Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

7 biggest economic lies by Robert Reich

  • Thread starter Thread starter lartinos
  • Start date Start date
L

lartinos

Guest
THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES


The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:



1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.


Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.
 
Good post.


#4 = key at this point in time.
 
Wow, that makes total and complete sense to me.

Ergo, it'll never happen and We The 99% shall continue to get it shoved up and broken off (fucking fluoride in the fucking water turns everyone into sheep).

I always thought that social security cap was stupid, even back when I was working in the private sector, and #7 is a total no-brainer but try and argue that with certain people :rolleyes:
 
He left one out:

8) Jobs, cash and opportunities continue to leave this country at an alarming rate. There are lots of interesting arguments regarding how to fix it, but demagoguing against the "rich" or denying the inescapable reality of the global economy is a guaranteed path to failure.

The first time I read Reich's points listed above, it brought back memories of all those guys who used to argue that Beta was so much better than VHS. It's a cool debate and that's about it.
 
I think we have to have dinner with the economy to get the real facts.
 
Only relates to economies that contain soil a deal was closed on.
 
No good unless 70% or more of the population has cell phone service.
 
I havent closed a deal on the soil of plunkey's office yet.

At the same time, I have a cell phone plan and access to air travel due to relatively close proximity to an airport, so things cant be all bad.
 
I havent closed a deal on the soil of plunkey's office yet.

At the same time, I have a cell phone plan and access to air travel due to relatively close proximity to an airport, so things cant be all bad.

Do you own a boat?
 
I havent closed a deal on the soil of plunkey's office yet.

At the same time, I have a cell phone plan and access to air travel due to relatively close proximity to an airport, so things cant be all bad.


He wouldnt' have you in his office anyway cause everyone that works for him would get clued in that a monkey in a suit and tie just walked in the door and made their boss look stupid.
 
In before plunkey brings up your vibrams then accuses others of trolling!
 
He left one out:

8) Jobs, cash and opportunities continue to leave this country at an alarming rate. There are lots of interesting arguments regarding how to fix it, but demagoguing against the "rich" or denying the inescapable reality of the global economy is a guaranteed path to failure
Plunkey, as a person who has very little interest in the actual mechanics of economics, please explain something to me (and you can be extremely superficial here).
1. When did the corporations begin the major exodus out of this country?

2. What kept them from leaving prior to the exodus?

There has to be a relatively simple answer to this question. You seem to be well versed in facts, I'm too tired to Google.
 
Plunkey, as a person who has very little interest in the actual mechanics of economics, please explain something to me (and you can be extremely superficial here).
1. When did the corporations begin the major exodus out of this country?

2. What kept them from leaving prior to the exodus?

There has to be a relatively simple answer to this question. You seem to be well versed in facts, I'm too tired to Google.

1) I'd guess the real exodus started in the 1970's, but it was much harder to do back then due to infrastructure challenges.

Some exodus has been and will always happen. Some exodus is actually helpful when we push poor jobs out to make room for better jobs.

And global trade can also help everyone across a broad range of economic strata. It does take away jobs, but it also means people here can stretch their money much farther. When it's well balanced, people can enjoy more "stuff" at lower costs.

2) So let's instead answer the question: "What has accelerated and unbalanced the exodus?" It's being driven from both sides. First, it's easier to setup global operations than it used to. Second, increased regulation, an out of control tort system and a terrible tax policy has increased the benefit of going overseas.

The goal shouldn't be to keep every single job in the US. And also realize that it is a pain in the ass to setup global operations. If we maintain a reasonable gap where our regulations don't get out of control (like they are now) and lawsuits don't get out of control (like they are now) and our taxes don't get out of control (like they are now), we could actually keep future jobs here. As far as the jobs that have moved now, those are almost certainly gone forever.
 
that's a simple one MM, they started leaving once China started opening their labor markets. To some extent I don't have a problem with shipping the manufacturing of stupid trinkets overseas...but at this point we're losing all our manufacturing and it's gonna bite all of us, including the rich, when the dollar is excused from being the worlds reserve.

I had a conversation with a washington lobbyist a little over a year ago and he plainly stated that everyone in washington knows full well why we went to war in Iraq and it has nothing to do with oil. Hussein started move his oil with euro's, we spanked him for that cause if that caught on we're in deep shit. So basically the U.S is peacocking around the world to make sure everyone stays in line with the U.S dollar as reserve. Reason for that is that we can always print dollars, no one else can. So that puts us in a pretty cozy seat as it pertains to the global economy. If that were to change things would look very differently very quickly here in the U.S. Frightening actually if you consider that price baskets could double within a few short weeks. I guess people will have to be their own judge over whether this society could weather that storm.
 
I had a conversation with a washington lobbyist a little over a year ago and he plainly stated that everyone in washington knows full well why we went to war in Iraq and it has nothing to do with oil. Hussein started move his oil with euro's, we spanked him for that cause if that caught on we're in deep shit. So basically the U.S is peacocking around the world to make sure everyone stays in line with the U.S dollar as reserve. Reason for that is that we can always print dollars, no one else can. So that puts us in a pretty cozy seat as it pertains to the global economy. If that were to change things would look very differently very quickly here in the U.S. Frightening actually if you consider that price baskets could double within a few short weeks. I guess people will have to be their own judge over whether this society could weather that storm.

You needed a lobbyist to tell you that?
 
jobs come and go, as wages rise in China jobs are starting to move back. Same trend is expected within 5 years in India.

Get educated and work hard is my message to all.

Don't allow our economic system to push wages down, don't cater to the upper class, try to raise your lower class (more consumer dollars = bigger economy).

Bottom line you gotta produce something of value, a good, a service, something. Be productive and we'll be competitive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
Plunkey, as a person who has very little interest in the actual mechanics of economics, please explain something to me (and you can be extremely superficial here).
1. When did the corporations begin the major exodus out of this country?

2. What kept them from leaving prior to the exodus?

There has to be a relatively simple answer to this question. You seem to be well versed in facts, I'm too tired to Google.

Technology and Taxes facilitate this. Poorer countries have always had cheap labor and lots of times, more natural resources (rubber, iron ore, wood etc) but gettting access and managing it was not that easy.

Now with internet, email and telecomunications and you can manage overseas operations with ease.

Then these countries got more competitive with taxes so now you have better taxes, lower cost and many times more natural resources. Throw in it is easy to manage because of modern communicationn and technology and it is a slam dunk to move operations overseas.

Reich's comments are dated as well. Bring back a 91% or even a fucking 70% tax bracket and most big rich will be on the next plane out for these very same reasons. Would you rather live in NYC and pay 70% tax or in the Caymens and pay 30% tax... hmmmmm what to do.

Lastly, everyone has to have skin in the game (pay taxes) or they do not care how much the government spends. I don't care if it is 1% but they have to realize there is consequences to government spending.

We live in different times now where one can be in Japan in 12 hrs or on a conference call to China immediately. People better wake up and quite throwing out stupid statistics from the 50's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
Technology and Taxes facilitate this. Poorer countries have always had cheap labor and lots of time more natural resources (rubber, iron ore, wood etc) but gettting access and managing it was not that easy.

Now with internet, email and telecomunications and you can manage overseas operations with ease.

Then these countries got more competitive with taxes so now you have better taxes, lower cost and many times more natural resources. Throw in it is easy to manage because of modern communicationn and technology and it is a slam dunk to move operations overseas.

Reich's comments are dated as well. Bring back a 91% or even a fucking 70% tax bracket and most big rich will be on the next plane out for these very same reasons. Would you rather live in NYC and pay 70% tax or in the Caymens and pay 30% tax... hmmmmm what to do.

Lastly, everyone has to have skin in the game (pay taxes) or they do not care how much the government spends. I don't care if it is 1% but they have to realize there is consequences to government spending.

We live in different times now where one can be in Japan in 12 hrs or on a conference call to China immediately. People better wake up and quite throwing out stupid statistics from the 50's.

Wow. Nicely said.

The sad thing is, the US still has advantages. But we can't seem to keep from shooting ourselves in the foot with regulation, taxes and lawsuits.
 
THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES

Seven Biggest Reasons why Robert Reich is full of shit

The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:



1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

Is it poor people who are creating jobs?

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

We live in different times with a more mobil economy. Impose a 91% tax rate right now and watch the mass exodus of rich people from the US. Fuck even Warren Buffet would haul ass.

15 yrs ago if you lived overseas, you did not get the news, newspaper, sports scores or any food you cared for. Today you can live in Singapore, have less crime rate, lower taxes, read the USA today, follow your sports on the internet while drinking a Starbucks coffee every morning.

Wake up - that had to be the most antiquated argument I have ever read.

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

Governments have never been a more efficient supplier of jobs. See comunist expirements.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

Almost all enonomic theories would say this is correct and it is probably true right now as well. But if you look at the top American corportations, they are in really good shape, growing revenue, earnings and flush with cash. Why are they not expanding and hiring?

They are absolutely terrified about the US deficit and who is going to pay for it. Saving cash for when the tax man comes.

I am not totally for cutting budgets immediately but a balanced budget amendment would do more for job growth than ANY jobs program the government can put together.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

Wrong again - both are going up so fast because they are being abused by both hospitals and patients. You can't keep spending $500k on the last two weeks of a terminally ill patient and you can't keep providing EVERYONE that walks into an emergency room with medical care.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

If we raise the ceiling, won't that also raise the payments to the people paying in more? Or do you now just get to keep paying in lots more social security but get the same benefits? Problem with social security is we are living so much longer - have to adjust for our current life spans.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.

Payroll taxes are not a tax - they are a prepayment of retirement benefits. In addition, lower income tend to be a higher user of governemnt services. I am not saying they should get them all for free but they do need to understand they come at a cost.

Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.

Unbelievable that this guys is actually a professor at one of the top universities and was our labor secretary. I guess you have to have some socialist beliefs to be Secretary of Labor.
 
Last edited:
You needed a lobbyist to tell you that?


yeah actually i had no idea Hussein was starting to move oil with euro's. At the time I didn't even really understand the full ramifications of what that meant.

It really is like a house of cards they've built here and they'll know when it's about to come down and they'll skip out of town leaving us in the ruins.
 
Unbelievable that this guys is actually a professor at one of the top universities and was our labor secretary. I guess you have to have some socialist beliefs to be Secretary of Labor.

Youre so way off base in so many of your replies I dont even know where to begin.

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

Is it poor people who are creating jobs?

No, but the rich arent either. This is a consumer based recession. More consumers = more demand. Giving tax breaks to the rich doesnt help. According to the CBO, cutting the payroll tax would be more than twice as effective for stimulating demand and, therefore, creating jobs than a tax cut for the wealthy.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

We live in different times with a more mobil economy. Impose a 91% tax rate right now and watch the mass exodus of rich people from the US. Fuck even Warren Buffet would haul ass.

15 yrs ago if you lived overseas, you did not get the news, newspaper, sports scores or any food you cared for. Today you can live in Singapore, have less crime rate, lower taxes, read the USA today, follow your sports on the internet while drinking a Starbucks coffee every morning.

Wake up - that had to be the most antiquated argument I have ever read.

I dont think anybody is proposing a 91% tax. The uneducated are shitting bricks about simply raising the rates 4% higher than they are right now. A 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate wont send anybody anywhere.

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

Governments have never been a more efficient supplier of jobs. See comunist expirements.

lol @ jumping from government created jobs all the way to communism.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

Almost all enonomic theories would say this is correct and it is probably true right now as well. But if you look at the top American corportations, they are in really good shape, growing revenue, earnings and flush with cash. Why are they not expanding and hiring?

They are absolutely terrified about the US deficit and who is going to pay for it. Saving cash for when the tax man comes.

Thats so full of shit its laughable. Companies arent hiring because people arent spending money. Why? Because people dont have money to spend. Why? Because housing crashed, and the vast majority of industries in the US are tied in some way, shape, or form to housing...hence people lost their jobs. Cue the negative feedback loop of a consumer driven recession.

Only those who dont know any better are concerned about the deficit in the short term. What are Treasury bond rates at? I rest my case.


I am not totally for cutting budgets immediately but a balanced budget amendment would do more for job growth than ANY jobs program the government can put together.

LMAO. Id love to hear a rational justification for that.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

Wrong again - both are going up so fast because they are being abused by both hospitals and patients. You can't keep spending $500k on the last two weeks of a terminally ill patient and you can't keep providing EVERYONE that walks into an emergency room with medical care.

Agree on the former, not on the latter.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

If we raise the ceiling, won't that also raise the payments to the people paying in more? Or do you now just get to keep paying in lots more social security but get the same benefits? Problem with social security is we are living so much longer - have to adjust for our current life spans.

I agree.
 
Last edited:
... I had a conversation with a washington lobbyist a little over a year ago and

... then ordered my pilot to make an emergency landing with my Gulfstream 650 at Tiffany's in Paris to buy my supermodel girlfriend some extra bling for her Chihuahua.
 
Wow. Nicely said.

The sad thing is, the US still has advantages. But we can't seem to keep from shooting ourselves in the foot with regulation, taxes and lawsuits.


The Sarbanes-Oxley Act should be repealed. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be hung for treason because they are the reason for the tight regulation. The EPA should have minimal say about the environment, the EPA gives the tree-huggers too much ammo. Therefore, that hinders us from digging for our own energy. Global Warming is a complete fallacy, it is complete junk science. Eliminate the special tax-exempt status granted to enviromental groups, since they are not nonpartisan charitable foundations. Eliminate special stautory authority granting environmental groups standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of the public, since their main objective is to spread Marxism through litigation.

Eliminate the progresive income tax, replace it witha flat income tax or national sales tax for the purpose to redistribute wealth. Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than a double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and hinders wealth and job creation. Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.

Limit federal spending each year to less than twenty percent of the GDP.. I am playing Devil's Advocate here, eliminate the Federal Department of Education, since education is basically a state and local function, and give me a Nobel Prize for another brilliant plan...
 
You're an idiot.
 
lol @ refusing emergency medical services to anyone in need of them. Its tough to take anything you say seriously after something like that. I consider that on par with refusing to put someone's house out that is on fire, or responding to a 911 call for anything remotely serious.
 
This whole post is rife with un educated spoon fed narrative rambling. Congratulations on being able to regurgitate boiler plate narratives. Without govt regulation we'd still be sujected to massive amounts of mercury in our drinking water, which is fine we get all the mercury now that we can handle in seafood. I used to be a co owner of a business that operated in road coating materials and I can tell you unequivocably that without the EPA there would still be the nastiest of solvents, like styrenes, leaching from roads into sewage and ground water. People forget so easily and quickly what business's were getting away with in decades past and would not have stopped doing if it weren't for the govt tellin em to stop coating the populace with carcinogens. Sorry but the free market woudln't have handled that one.



The Sarbanes-Oxley Act should be repealed. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be hung for treason because they are the reason for the tight regulation. The EPA should have minimal say about the environment, the EPA gives the tree-huggers too much ammo. Therefore, that hinders us from digging for our own energy. Global Warming is a complete fallacy, it is complete junk science. Eliminate the special tax-exempt status granted to enviromental groups, since they are not nonpartisan charitable foundations. Eliminate special stautory authority granting environmental groups standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of the public, since their main objective is to spread Marxism through litigation.

Eliminate the progresive income tax, replace it witha flat income tax or national sales tax for the purpose to redistribute wealth. Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than a double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and hinders wealth and job creation. Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.

Limit federal spending each year to less than twenty percent of the GDP.. I am playing Devil's Advocate here, eliminate the Federal Department of Education, since education is basically a state and local function, and give me a Nobel Prize for another brilliant plan...
 
This whole post is rife with un educated spoon fed narrative rambling. Congratulations on being able to regurgitate boiler plate narratives. Without govt regulation we'd still be sujected to massive amounts of mercury in our drinking water, which is fine we get all the mercury now that we can handle in seafood. I used to be a co owner of a business that operated in road coating materials and I can tell you unequivocably that without the EPA there would still be the nastiest of solvents, like styrenes, leaching from roads into sewage and ground water. People forget so easily and quickly what business's were getting away with in decades past and would not have stopped doing if it weren't for the govt tellin em to stop coating the populace with carcinogens. Sorry but the free market woudln't have handled that one.

RS is right! We need moar govmint intervention!
 
ideally we don't need any form of government cause people would have this overwhelming urge to not be assholes. Unfortunately we are too rife with assholes so some sort of convening authority over the market is necessary.
 
... then ordered my pilot to make an emergency landing with my Gulfstream 650 at Tiffany's in Paris to buy my supermodel girlfriend some extra bling for her Chihuahua.

then you stopped over at your own private island where exotic native girls were fetched and bathed before joining in?
 
This whole post is rife with un educated spoon fed narrative rambling. Congratulations on being able to regurgitate boiler plate narratives. Without govt regulation we'd still be sujected to massive amounts of mercury in our drinking water, which is fine we get all the mercury now that we can handle in seafood. I used to be a co owner of a business that operated in road coating materials and I can tell you unequivocably that without the EPA there would still be the nastiest of solvents, like styrenes, leaching from roads into sewage and ground water. People forget so easily and quickly what business's were getting away with in decades past and would not have stopped doing if it weren't for the govt tellin em to stop coating the populace with carcinogens. Sorry but the free market woudln't have handled that one.


Congratulations, you unequivocally do not know how to read nor do you know how to do a critical post review. I said, "the EPA should make minimal decisions." The point is the EPA gives the environmentalists too much ammo with their bogus "environment scares." Leading, to entirely too much litigation and hindering us from digging for our own evergy. The EPA is a good organization for some of the reasons you stated, but that is all.
 
You're an idiot.


Prove me wrong then! It appears, you think your geo-political IQ is higher than mine, so refute my post with your vast array of knowledge. Everyone of your posts are pathetic! You know better to square off with me. Therefore, you stoop to insults, which is a leading indicator you are inept on these subjects, and have an inferiority-complex.

Please, do not drop some commie propaganda link, that is the easy way out. I can drop a thousand conservative links. Get some balls and refute my post with your own words, you cannot do it! Just like you critiqued the other guy's post by saying, "I don't where to start," that is because you lack acute thinking to counter his post and you suffer from cognitive laziness! I have his back, let us see how much you really know. Then I will ripple the hell out of you...
 
Ok.

I know better than to deal with you because whenever Ive tried having a mature discussion and support my arguments with studies, facts, figures, etc (all that garbage that folks like you and plunkey abhor) you simply fall back on "wtf thats a commie propaganda link!!!@@#!@11" when it's a link to a study done by the CBO.

You're an idiot. You've proven as much in your posts. It's not worth my time to try and have a rational discussion with someone who thinks quoting the bible is "backing up their argument with facts."
 
Ok.

I know better than to deal with you because whenever Ive tried having a mature discussion and support my arguments with studies, facts, figures, etc (all that garbage that folks like you and plunkey abhor) you simply fall back on "wtf thats a commie propaganda link!!!@@#!@11" when it's a link to a study done by the CBO.

You're an idiot. You've proven as much in your posts. It's not worth my time to try and have a rational discussion with someone who thinks quoting the bible is "backing up their argument with facts."
I liked you before ... now I really like you.
 
I liked you before ... now I really like you.

You, he and redsam should do a drum circle!

I'd pay money to watch that.

drum-circle.jpg
 
Plunks just a little upset since he discovered that a quick snack at the Beijing airport Best Western doesnt fundamentally change the GDP makeup of an entire nation.

For him it was kind of like learning that Santa Claus doesnt exist. :(
 
Plunks just a little upset since he discovered that a quick snack at the Beijing airport Best Western doesnt fundamentally change the GDP makeup of an entire nation.

For him it was kind of like learning that Santa Claus doesnt exist. :(

Yeah, Plunk was just blown-away by the third largest consumer economy in the world -- and I still am.

I'm just hoping there are more people who don't understand the difference between percentages and absolute numbers. Competing against those guys is vastly easier than dealing with someone who actually knows what they are doing.
 
lol @ you knowing what youre doing.
 
100% of the people on this post know I'm right.

Surely you aren't going to argue with 100% !!!!

100% !!!!
 
Youre so way off base in so many of your replies I dont even know where to begin.
1. Is it poor people who are creating jobs?

No, but the rich arent either. This is a consumer based recession. More consumers = more demand. Giving tax breaks to the rich doesnt help. According to the CBO, cutting the payroll tax would be more than twice as effective for stimulating demand and, therefore, creating jobs than a tax cut for the wealthy.

I don't disagree that cutting payroll taxes will help stimulate consumption but at the same time, raising taxes on people over $250k will take money away from the businesses that are creating jobs. Summary lowering taxes good - raising taxes bad. See we are in agreement.

I dont think anybody is proposing a 91% tax. The uneducated are shitting bricks about simply raising the rates 4% higher than they are right now. A 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate wont send anybody anywhere.

Oh contrair Mr Reich in right there was saying that it does not matter what the upper tax bracket it in relation to jobs creations. He is wrong and his information is dated. Two totally different economies from the USA in the 50's and the USA today.


3lol @ jumping from government created jobs all the way to communism.

Look - you think the government needs more money to create more jobs, I think the people need more money to create more jobs. The extreme of your view is comunism. The extreme of my view is total free market. I think it has been proven free market works better. I am not for a totally unregulated free market and I do believe there are certain roles the government must provide, I just think right now it is more important that the government get its fiscal house in order. That being said, I think that lies more in entitlement spending that actually reducing the size of the big G right now.

Thats so full of shit its laughable. Companies arent hiring because people arent spending money. Why? Because people dont have money to spend. Why? Because housing crashed, and the vast majority of industries in the US are tied in some way, shape, or form to housing...hence people lost their jobs. Cue the negative feedback loop of a consumer driven recession.

Only those who dont know any better are concerned about the deficit in the short term. What are Treasury bond rates at? I rest my case.


You are way wrong there. Go listen to CEO's and why they are not hiring. They are scared shitless that they are inesting in a country with a broken government - no confidence.

You have a chicken and egg argument here. Consumption is down for 2 reasons 1) unemployment is up 2) confidence is down. If you hire more people you automatically are going to increase consumption. You have to do something about confidence now and that is proving you can govern in fiscally responsible way.


LMAO. Id love to hear a rational justification for that.

See above - LMAO that you think not having a balance budet is a viable future and you are an investment advisor? Really?

5. Agree on the former, not on the latter.

If you don't agree on the latter then you need to spend some time talking to Dr's. They are all desperate to get out of hospitals so they can quite giving away their services. About 50% of their work these days goes unpaid which just increases the cost for those paying the bills. Here you have the added problem that every mexican knows that they can go across the border and walk into a hospital and get treated for things they have not the money for back home.

True story - I have a Dr friend who was called to the emergency room the other day to translate. An elderly mexican lady was in there complaining of headache and needed treatement. As he talked to her, it comes out she had already been diagnosed with a brain tumor in Mexico but they told her to go get her business in order and say goodbye to her family. Instead they head across the border where relatives live, get to the emergency room and voila .. she gets fucking brain surgery on your nickle even though she is going to die sometime this year regardless.
 
I don't disagree that cutting payroll taxes will help stimulate consumption but at the same time, raising taxes on people over $250k will take money away from the businesses that are creating jobs. Summary lowering taxes good - raising taxes bad. See we are in agreement.

Yes we are. 27%, 22%, and 15% should be the tax rates. No loopholes, no deductions. Lower taxes for everyone, but ensure that the wealthy are paying a higher & than the non-wealthy. Not that hard to comprehend.


Oh contrair Mr Reich in right there was saying that it does not matter what the upper tax bracket it in relation to jobs creations. He is wrong and his information is dated. Two totally different economies from the USA in the 50's and the USA today.

I meant nobody today is actually arguing seriously for that. See my post above. Lower rates across the board. Its just funny to see the GOP talk on and on about lower taxes yet oppose a payroll tax cut.

Look - you think the government needs more money to create more jobs, I think the people need more money to create more jobs. The extreme of your view is comunism. The extreme of my view is total free market. I think it has been proven free market works better. I am not for a totally unregulated free market and I do believe there are certain roles the government must provide, I just think right now it is more important that the government get its fiscal house in order. That being said, I think that lies more in entitlement spending that actually reducing the size of the big G right now.

I agree, but I dont see why we cant meet somewhere close to the middle. Theres nothing wrong with the government employing people as long as there is a balance between that and the standard free market economy.


You are way wrong there. Go listen to CEO's and why they are not hiring. They are scared shitless that they are inesting in a country with a broken government - no confidence.

Youre dead wrong. You think that if there was actually consumer demand businesses wouldnt hire because of the deficit?

Economists: Low Hiring Due To Consumer Weakness, Not Policy Doubts : It's All Politics : NPR

WSJ Survey: Lack of Demand, Not Uncertainty, Keeps Hiring Down - Catherine Hollander - NationalJournal.com

This isnt rocket science.


See above - LMAO that you think not having a balance budet is a viable future

See above. LMAO and thinking just because the government says that in the future they wont spend more than they take in will automatically tell business owners to hire.

and you are an investment advisor?
No. :confused:
 
lol @ refusing emergency medical services to anyone in need of them. Its tough to take anything you say seriously after something like that. I consider that on par with refusing to put someone's house out that is on fire, or responding to a 911 call for anything remotely serious.

As your state is on the verge of bankruptcy due to the fact that you are burdened with health care (emergency room), education and prison from illigal aliens, you might ought to think about that again.

Right now you are shutting down state parks - that you love to use and cutting back on college fundings again to allocate funds to the other.

I am not against indigent health care, I just believe it has to come from a State/County hospital that is set up for that and the patient has to waive all rights for malpractice and has to be a legal resident in the country.

You know right now, you have people going into hospitals claiming they don't have insurance because it is cheaper than having to co-pay with their insurance.
 
As your state is on the verge of bankruptcy due to the fact that you are burdened with health care (emergency room), education and prison from illigal aliens, you might ought to think about that again.
Funny, the capital of my home state just filed for bankruptcy. Wonder how it's going to affect us? Pa. capital files for bankruptcy, roiling mayor - CBS News


HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania's distressed capital city filed for bankruptcy Wednesday, citing "imminent jeopardy" from lawsuits related to a debt-saddled municipal incinerator and setting up a power struggle between the mayor and City Council.

The federal petition for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, being sought to help Harrisburg get out from under crushing debt, listed about $458 million in creditors and claims and six pending legal actions by creditors.
 
Ok.

I know better than to deal with you because whenever Ive tried having a mature discussion and support my arguments with studies, facts, figures, etc (all that garbage that folks like you and plunkey abhor) you simply fall back on "wtf thats a commie propaganda link!!!@@#!@11" when it's a link to a study done by the CBO.

You're an idiot. You've proven as much in your posts. It's not worth my time to try and have a rational discussion with someone who thinks quoting the bible is "backing up their argument with facts."


You know better to deal with me, you were the one who took a potshot at me. What are you talking about? I posted an outstanding, irrefutable post and you insulted me because it does not line up with your philosophy of life. That is immature behavior. Again, there is a lack of comprehension on your part, you do not understand history terms. I used the best possible "probability" in that thread to back up my argument. There is no concrete evidence to prove Jesus' existence except the bible, so I used the best source available, that is how it works if you do not have concrete evidence, do you understand???? It is detective work, the best possible "probability." Which I proved... I gave my opinion in this thread and you insulted me. I am no angel, but you are wrong this time.
 
lol
 
fyi see youpissmeoff above. We obviously dont agree, but were actually having an intelligent debate.

Its possible, just not with folks like yourself.
 
fyi see youpissmeoff above. We obviously dont agree, but were actually having an intelligent debate.

Its possible, just not with folks like yourself.

No, it's not. You're as bad as redsam, just slightly (and I do mean slightly) more articulate.

And lol @ "lol" -- that's what you use when you're out of gas.
 
100% of the people on this post know I'm right.

Surely you aren't going to argue with 100% !!!!

100% !!!!


You are always right, ultra right. You are a genius afterall, you can read "braille." I cannot read half of these posts and you can, I am impressed! Anne Sullivan has nothing on you.
 
No, it's not. You're as bad as redsam, just slightly (and I do mean slightly) more articulate.

And lol @ "lol" -- that's what you use when you're out of gas.


Bro, if that is the case, then this dude constantly runs on fumes. Thank God for acronyms and symbols.
 
No, it's not. You're as bad as redsam, just slightly (and I do mean slightly) more articulate.

And lol @ "lol" -- that's what you use when you're out of gas.

Coming from the person who has proven time and time again to not really have much of a clue about anything, that doesnt mean much. I know you're still a tad sore from the shellacking you got regarding China (not to mention the whole you not knowing the definition of "effective tax rates" a few months back), but don't fret. I'm sure if we got into a debate about the intricacies of selling x-ray equipment, you would probably best me.

But thats assuming I would be dumb enough to talk about something I obviously have no clue about in the first place. :)
 
Coming from the person who has proven time and time again to not really have much of a clue about anything, that doesnt mean much. I know you're still a tad sore from the shellacking you got regarding China, but don't fret. I'm sure if we got into a debate about the intricacies of selling x-ray equipment, you would probably best me.

But thats assuming I would be dumb enough to talk about something I obviously have no clue about. :)

When you got stumped by percentages, I figured there wasn't much that could be explained to you.

:)
 
Like the % of China's GDP that was comprised of consumer spending?

Oh, yeah. That one took you a while.
 
lol @ revisionist history. Too bad the threads still there to read.

100% Pure Plunkey Goodness.
 
Plunks just a little upset since he discovered that a quick snack at the Beijing airport Best Western doesnt fundamentally change the GDP makeup of an entire nation.

For him it was kind of like learning that Santa Claus doesnt exist. :(
:lmao:
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
 
Don't throw-out percentages like that. It only confuses him.

Hell, he couldn't recognize the third largest consumer market in the world.


why are you not in politics? seriously. You have the perfect short term memory revision matrix ideally suited for a life a blowing it out your asshole.
 
here come ledhead
US marine with his lone smilie
conserving him ammo in case he has to hold out on the hilltop alone
 
that is this threads' econ lesson
and a nice blend of micro and macro
 
why are you not in politics? seriously. You have the perfect short term memory revision matrix ideally suited for a life a blowing it out your asshole.

Let me look into it.

I'm clicking on the "Politics" link at cybercollege right this moment.
 
Plunkey is more suitable for chairman of a political party, not an actual candidate for office.
 
new orleans isn't a particularily safe place to drink out in public
trust me I've been drugged and robbed
and rescued by a pair of black girls
so back on point pick likely drinks and stays at home
and fucks back on the computer
so he can see another day
 
you know why herman cain is rising in the polls?
because much of the vietnam era is at the age now
and they remember having a black guy in your foxhole was as good as gold
 
knot without first serving a killer internship as officer in the Student Government Association at Cybercollege



just sayin'

Do I have to serve, or can I just print out the cyber-SGA certificate?
 
Reich's comments are dated as well. Bring back a 91% or even a fucking 70% tax bracket and most big rich will be on the next plane out for these very same reasons. Would you rather live in NYC and pay 70% tax or in the Caymens and pay 30% tax... hmmmmm what to do.

Red herring, since Reich didn't suggest doing that.
 
Top Bottom