. It'll give Romney a slight temporary bump but he'll need more to close the deal. Underestimating Obama is a bad idea, though I'll enjoy watching them squirm when Biden & Obama's future performances in the debates are better.
Do you think that is a certainty or even likely given than Nate still has Obama ahead? Be honest now.
Yes, Obama only has a two-in-three chance of winning now.
I'm unsure as to whether or not I should trust the narrative that's being spun by the media, which is why I'm asking about it in the first place.
It's an improvement.