Jump to content

Debates


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349367047' post='1166194']
Well honestly it comes down to giving incentive for companies to move their production of products and services into a down winding market. At what point does the reward outweigh the risk? With the way real estate and sales have been in the U.S., it's going to take some massive promises in order to convince these companies that are on the fence.

Yes there is the argument that unless money is pumped into the market through labor, citizens won't have the money to buy goods and services. That seems simple, but there is a catch. What company do you know of that is happy with an even flow chart? None. Companies are in business to make money not break even. So how can a business create jobs, build sales, and make money?

That's actually the downfall of free trade and capitalism comes in. The only way for one company to be successful is if one or more other business fail. So to really answer your question, the U.S. and it's companies have to win not only at home, but abroad. I think you already know where I am going with this. The unions, labor costs, and federal standards make it difficult for U.S. business to compete internationally.

My answer to the economy really doesn't have as much to do with taxes, but putting harder constraints on businesses that ship goods into the U.S. Not only is it important to be tough with tariffs, but the U.S. needs to develop rules that goods brought into the U.S. have to follow not only quality standards that are the same applied to U.S. made goods, but that the companies they come from meet the same standards that are enforced on American factories. If the companies don't like it, then they don't have to sell their products here. Eventually they will have to collapse under the pressure and more than likely start building things in the U.S.
[/quote]

But that's the short sightedness of said companies, when you send so many jobs away and the markets you send them to have cheaper labor, you have to reduce your costs of your products to affordable levels for those markets, which reduces your profit as well. If you pay your workers fair wages so they can afford your products you get people buying things again. Henry Ford made the Model T on the principle that he believed that his workers should have a car they can afford, it wasnt solely about profit and he gained profit from that belief.

This supply side theory that a few are espousing here simply has not worked and we have the data to show that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349358239' post='1166143']
Also Rick I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I want you to tell me how reducing the deficit and balancing the budget will create jobs? Serious question.

I think it's the other way around my friend, creating jobs and getting more people back into the workforce will reduce the deficit and balance the budget, because youll have more people to tax to do it.
[/quote]

I don't know... I only play an economist on here :)

I don't really care though. I am more worried about racking up debt that my grandchildren will be burden with when they are playing 11% interest rates. And anyone that can't find a good reason to balance the budget, I will not give a respectable answer to. My budget must be balanced... why shouldn't the countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349367935' post='1166198']
He can't... but that isn't the point, we was lying like the rest of the politicians.

It was a stark contrast though... Everytime the economy came up, all Obama would talk about is taxes, taxes, taxes... How does this work? How will he do that. Romney focused on the correct things in my opinion: Jobs and growth.

To answer your question more directly though, how [b]could [/b]it be possible? Growth... It seems that Obama forgot that this is possible and is EXACTLY why Clinton was able to do what he did. The country was growing in prosperity.



amen
[/quote]

You do understand that the programs that Clinton put into effect during his presidency hurt the national budget, in order to build the private sector economy? Job Corps was one of Clinton's legacies. He believed providing free education, housing, and etc. for people within the 18-24 year old range would help to build a stronger, more educated workforce in the future. All it did was create better educated fast food workers. He helped to build a work force for an economy that didn't have the jobs to handle it.

Though I do believe education is a vital part of building a selling point to companies building their business in the U.S., it extends a lot farther than that. Supply and demand, we have the people, but the government that we love so much HAS to make it more beneficial to build factories here, or make it less attractive to build factories outside of the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349368163' post='1166201']
I don't know... I only play an economist on here :)

I don't really care though. I am more worried about racking up debt that my grandchildren will be burden with when they are playing 11% interest rates. And anyone that can't find a good reason to balance the budget, I will not give a respectable answer to. My budget must be balanced... why shouldn't the countries.
[/quote]

You realize that without investment in our future as well your children wont just be paying off the debit, they wont have good jobs to pay it. We are losing our ground in numerous areas as far as global competitiveness. Investment in our future not only puts people back to work it creates a larger tax base to balance the budget.

The economy doesnt work like your house hold budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349368358' post='1166205']
You do understand that the programs that Clinton put into effect during his presidency hurt the national budget, in order to build the private sector economy? Job Corps was one of Clinton's legacies. He believed providing free education, housing, and etc. for people within the 18-24 year old range would help to build a stronger, more educated workforce in the future. All it did was create better educated fast food workers. He helped to build a work force for an economy that didn't have the jobs to handle it.

Though I do believe education is a vital part of building a selling point to companies building their business in the U.S., it extends a lot farther than that. Supply and demand, we have the people, but the government that we love so much HAS to make it more beneficial to build factories here, or make it less attractive to build factories outside of the U.S.
[/quote]

I'm not going to act like all of this is old news to me... I was 11 when Clinton was elected and was 19 when we was out of office. I could care less about that then and try my hardest to stay away from politics now. I do know that he had incredible growth and he worked with rep's to balance the budget before Bush took over... And I admit Bush screwed that up royally.

But nonetheless, I know what I saw last night and Obama is lost on the economy imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349368392' post='1166206']
Listening to Obama supporters talk about needing to create jobs and lowering taxes is like taking diet advice from a 400 lb man.
[/quote]

and listening to conservatives talk about the economy after their supply side theories have done so much damage to it, is like talking to a bulimiac about their lunch they just ate that will be in the toilet in 5 minutes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349368428' post='1166207']
You realize that without investment in our future as well your children wont just be paying off the debit, they wont have good jobs to pay it. We are losing our ground in numerous areas as far as global competitiveness. Investment in our future not only puts people back to work it creates a larger tax base to balance the budget.

The economy doesnt work like your house hold budget.
[/quote]

so why shouldn't be have a balanced budget?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349368428' post='1166207']
You realize that without investment in our future as well your children wont just be paying off the debit, they wont have good jobs to pay it. We are losing our ground in numerous areas as far as global competitiveness. Investment in our future not only puts people back to work it creates a larger tax base to balance the budget.

[b]The economy doesnt work like your house hold budget.[/b]
[/quote]

You have kids to build your workforce. You then use your kids as cheap labor to take care of the things at home. Your wife (Congress) complains that she needs more money for this or that, and that you might have to work more overtime or get a second job. This can go on and on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349368579' post='1166210']
so why shouldn't be have a balanced budget?
[/quote]

Its about WHEN should it be balanced Rick? And that time is NOT when we have a downturn, and especially not when its as severe as we face now.

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349368670' post='1166211']
You have kids to build your workforce. You then use your kids as cheap labor to take care of the things at home. Your wife (Congress) complains that she needs more money for this or that, and that you might have to work more overtime or get a second job. This can go on and on...
[/quote]

You cant print more money legally, the government can.

Not the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349368579' post='1166210']
so why shouldn't be have a balanced budget?
[/quote]

I'm not trying to question your intelligence, but do you have any idea how much a Trillion dollars is? There is absolutely no way the budget wold ever get balanced and start chipping away at debt without significant things happening. So, that is either going to be done by raising taxes extensively across the board, or cutting the 'fat' off some programs. There is no outcome that is going to please everyone. In my opinion that is why candidates try to come up with these creative budgets, they know if they get up to the podium and say something like, "I believe we need to raise taxes across the board by 5%." No way someone would get elected that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349368782' post='1166213']
Its about WHEN should it be balanced Rick? And that time is NOT when we have a downturn, and especially not when its as severe as we face now.



You cant print more money legally, the government can.

Not the same.
[/quote]

Sure they can print more money but then it only devalues the dollar. Part of the reason we are in the position we are in today, is the dollar has nothing behind it. We don't have gold or silver to back the currency. Pretty much a dollar has turned into an IOU. China and Russia own more of the U.S. than the U.S. does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349368782' post='1166213']
Its about WHEN should it be balanced Rick? And that time is NOT when we have a downturn, and especially not when its as severe as we face now.
[/quote]

Sorry but I 4 years was enough time to turn us around... Obama's incompentance isn't a good enough excuse to saddle my children and their children with the hell that awaits them;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349369030' post='1166214']
I'm not trying to question your intelligence, but do you have any idea how much a Trillion dollars is? There is absolutely no way the budget wold ever get balanced and start chipping away at debt without significant things happening. So, that is either going to be done by raising taxes extensively across the board, or cutting the 'fat' off some programs. There is no outcome that is going to please everyone. In my opinion that is why candidates try to come up with these creative budgets, they know if they get up to the podium and say something like, "I believe we need to raise taxes across the board by 5%." No way someone would get elected that way.
[/quote]

I am not saying year one you lower taxes, balance the budget, and all is jolly. We need to cut fat and create growth. Around year 5,6 somewhere around there though is a realistic goal of balancing the budget imo.

I actually agree with your last statement that we should cut 5% across the board. Including defense and I am a conservative. You said the answer though, you can't say that because then you will never have a chance to do it in the first place.

Obama's best line of the night was when he said "your going to be pretty busy on your first day then" because he called out the lie...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349365873' post='1166192']
Yes we have gone over it before and both then and now you fail to address the notion that there is no incentive to invest without customers to buy products.
[/quote]

The U.S. is still the biggest consumer economy in the world (assuming China hasn't caught up to us yet). And if your argument is that the primary incentive of business to invest in China is due to cheap labor, then that is antithetical to the above argument, because the working class doesn't make enough money to buy anything. Regardless, the U.S. market isn't the only market these companies are concerned with; these are major global corporations. Any time a major exporter relocates to your country, it is a big win - reducing the trade deficit is key to improving the American economy as a whole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349358239' post='1166143']
Also Rick I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I want you to tell me how reducing the deficit and balancing the budget will create jobs? Serious question.

I think it's the other way around my friend, creating jobs and getting more people back into the workforce will reduce the deficit and balance the budget, because youll have more people to tax to do it.
[/quote]

thats where im at too

I found myself thinking last night that everything Romney says makes sense [i]if[/i] you make the assumption that these actions lead to job creation

however, ive never really been convinced that it does

its almost being presented as if its so obvious that it doesn't require explination, but if thats the case then my public education and state university failed me because i dont get it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1349370047' post='1166222']
thats where im at too

I found myself thinking last night that everything Romney says makes sense [i]if[/i] you make the assumption that these actions lead to job creation

however, ive never really been convinced that it does

its almost being presented as if its so obvious that it doesn't require explination, but if thats the case then my public education and state university failed me because i dont get it
[/quote]

point taken but based on history, Obama really does have a problem creating jobs with his policies. We have no choice but have faith that Romney can do better. But point taken. There is way too much assumption here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1349370047' post='1166222']
thats where im at too

I found myself thinking last night that everything Romney says makes sense [i]if[/i] you make the assumption that these actions lead to job creation

however, ive never really been convinced that it does

its almost being presented as if its so obvious that it doesn't require explination, but if thats the case then my public education and state university failed me because i dont get it
[/quote]

Actually, at one point in the debate Romney did say that part of his plan to reduce the deficit was to create jobs and thereby increase revenue. He proposes to do this by reducing taxes on small businesses. He threw out the term "revenue neutral" a lot, which implies government cuts either way if you want deficit reduction. It's really sleight of hand more than anything, because Romney could slash your marginal tax rate but also take away or cap deductions, so the average person pays the same net taxes anyway.

Of course a real solution has to be revenue positive, and the solution to that depends on whether or not you believe that reducing the tax burden on business will actually broaden the base.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349369166' post='1166215']
Sure they can print more money but then it only devalues the dollar. Part of the reason we are in the position we are in today, is the dollar has nothing behind it. We don't have gold or silver to back the currency. Pretty much a dollar has turned into an IOU. China and Russia own more of the U.S. than the U.S. does.
[/quote]

Backing the dollar against gold give us no room to wiggle when the economy goes bad. The increase and decrease of the value of the dollar follows as part of the monetary cycle.

These QEs that the Fed is doing wouldnt be necessary if we had a good fiscal plan in place rather than the constant blocking of everything that is going on now. The Fed is now forced to devalue the currency in an attempt to get people spending now before their dollar is worth less. If we had a good fiscal and tax policy it wouldnt be necessary.

That's not even to mention the whole Fed as a private bank as opposed to a National Bank that Hamilton had in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349369340' post='1166217']
[color=#ff0000]Sorry but I 4 years was enough time to turn us around[/color]... Obama's incompentance isn't a good enough excuse to saddle my children and their children with the hell that awaits them;
[/quote]

No not really.

But if you want to argue the things he has done and the republicans that have blocked some of the things he has tried to do as the issue then we can do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349370865' post='1166225']
Actually, at one point in the debate Romney did say that part of his plan to reduce the deficit was to create jobs and thereby increase revenue.[b] He proposes to do this by reducing taxes on small businesses[/b]. He threw out the term "revenue neutral" a lot, which implies government cuts either way if you want deficit reduction. It's really sleight of hand more than anything, because Romney could slash your marginal tax rate but also take away or cap deductions, so the average person pays the same net taxes anyway.

Of course a real solution has to be revenue positive, and the solution to that depends on whether or not you believe that reducing the tax burden on business will actually broaden the base.
[/quote]

that seems to be the going explination...lower taxes on the small buisnesses->they have more money->they hire more people

im just not convinced thats how it will actually work
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349369586' post='1166218']
I am not saying year one you lower taxes, balance the budget, and all is jolly. We need to cut fat and create growth. Around year 5,6 somewhere around there though is a realistic goal of balancing the budget imo.

I actually agree with your last statement that we should cut 5% across the board. Including defense and I am a conservative. You said the answer though, you can't say that because then you will never have a chance to do it in the first place.

Obama's best line of the night was when he said "your going to be pretty busy on your first day then" because he called out the lie...
[/quote]


Cutting the budget does what for creating jobs?

There is an answer to this that conservatives believe, I'm just trying to get you to go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349369987' post='1166220']
The U.S. is still the biggest consumer economy in the world (assuming China hasn't caught up to us yet). And if your argument is that the primary incentive of business to invest in China is due to cheap labor, then that is antithetical to the above argument, because the working class doesn't make enough money to buy anything. Regardless, the U.S. market isn't the only market these companies are concerned with; these are major global corporations. Any time a major exporter relocates to your country, it is a big win - reducing the trade deficit is key to improving the American economy as a whole.
[/quote]

[b]Right now [/b]the US consumer market is the largest [b]right now[/b] if we continue these neoliberal ideas it wont remain that way.

No they arent investing in China. My primary argument is that supply side economic that you tout is a giant vacuum sucking the jobs out of one area and putting them in cheaper labor markets until that is no longer advantageous for profit then moving on to the next cheap labor market, at some point they wont be able to do that because the labor markets will ballance themselves out and then their ponzi scheme will be up.

And I agree with you about reducing the trade deficit, but you dont do it with free trade at the expense of the worker, you do it as Lew had mentioned, through protective tarrifs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349370409' post='1166224']
point taken but based on history, Obama really does have a problem creating jobs with his policies. We have no choice but have faith that Romney can do better. But point taken. There is way too much assumption here.
[/quote]

Ill give you this. Obama is as much as a NeoLiberal as Romney is, that I will agree with.

But the supply side/trickle down economics has damaged us and until conservatives fess up to that we will be at an impass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...