What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FlagDUDE08 said:
The key word in this post is execute.

Let me just ask a general question, but I think you know where I'm going with this: Do you ever watch "Shark Tank" on ABC?
Click to expand...
I used to watch the Canuck version.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Bob Gray said:
Obamanomics is very simple. Spend as much as you can as fast as you can to juice the economy enough to get elected again. That's it. You take away his juicing the economy a dozen ways from Sunday and his chance of getting reelected would be nearly nil (it wouldn't be nil because Romney is a weak candidate himself). But such nuances generally escape the voting public.
Click to expand...

Actually most economists agree that when times are tough the government should spend more and when times are good the government should spend less. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

The main problem we have right now is all the government spending in the world is not masking how bad the economy was in 2008 and how bad it continues to be.

Want the truth?

http://www.gfmag.com/latestnews/latest-news-old.html?newsid=1.474984E7

Romney's plan is worse. It's basically GW's. Tax cuts and more spending. Much worse than Obama. At least Obama is trying to get more revenue to pay for his spending.
 
Kepler said:
Obama +8 among small business owners.

The wheels continue to fall off for the RNC.

NC-11 Republican candidate: I'm here for everyone in my district.

Incumbent NV Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney.

Incumbent MA Republican Senator: I don't view the world like Romney, either. Do these pants make me look fat?

CT Republican Senator Candidate: I disagree with Romney's insinuation.
Click to expand...

CT and MA candidates comments aren't too surprising as the Mittwit will get creamed in both states, so McMahon and Brown are pulling a CYA. No points off for that.

Nevada interests me. In a supposed swing state that's a tossup and all that nonsense (even though I'm not sure a poll exists that's shown him in the lead over there) why would a sitting Senator in a tough race through his party's candidate under a bus? Maybe he's got some internal polling that shows Nevada isn't going to be that close after all (and I'm not sure either party is advertising there).
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Rover said:
The notion that "rich", "wealthy", "job creators", however else you want to term them will invest to grow the economy is a juvenile analysis no matter how many letters one puts after their name. People with money are going to invest that money where they can get the highest return.
Click to expand...

and what is the difference between those two? It sure reads like you are contradicting yourself here.

The whole idea is that if you put money to its most productive use, most people generally will all be better off than otherwise. The whole theory which has ample empirical justification is that it is not the role of business owners to invest and grow "the economy"; it is merely the role of business owners to invest and grow their own individual businesses. Saying Keynesian multipliers have been discredited says nothing about "trickle down" at all; they are two very different discussiions; though that seems to have eluded your comprehension.

Are you saying you don't want money put to its most productive use, that squandering it and wasting it is okay with you?


it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't. Basic R & D is often useful; for example, and one can make a reasonable case that government spending on basic R & D both can address market failures and also provide seeds that others can take and grow into plants. However, commericalization of basic R & D is almost never done effectively by government.


I know nuance is hard for your sledgehammer approach to things, but please don't throw in addendums that never were included in the original and then rail against the addendums as if that somehow is a response to the original.
 
FreshFish said:
and what is the difference between those two? It sure reads like you are contradicting yourself here.

The whole idea is that if you put money to its most productive use, most people generally will all be better off than otherwise. The whole theory which has ample empirical justification is that it is not the role of business owners to invest and grow "the economy"; it is merely the role of business owners to invest and grow their own individual businesses. Saying Keynesian multipliers have been discredited says nothing about "trickle down" at all; they are two very different discussiions; though that seems to have eluded your comprehension.

Are you saying you don't want money put to its most productive use, that squandering it and wasting it is okay with you?


it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't. Basic R & D is often useful; for example, and one can make a reasonable case that government spending on basic R & D both can address market failures and also provide seeds that others can take and grow into plants. However, commericalization of basic R & D is almost never done effectively by government.


I know nuance is hard for your sledgehammer approach to things, but please don't throw in addendums that never were included in the original and then rail against the addendums as if that somehow is a response to the original.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat for your benefit. The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand. The crack analysis you quoted either conveniently or stupidly does not address the fact that wealthy people will take a good portion of that money and invest it overseas. Job creation in China does the US little good. Why should we use US tax dollars to in effect subsidize such an enterprise? It makes no sense. If your argument is "private business can handle money better than the gubmint" - sure. The problem is unlike the gubmint private business does not work for the citizens of the United States, so you can't expect them to do what's best for this country. Unless you could guarantee big business and wealthy individuals would invest this tax break windfall in the US (and I'm not advocating that) the whole notion is a failed, moldy, out of date policy that we tried during the Bush era and it failed miserably. Tell me Fishy, where was all the job creation from 2002 (when tax cuts passed) to 2009???
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FreshFish said:
it is highly unusual for government ever to put money to its most productive use; we settle for having the government perform essential functions, and it's reasonable to debate what's "essential" and what isn't..
Click to expand...

And exactly what productive use is Romney's Cayman or Swiss Bank Account money doing? Or the Trillions of dollars that US Corporations are sitting on?

I rest my case.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Rover said:
The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

so what? I've never proposed that.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Rover said:
I'll repeat for your benefit. The notion that we need to borrow money to give tax cuts to the wealthy in this country because they'll invest it back into the economy is a fool's errand. The crack analysis you quoted either conveniently or stupidly does not address the fact that wealthy people will take a good portion of that money and invest it overseas. Job creation in China does the US little good. Why should we use US tax dollars to in effect subsidize such an enterprise? It makes no sense. If your argument is "private business can handle money better than the gubmint" - sure. The problem is unlike the gubmint private business does not work for the citizens of the United States, so you can't expect them to do what's best for this country. Unless you could guarantee big business and wealthy individuals would invest this tax break windfall in the US (and I'm not advocating that) the whole notion is a failed, moldy, out of date policy that we tried during the Bush era and it failed miserably. Tell me Fishy, where was all the job creation from 2002 (when tax cuts passed) to 2009???
Click to expand...

And why do you think that happens that production goes overseas? Perhaps the "gubmint", as you put it, needs to look into why this is happening, and adjust based upon that. Oh, I'll tell you why: labour. Remember that it is the people selling the companies labour, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to give a more competitive price. Do away with minimum wage and outlandish union requirements that price us out of that market.

Use your head to think, not your heart.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FlagDUDE08 said:
And why do you think that happens that production goes overseas? Perhaps the "gubmint", as you put it, needs to look into why this is happening, and adjust based upon that. Oh, I'll tell you why: labour. Remember that it is the people selling the companies labour, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to give a more competitive price. Do away with minimum wage and outlandish union requirements that price us out of that market.

Use your head to think, not your heart.
Click to expand...

If you expect us to compete with China or India on labor costs than we are truly doomed.

And exactly what Americans do you expect will work for less than minimum wage when you already can't live in this country on minimum wage?

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

ScoobyDoo said:
If you expect us to compete with China or India on labor costs than we are truly doomed.

And exactly what Americans do you expect will work for less than minimum wage when you already can't live in this country on minimum wage?

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be some. How about, when it comes to families, another person bring in that second source of income? How about teenagers with working papers; you're telling me they can't mop the floors a few nights a week? You'd be surprised what sort of character these people actually have.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FlagDUDE08 said:
I'm sure there will be some. How about, when it comes to families, another person bring in that second source of income? How about teenagers with working papers; you're telling me they can't mop the floors a few nights a week? You'd be surprised what sort of character these people actually have.
Click to expand...

The Two Income Trap is what started this mess in the first place. If you want to live in China go ahead. I live in the US.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
If you expect us to compete with China or India on labor costs than we are truly doomed.

And exactly what Americans do you expect will work for less than minimum wage when you already can't live in this country on minimum wage?

THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Exactly. Flag you're trying to create a reality that doesn't exist. The only people who will work in any significant #'s for below the minimum wage are, wait for it...illegal immigrants. The idea that somehow unions who make up less than 10% of the private workforce are pushing up wages is ludicrous. In no way, shape, form or function can we compete on labor costs with China, India or Vietnam. The trick is to 1) defend US manufacturing from countries using slave labor or dumping below cost products on the market, and 2) compete on quality. I don't know what the hell the Commerce Dept does all day, but they as well as the corrupt US Chamber of Commerce should be out promoting the notion that buying US goods keeps jobs here even if you have to pay a little more. I haven't seen a "buy USA" campaign since the 80's and all the money the Chamber shells out shilling for Republicans might be put to better use.

Think about it: The top 3 exporting countries are 1) China, 2) Germany and 3) Japan. Two of those three aren't employing slave labor to make their products, so clearly they aren't competing on price. How then are they doing it? And, why can't the United States do the same?

Fishy, who cares what you're advocating? You're not running for Prez, but the guy who is wants to give tax breaks to people who will park that largesse overseas. Obama won't. Its that cut and dry.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

FlagDUDE08 said:
And why do you think that happens that production goes overseas? Perhaps the "gubmint", as you put it, needs to look into why this is happening, and adjust based upon that. Oh, I'll tell you why: labour. Remember that it is the people selling the companies labour, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to give a more competitive price. Do away with minimum wage and outlandish union requirements that price us out of that market.

Use your head to think, not your heart.
Click to expand...

It's all so simple if you don't understand how numbers work.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Rover said:
but the guy who is wants to give tax breaks to people who will park that largesse overseas. Obama won't. Its that cut and dry.
Click to expand...
Isn't he president now? How come they are still getting tax breaks anyway?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I think you guys would be amazed at what's happening with capital investments in China right now.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

walrus said:
Yeah
So how is reelecting Obama going to do anything?
Click to expand...

It's the lesser of two evils. Another GW Bush (Romney's a clone) gets in there and what's left of the ****pile is going down the drain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top