Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama to Business Owners: You didn't build that

Obama to Business Owners: You didn't build that (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not curious at all, it's because of the moral hazard. If the money goes into a hole, then no one is motivated to waste it. But if the money goes into the pockets of the people who voted for it to go there, then that creates a motivation to double-down on the same practice and expand it as much as possible, regardless of productivity or waste. To you it sounds like they're saying "you can only tax me as long as it doesn't help anyone," but there's really a sound logical basis for saying that. Any time the cause of an inefficiency directly benefits from that inefficiency, it creates a moral hazard which leads to expansion of that inefficiency. That's why the right is more concerned about terrorism than global warming, because global warming doesn't create a moral hazard, while being soft on terrorism does.

Yes, war spending does make some people rich, but the number of people is far less (conceptually it's the ratio between employees and customers), and the votes of the actual people profiting (contractors) is less able to directly influence elections than the number of people that could directly profit from social programs like free healthcare and other hand-outs.
I hear what you are saying my man when it comes to "moral hazard". But I disagree with your contention that this ....


But if the money goes into the pockets of the people who voted for it to go there, then that creates a motivation to double-down on the same practice and expand it as much as possible, regardless of productivity or waste.
... is not also applicable to the military-industrial complex. It's not just about the number of employees and shareholders of private sector defense contractors. From a business standpoint these companies are their own legal entities with their own financial interests. And given their immensely deep pockets they have undue influence on the electoral and political process ... far beyond the number of people associated with them who actually have the capacity to cast a ballot. Hence the controversy over the recent Citizen's United SCOTUS decision. Surely you aren't suggesting that tax payer dollars are never wasted on military spending? Considering the infamous $600 toilet seats and the $6-8 billion in "waste, fraud, and abuse" in Iraq Reconstruction funds? How is the military-industrial complex not subject to that same "moral hazard" which leads to its own expansion?

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But if the money goes into the pockets of the people who voted for it to go there, then that creates a motivation to double-down on the same practice and expand it as much as possible, regardless of productivity or waste.
... is not also applicable to the military-industrial complex. It's not just about the number of employees and shareholders of private sector defense contractors. From a business standpoint these companies are their own legal entities with their own financial interests. And given their immensely deep pockets they have undue influence on the electoral and political process ... far beyond the number of people associated with them who actually have the capacity to cast a ballot.
You say that as if social programs and entitlements don't have lobbyists too. Every business that stands to be paid to implement government policies is going to donate and lobby. So on the one hand Joe Ballotbox is being subjected to marketing, and on the other hand he's still being subjected to marketing but he's also getting a paycheck directly. Is the latter irrelevant? If Joe is so mentally defective that he can't make up his own mind in the face of marketing and campaigning, then how is he able to overcome the inherent bias from voting on his own paycheck? It seems absurd for anyone to claim that the latter is not far more influential than the former, as you seem to be claiming.

How is the military-industrial complex not subject to that same "moral hazard" which leads to its own expansion?
Of course it is, but at least it still has checks and balances (albeit less than 100% effective), but the specter of a majority voting themselves largesse from the public treasury has no checks or balances at all, effective or not. It makes sense to focus on an unchecked moral hazard first, and return to the checked moral hazard afterwards.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 06:27 PM
 
Why do Americans operate as if the government being complete uncontrollable asshats is a completely inevitable foregone conclusion, and that therefore the only solution is to neuter all things government? I completely understand the historical precedent and the rationale behind distrust of government, but why do some people seem disinterested in finding ways to improve upon this core problem via checks and balances of various sorts, rather than advocating something else (virtual anarchy) that has its own inevitable and pretty indisputable shortcomings?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I believe that welfare in the developed world goes too far and that this is detrimental to society, but whenever I hear opinions like yours they never seem to include any provision for people who are genuine hard workers and need some support to get them back on their feet due to circumstances beyond their control. Unless you really believe that people who suffer such misfortune should be abandoned to die along with the lazy ones, please try to temper your position with some suggestion of how to help those who deserve help when they need it.
What you're talking about isn't redistribution of wealth. Monetary assistance during hard times doesn't constitute redistribution. Redistribution is permanent welfare to the point that it becomes a better quality of life to live on the dole then to work. Please don't confuse the two.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What you're talking about isn't redistribution of wealth. Monetary assistance during hard times doesn't constitute redistribution. Redistribution is permanent welfare to the point that it becomes a better quality of life to live on the dole then to work. Please don't confuse the two.
Surely you can see that the one has grown from the other?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The conditions are right to expand when there is money to be made. If there is no money to be made the conditions are not right.
When there is a PROFIT to be made. You can make money all day, and still be in the hole. Motorola made over a billion dollars in revenue last quarter, and still lost over 200 million.

For example, there is profit that COULD be made in coal fueled electric plants. However, Obama has implemented policies which make it impossible to do and make a profit. In this example, there's money to be made but the current administration is standing in the way of it.

Currently, conditions are NOT right to most job creators that give them confidence that expanding now would be the most profitable plan for their businesses. Unless you are in a position like Apple where you essentially printing money, you're going to wait it out and see if you can expand when more favorable circumstances come around. That's been the case for the past 4 years, and why the unemployment rate has been so high.

Taxes have no affect on this, higher or lower.
Wrong. The more money investors have, the more likely that when the business climate is right they will use that to invest. This really isn't all that complicated. It's not much different than an family's economic situation. You invest in new stuff when you have the money, and the time is right. Otherwise, you don't spend.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do Americans operate as if the government being complete uncontrollable asshats is a completely inevitable foregone conclusion, and that therefore the only solution is to neuter all things government? I completely understand the historical precedent and the rationale behind distrust of government, but why do some people seem disinterested in finding ways to improve upon this core problem via checks and balances of various sorts, rather than advocating something else (virtual anarchy) that has its own inevitable and pretty indisputable shortcomings?
besson, no one is arguing for anarchy. Please don't be silly.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What you're talking about isn't redistribution of wealth. Monetary assistance during hard times doesn't constitute redistribution. Redistribution is permanent welfare to the point that it becomes a better quality of life to live on the dole then to work. Please don't confuse the two.
Where does the "monetary assistance" come from?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 05:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Redistribution is permanent welfare to the point that it becomes a better quality of life to live on the dole then to work.
Are we anywhere near that?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 06:03 AM
 
We really need to squeeze more cash out of the wealthy people to pay for all the new... oh, wait, they don't have nearly enough f****** money to pay for the programs we have. When are these idiots going to figure that out?

You want new entitlements? Better start slashing the budget. You can begin with defense and welfare.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 06:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Are we anywhere near that?
Over 45% of the people in this area are on welfare, food stamps, disability, or a combination of the 3. My cousin works two jobs under the table while drawing disability and food stamps. I've reported him but nothing's been done about it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 06:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Over 45% of the people in this area are on welfare, food stamps, disability, or a combination of the 3.
This is a "better quality of life" than working?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
My cousin works two jobs under the table while drawing disability and food stamps. I've reported him but nothing's been done about it.
That is fraud. I don't think you see anyone here endorsing it.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 06:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think he meant you didn't build the roads and bridges.
That is not what he said.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 07:05 AM
 
Christ, even Romney agrees:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ese-two-quotes

Originally Posted by Romney
"There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.

...

I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help."


Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
That is not what he said.
It isn't?


Originally Posted by Obama
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Are we anywhere near that?
When half the nation pays no income tax and more than half are on food stamps... Yes.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post

When half the nation pays no income tax and more than half are on food stamps... Yes.
Are you speaking hypothetically? If so, do you see this as a reasonable projection?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
When there is a PROFIT to be made. You can make money all day, and still be in the hole. Motorola made over a billion dollars in revenue last quarter, and still lost over 200 million.
For example, there is profit that COULD be made in coal fueled electric plants. However, Obama has implemented policies which make it impossible to do and make a profit. In this example, there's money to be made but the current administration is standing in the way of it.
Currently, conditions are NOT right to most job creators that give them confidence that expanding now would be the most profitable plan for their businesses. Unless you are in a position like Apple where you essentially printing money, you're going to wait it out and see if you can expand when more favorable circumstances come around. That's been the case for the past 4 years, and why the unemployment rate has been so high.
Wrong. The more money investors have, the more likely that when the business climate is right they will use that to invest. This really isn't all that complicated. It's not much different than an family's economic situation. You invest in new stuff when you have the money, and the time is right. Otherwise, you don't spend.
When I said money I meant profits.

As for the coal example just because there are profits to be made in coal powered electrical plants does not mean its something as a nation or a as people we want to allow. There are limitations on many activities that would be profitable that is now allowed or accepted. Hit man comes to mind as one.

As for how much money investors have again it not about how much money they have to invest its about how much consumer money is available to spend on the business to make it profitable. A Investor could have a Trillion dollars but none of that will be used to expand a business if there is no customers spending money on the business. If the business environment is right a business will expand, through investors, savings and borrowing as long as it can justify the capital with projected gains. It still all comes back down to consumer confidence and disposable income. If people don't have the extra money to spend, businesses are not going to get the business they need to expand.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Where does the "monetary assistance" come from?
Business owners and their employees via taxes. Hence the objection to Obama's mentality.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
That is not what he said.
Ironically, "that" is exactly what he said.

In other words, an inherently non-specific term.


As an aside, while the use of "that" happens a lot in speech, about 90% of the time it can (and should be) eliminated from writing. It's one of the few genuine "bad words".
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is a "better quality of life" than working?
It is if you're a lazy POS. There are people who do need these services, but the corruption is so great that the entire system needs to be scrapped and reworked.

That is fraud. I don't think you see anyone here endorsing it.
No, but I'll bet you that most on here know someone who's doing it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Christ, even Romney agrees:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ese-two-quotes
It isn't?
I'm pretty sure I've said Romney and Obama are quite similar, the main difference is which side they've chosen to pander to.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Christ, even Romney agrees:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ese-two-quotes
It isn't?
What's different about the two? Well, for starters; "that business, you didn't build that" was never in Romney's speech. Why? Because Obama is not interested in agreeable rhetoric, he's interested in divisive rhetoric to pit we the people against one another. There would be no government without we the people. Obama has the relationship exactly backwards and establishes it time and again. Trust me, it's a gaffe and he knows it.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you speaking hypothetically? If so, do you see this as a reasonable projection?
You are right, only about 50M people in the USSA are on food stamps, so things are just peachy.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post

You are right, only about 50M people in the USSA are on food stamps, so things are just peachy.
-t
Wow, not only are you good at sniffing out a fight to wage, but you can start two of them in two separate threads nearly at the same time!
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 01:47 PM
 
What fight ?
I'm stating facts. Unless you disagree, there won't be a fight.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
What fight ?
I'm stating facts. Unless you disagree, there won't be a fight.
-t
Maybe you really don't know when your posts can be perceived as confrontational then.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe you really don't know when your posts can be perceived as confrontational then.
You can stop all this by just agreeing with him.
ebuddy
     
NewsPosteur
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 07:31 PM
 
MySQL error #45
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2012, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You can stop all this by just agreeing with him.
I bet my agreeing with everything to get him to simmer down would rile him up though, unless it was sincere agreeing, and I'm a crappy liar. P.S. I love you.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
When half the nation pays no income tax and more than half are on food stamps... Yes.
Two things: Why do you think half the nation pays no income taxes? and do you equate this as to having no "skin" in the system?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 06:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It is if you're a lazy POS.
Ah, a qualifier I see. So I'm guessing that'd be a "no" for you then?

It's interesting how people are outraged or jealous a segment of the population is a getting a "free ride" and living a lifestyle that most of us would agree is abso-****ing-lutely horrible.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There are people who do need these services, but the corruption is so great that the entire system needs to be scrapped and reworked.
Do we have numbers for this? At what percentage of fraud does the system become too corrupt?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What's different about the two? Well, for starters; "that business, you didn't build that" was never in Romney's speech. Why? Because Obama is not interested in agreeable rhetoric, he's interested in divisive rhetoric to pit we the people against one another. There would be no government without we the people. Obama has the relationship exactly backwards and establishes it time and again. Trust me, it's a gaffe and he knows it.
Heh, I expected you were going to devolve into semantical gymnastics to try and find a difference between the two, but thankfully you're just taking the moment to condemn modern politics. I can live with that.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Two things: Why do you think half the nation pays no income taxes? and do you equate this as to having no "skin" in the system?
1) A broken tax system.
2) What would you care what taxes are used for if you're not paying any? Hey! Lets keep the guy in power thats making sure we don't pay a dime but expect the entitlements all the same.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:09 AM
 
With the Earned Income Tax Credit, you can get more back than you paid in.
45/47
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
With the Earned Income Tax Credit, you can get more back than you paid in.
True ... but it should be noted that this means income taxes only. And there are many other types of taxes that low to medium income people pay that don't fall into that category.

What's interesting to me in general is that the EITC has been one of the more favored anti-poverty tools of the GOP (President Reason made it a key aspect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986) especially as an alternative to social programs. Yet now there is this hostility to it from many of our good friends on the right. But there's one thing that certainly can't be denied. The EITC goes to people who WORK. This is not something that benefits people sitting around on their asses all day. So it sort of begs the question ... if people were paid enough on their jobs to make a decent wage would the EITC even be necessary? And if one is opposed to businesses being required to pay a decent wage ... then what else would one propose to dealing with millions of people working full-time jobs and still in poverty?

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
True ... but it should be noted that this means income taxes only. And there are many other types of taxes that low to medium income people pay that don't fall into that category.
What's interesting to me in general is that the EITC has been one of the more favored anti-poverty tools of the GOP (President Reason made it a key aspect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986) especially as an alternative to social programs. Yet now there is this hostility to it from many of our good friends on the right. But there's one thing that certainly can't be denied. The EITC goes to people who WORK. This is not something that benefits people sitting around on their asses all day. So it sort of begs the question ... if people were paid enough on their jobs to make a decent wage would the EITC even be necessary? And if one is opposed to businesses being required to pay a decent wage ... then what else would one propose to dealing with millions of people working full-time jobs and still in poverty?
OAW
I don't sense any hostility towards the EITC. I don't have a problem with it. Can you show me where any of us have said or implicated such?

My problem is with our fearless leader who views the EITC and other government assistance as the greatest gift the government could give to its subject. He has no interest in solving the root problems with our current economic system and instead would like to stack bandaid upon bandaid until you can't see or smell the rotting flesh. The EITC is a good program considering the broken tax system.

If you think there is a huge difference between upper and lower class now, wait until the power is even further consolidated within the government. At least now there's a chance to ascend the economic ladder without being someone's favorite at the head office.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't sense any hostility towards the EITC. I don't have a problem with it. Can you show me where any of us have said or implicated such?
This ... ?

Originally Posted by Snow-i
When half the nation pays no income tax and more than half are on food stamps... Yes.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
2) What would you care what taxes are used for if you're not paying any? Hey! Lets keep the guy in power thats making sure we don't pay a dime but expect the entitlements all the same.
OAW
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:01 AM
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/business/profitable-caterpillar-pushes-workers-for-steep-cuts.html?hp
Despite earning a record $4.9 billion profit last year and projecting even better results for 2012, the company is insisting on a six-year wage freeze and a pension freeze for most of the 780 production workers at its factory here. Caterpillar says it needs to keep its labor costs down to ensure its future competitiveness.
Caterpillar, which has significantly raised its executives’ compensation because of its strong profits, defended its demands, saying many unionized workers were paid well above market rates.
Pure corporate greed.
eg.,
“Caterpillar has been a leader in the past 20 years in taking a hard line,” said Richard Hurd, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell. Last winter, Caterpillar locked out about 450 workers at its locomotive plant in London, Ontario, and then closed the factory after the union rejected its demand to cut wages by 55 percent.
Executives get compensation but the workers that build the product get the shaft.
F%#@*g assholes.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This ... ?
OAW
All this implies is that you've failed to grasp my argument in the slightest. Its as if you believe that I think those respective demographics should wallow in the slums and have nothing to add to society.

In the interest of making sure that I've clearly articulated my position, could you provide a brief summary of what you believe I've been trying to convey?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/business/profitable-caterpillar-pushes-workers-for-steep-cuts.html?hp
Pure corporate greed.
eg.,
Executives get compensation but the workers that build the product get the shaft.
F%#@*g assholes.
Great. I'll never buy caterpillar and demand that my subcontractors do not use them either. I will hit them where it hurts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
1) A broken tax system.
Broken in what way? It unfairly favors the poor?

The reason nearly half of Americans pay no taxes is because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason the upper percentiles pay so much is because they have so much of the money (And it continues to accumulate upwards). You can't pay taxes when your wages are stagnating compared to everyone else. If the rich want to see the lower percentiles pay more taxes, they'd have to pay them more. I think they'd rather keep their money.

It's also worth noting that this is the result of the Bush tax cuts and a progressive tax system. I fear for which one people would rather see modified.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
2) What would you care what taxes are used for if you're not paying any? Hey! Lets keep the guy in power thats making sure we don't pay a dime but expect the entitlements all the same.
Everyone still pays SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Local Taxes, Sales Taxes (though not every state), Property Tax (If you're "lucky"), Gas taxes, cigarette taxes (if they smoke). There's no dodging some of your income going to government.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/business/profitable-caterpillar-pushes-workers-for-steep-cuts.html?hp
Pure corporate greed.
eg.,
Executives get compensation but the workers that build the product get the shaft.
F%#@*g assholes.
What's funny about this is that caterpillar's main revenue streams are government contractors and the government itself. Classic example of what I'm talking about - the government has chosen a winner in Caterpillar and market forces (we the people) can't do diddly about it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
All this implies is that you've failed to grasp my argument in the slightest. Its as if you believe that I think those respective demographics should wallow in the slums and have nothing to add to society.
In the interest of making sure that I've clearly articulated my position, could you provide a brief summary of what you believe I've been trying to convey?
And that is altogether possible. But in a nutshell, I'm simply saying a comment like this ....

Originally Posted by Snow-i
Redistribution is permanent welfare to the point that it becomes a better quality of life to live on the dole then to work
... which prompted Dakar to ask "Are we anywhere near that?" ... to which you responded ....

Originally Posted by Snow-i
When half the nation pays no income tax and more than half are on food stamps... Yes.
... pretty much indicates that you think "income redistribution" is a bad thing. And then when you follow up with a comment like this ....

Originally Posted by Snow-i
What would you care what taxes are used for if you're not paying any? Hey! Lets keep the guy in power thats making sure we don't pay a dime but expect the entitlements all the same.
... it pretty much solidifies that sentiment. Now Chongo chimed in and said ...

Originally Posted by Chongo
With the Earned Income Tax Credit, you can get more back than you paid in.
... hence the phenomenon we presently see where nearly half of US taxpayers effectively pay no INCOME tax is due in large part to the EITC. That's when I mentioned that the EITC has historically been championed by the GOP as an anti-poverty tool that was preferable to social programs that provide direct support. But it's sort of ironic that many on the right seem hostile to it now ... or perhaps, hostile to its unintended consequences? Again, I could very well be getting an impression that you didn't intend. So you tell me where you stand if I've gotten it wrong .....

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And that is altogether possible. But in a nutshell, I'm simply saying a comment like this ....
... which prompted Dakar to ask "Are we anywhere near that?" ... to which you responded ....
... pretty much indicates that you think "income redistribution" is a bad thing. And then when you follow up with a comment like this ....
... it pretty much solidifies that sentiment. Now Chongo chimed in and said ...
... hence the phenomenon we presently see where nearly half of US taxpayers effectively pay no INCOME tax is due in large part to the EITC. That's when I mentioned that the EITC has historically been championed by the GOP as an anti-poverty tool that was preferable to social programs that provide direct support. But it's sort of ironic that many on the right seem hostile to it now ... or perhaps, hostile to its unintended consequences? Again, I could very well be getting an impression that you didn't intend. So you tell me where you stand if I've gotten it wrong .....
OAW
You're missing half of the equation though. The EITC is meant as an anti poverty tool. A bandaid for when times are tough for individuals. Great, No problem.

The problem is the willful ignorance of the problems which necessitates the EITC in the first place (i.e. high taxes and a sputtering economy) - this turns the EITC into a welfare entitlement as opposed to a safety net for those that fall on hard times. Instead of an assistant to get you through tough times it becomes a crutch that half the nation cannot do without - consolidating power in washington to a bunch of suits that can and will sell you out when it benefits their big business cronies - i.e. the creation of a dependency class.

Can you see the distinction? The problem is not that so many take advantage of it. The problem is that no one in washington seems to want to fix the underlying problem that necessitates 50% of the country paying no taxes. Eyes closed, ears shut "BUT IT WAS GOVERNMENT THAT MADE YOU SUCCESSFUL"
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 07:13 PM
 
So, this happened

Romney in 2002: Olympians 'didn't get here solely on your own power'

www.latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-in-2002-olympians-didnt-get-here-solely-on-your-own-power-20120723,0,2400312.story



[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Yp9SVSWJU[/VIDEO]
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
So, this happened
Romney in 2002: Olympians 'didn't get here solely on your own power'
Romney contradicting himself yet again? You don't say!

It's sad that Romney's constant self-contradictions stopped being noteworthy because they are so common.

Novelist John Scalzi offered an opinion on the notion of being "a self-made man." Great read: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/23/a-self-made-man-looks-at-how-he-made-it/
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Heh, I expected you were going to devolve into semantical gymnastics to try and find a difference between the two, but thankfully you're just taking the moment to condemn modern politics. I can live with that.
The tone is everything, particularly when you're the POTUS trying to get people off their dollars. And I thought you were trying to suggest Romney and Obama must feel the same way toward the business community. At least we've dropped the hope and change nonsense with regard to Obama.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
(i.e. high taxes )
High taxes? Compared to what?



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The tone is everything, particularly when you're the POTUS trying to get people off their dollars.
Hwhat?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And I thought you were trying to suggest Romney and Obama must feel the same way toward the business community.
Nope, putting the nail in the coffin of all those people who got the pitchforks out because Obama dared point out everyone uses the system in one form or another.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
At least we've dropped the hope and change nonsense with regard to Obama.
Gloating? Disappointed? Relieved?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
High taxes? Compared to what?
Compared to conditions that would stimulate growth in the small and medium business sectors.


Nope, putting the nail in the coffin of all those people who got the pitchforks out because Obama dared point out everyone uses the system in one form or another.
Gloating? Disappointed? Relieved?
"Everyone uses the system in one form or another"

and

"You didn't build that"; "I'm struck when I meet someone..." "Government research was responsible for the internet"

are two different things and indicative of a real problem with the approach he takes towards the economic engine of our society.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're missing half of the equation though. The EITC is meant as an anti poverty tool. A bandaid for when times are tough for individuals. Great, No problem.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Snow-i
The problem is the willful ignorance of the problems which necessitates the EITC in the first place (i.e. high taxes and a sputtering economy) - this turns the EITC into a welfare entitlement as opposed to a safety net for those that fall on hard times. Instead of an assistant to get you through tough times it becomes a crutch that half the nation cannot do without - consolidating power in washington to a bunch of suits that can and will sell you out when it benefits their big business cronies - i.e. the creation of a dependency class.
Well I suppose I don't see the logic in "high taxes" being the culprit here in light of this ....

Barack Obama says taxes are lower for middle class today than when he took office - Politifact.com

So not only is the average US taxpayers shouldering the lowest tax burden in 60 years ... not only has the Obama Administration cut taxes for small businesses 17 times ... taxes are lower now than even during the Reagan Administration which was a huge proponent of the EITC. Furthermore, anyone who qualifies for the EITC by definition isn't paying much by way of income taxes. So I would argue that the "dependency class" is the result of people who work full-time hours ... either with a single full-time position or several part-time positions ... who simply are not being paid a living wage. They are on Medicaid because their employers don't provide health care coverage. They are on food stamps ... like many 25% of military families as opposed to 13% of civilian families ... because the government doesn't pay the people who fight and die for our country worth a damn because so much of the general public is enthralled by Fox News and right-wing talk radio incessantly whining about taxes that are the lowest they've been in decades.

I agree that the "sputtering economy" is contributing to the problem to some degree. Blue collar workers without a college education have been the hardest hit by the Great Recession. But OTOH you have to bear in mind that the vast majority of people who claim the EITC are NOT unemployed. These are people with jobs. The problem is that the job(s) don't pay enough to lift them out of poverty.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,