obamas job proposal

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

If the only way you can understand is via yay or nay answer then i feel sorry for you. But you are like most Americans are too simple to understand the nuances of a specific issue and the dowstream consequences involved render this issue non binary. I will dumb it down. Given that our tax code has such generous writeoffs corporate tax rate is fine where it is. How long has it been in place 50-100 years? Now all of a sudden it is the reason companies are shipping jobs overseas? It is an excuse nothing more nothing less as a justification for class warfare against the middleclass by upper management in order to salvage as much of the diminishing pool of assets as they can. Business is taking advantage of our dire straights to gain further leverage by blaming their actions on their tax rate. Their actions are treasonous.

Your broad strokes ignore far too much to speak of nuances. What exactly is your plan? Make huge corporations pay more taxes? OK fine how does that help the economy? The huge bonuses paid to executives surely would be more economically stimulating than sending that money to the gov't no? Do they not spend large sums of money? Their wives do. If Riot can claim that food stamps are stimulus then how isn't bonus pay? LOL!

But seriously you can't browbeat or tax business into expansion. Business doesn't exist to create jobs, jobs are a by product of business. You can't threaten companies into providing jobs, you have to foster an atmosphere of economic growth in order for them to risk capital to expand with a realistic chance to provide profits. Corporations aren't jobs programs even if they produce the lionshare of employment. Getting mad at them is silly and even childish. The heads of fortune 500 companies didnt meet in secret and say "lets screw the middle class"! They are playing the hand dealt, measured by porfits their company makes. Lefties love the class warfare card but lets not act like Fortune 500 companies don't fire their executives when they underperform. And lets not pretend that the retirment accounts of millions of Americans aren't anchored by stock in the same companies that you seek to demonize. People like you aren't bashful about making a profit investing in big corporations while at the same time complaining about them operating a call center in India.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The huge bonuses paid to executives surely would be more economically stimulating than sending that money to the gov't no? Do they not spend large sums of money? Their wives do.

Actually no, they don't. You only spend so much on living. The more money you make, you just end up saving it. Not spending it.

If Riot can claim that food stamps are stimulus then how isn't bonus pay? LOL!

If you want to be serious about it, yes, food stamps - aside from literally keeping people alive by allowing them to, you know, eat, which is sorta important - is instant local economy money churn. It's money spent immediately and fully in the local economy. Executive bonuses are not. LOL.

But seriously you can't browbeat or tax business into expansion. Business doesn't exist to create jobs, jobs are a by product of business. You can't threaten companies into providing jobs, you have to foster an atmosphere of economic growth in order for them to risk capital to expand with a realistic chance to provide profits.

True - but business needs consumers. Businesses do not create jobs out of nowhere just for "growths" sake, unless there is a demand by consumers of their products and services for that growth.

You need to create consumers, create a middle class with disposable income above food and basic life necessities, for "business growth". We don't have that now. We have destroyed the middle class in the United States. We don't even have spending on basic necessities any more, as so many are out of work and unable to do even that.

That's why the meme of "tax cuts for the rich to allow them to foster growth" is complete nonsense. Businesses don't grow first, then look for consumers. Businesses grow only in response to consumer demand.

Food stamps, btw, create instant consumers. Jobless benefits enable instant consumers. Payroll tax cuts create instant consumers. All of that money, when given to someone without money, without food, is spent instantly for substenance living. Executive bonuses are not.

Lefties love the class warfare card but lets not act like Fortune 500 companies don't fire their executives when they underperform.

And most of those executives still get million dollar golden parachutes. Not exactly incentive to perform, when getting fired and doing well still has your ass covered very generously.

And lets not pretend that the retirment accounts of millions of Americans aren't anchored by stock in the same companies that you seek to demonize.

Whoa - let's be realistic. Millions of investors may have stock in a company, but the very investment firms that sold them that stock also short against their investors making a profit. Wall Street doesn't invest in growing companies any more, they don't care if the company makes profit - they invest in being on the right side of the move. But the common investor is hoping on the company growing.

As we can see, the common investor has been screwed the past 10 years, while Wall Street, taking the opposite position, has made billions.

[Cannon Shell]

You seriously think that CEO's of major corporations don't spend money? You really think Wall Street execs live miserly lifestyles? Yeah ok.

Food stamps are spent on one thing, food which is already a hugely gov't sponsored business. No grocery stores are being opened up or expanded because of the influx of food stamps. No grocery stores are going out of business becasue of the lask of food stamps. Any money spent has some degree of stimulative effect but the effect of food stamps is very small.

Your idea that food stamps or payroll tax decreases cause all this stiulus spending is completely misguided. Food stamps are spend almost exclusively on food, an industry that is not expanding and is being paid in many cases not to expand. The minor amount of money each consumer receives from payroll tax decreases are generally used to pay off debt, pay utilities or rent. You can't say that people cant afford to eat and are broke then say they are going to be big consumers when given food stamps or a few dollars extra in their paychecks. Sustenance living isnot effective stimulus. Paying your utility bill is not great stimulus. Buying food is not great stimulus.

Yeah they all get hundreds of millions when they get canned. I'm sure that they all just sit around and surf the net in their offices in between secret 'screw the middle class' conferences because they have giant golden parachutes. Most also have a high standard of living, spending LOTS of money and few people can afford to live off their savings forever regardless of how much they have. Your theory that there is no incentive for CEO's to perform because they may get a nice compensation package if they are fired is naive at best, ridiclous at worst.

The idea that the common investor has been screwed is bluster, plain and simple.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You seriously think that CEO's of major corporations don't spend money? You really think Wall Street execs live miserly lifestyles?
.

If in group A Mr. CEO has 20 million dollar a year salary and no other income and Group B we have 200 folks getting 100K in income at the end of the year which group would have spent the most buying goods and services?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

If in group A Mr. CEO has 20 million dollar a year salary and no other income and Group B we have 200 folks getting 100K in income at the end of the year which group would have spent the most buying goods and services?

Is 100k a year now middle class?

How many CEO's make 20 million a year in hard cash?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is 100k a year now middle class?

How many CEO's make 20 million a year in hard cash?

Hypothetical question. Reduce the numbers to what you see fit.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You seriously think that CEO's of major corporations don't spend money? You really think Wall Street execs live miserly lifestyles? Yeah ok.

You can't say that people cant afford to eat and are broke then say they are going to be big consumers when given food stamps or a few dollars extra in their paychecks.

Not remotely close to what I said.

Your idea that food stamps or payroll tax decreases cause all this stiulus spending is completely misguided.

Not according to the facts I see, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Food stamps are spend almost exclusively on food, an industry that is not expanding and is being paid in many cases not to expand. The minor amount of money each consumer receives from payroll tax decreases are generally used to pay off debt, pay utilities or rent. Sustenance living isnot effective stimulus. Paying your utility bill is not great stimulus. Buying food is not great stimulus.

It is when consumers have zero money, because they are unemployed. Wal Mart welcomes those with food aid cards. Because otherwise they are not selling food.

The idea that the common investor has been screwed is bluster, plain and simple.

Yeah, the investment accounts of the "common investor" have been reaping gains averaging 8% a year since 1996, haven't they? Whoops - no, they have not.

Look, it is this simple:

Republicans say that if you give the wealthy tax and incentive financial breaks, they will create jobs regardless of lack of consumer demand. "Trickle down" theory (long disproven)

Democrats say too many people are unemployed, the middle class has been ravaged, there is no longer a huge consumer class creating the demand that allows jobs to be created.

Pick one as the basis of one's economic opinion formulation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not remotely close to what I said.



Not according to the facts I see, but you're entitled to your own opinion.



It is when consumers have zero money, because they are unemployed. Wal Mart welcomes those with food aid cards. Because otherwise they are not selling food.



Yeah, the investment accounts of the "common investor" have been reaping gains averaging 8% a year since 1996, haven't they? Whoops - no, they have not.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernan...00699.html?x=0

So Wal Mart isnt selling food if not for food stamps?

8% a year? That is your standard? Why pick 1996? Why not 1986 or 1976?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernan...00699.html?x=0

So Wal Mart isnt selling food if not for food stamps?

8% a year? That is your standard? Why pick 1996? Why not 1986 or 1976?

"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that he's surprised by how cautious consumers remain more than two years since the recession officially ended. "

And they give this guy the keys? He has no idea why people aren't spending?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that he's surprised by how cautious consumers remain more than two years since the recession officially ended. "

And they give this guy the keys? He has no idea why people aren't spending?

I guess he doesn't read the papers

well I guess no one reads papers anymore

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So Wal Mart isnt selling food if not for food stamps?

Sigh ... Sorry, refuse to have a discussion if this simplistic nonsense is your idea of debate.

8% a year? That is your standard? Why pick 1996? Why not 1986 or 1976?

Yes, 8% a year has been the historical 20th century stock market return if you invested and let it be without trying to time any markets. That's long gone. Of course, when I was young, savings accounts payed 5 1/4%.

That regular rate of return ended when Wall Street stopped being people investing capitalization in corporate American company growth and longevity, and became a gambling casino.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... Sorry, refuse to have a discussion if this simplistic nonsense is your idea of debate.



.

Post 45
You wrote it!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, 8% a year has been the historical 20th century stock market return if you invested and let it be without trying to time any markets. That's long gone. Of course, when I was young, savings accounts payed 5 1/4%.

That regular rate of return ended when Wall Street stopped being people investing capitalization in corporate American company growth and longevity, and became a gambling casino.

http://www.analyzeindices.com/dow-jones-history.shtml

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Look, it is this simple:

Republicans say that if you give the wealthy tax and incentive financial breaks, they will create jobs regardless of lack of consumer demand. "Trickle down" theory (long disproven)

Democrats say too many people are unemployed, the middle class has been ravaged, there is no longer a huge consumer class creating the demand that allows jobs to be created.

Pick one as the basis of one's economic opinion formulation.

You really think that it is this simple?

The world is a far more complicated place than these two statements. It isnt black and white. For every move made there is a counter move, sometimes not the one expected, often effected by factors beyond anyones control or knowledge when the initial move was made.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You really think that it is this simple?

It is that simple as far as the very basic foundation of one's political economic theory, yes. Looking at the GOP vs the Dems, yes, that is exactly the basic, essential difference in what they believe.

And we have the past 100 years of economic actuality to see which has been factually more productive in this country.

Of course it's far more complicated than that.

The world is a far more complicated place than these two statements. It isnt black and white. For every move made there is a counter move, sometimes not the one expected, often effected by factors beyond anyones control or knowledge when the initial move was made.

Yes, zero-sum game theory versus the economic theory that that paradigm no longer exists (or never did)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is that simple as far as the very basic foundation of one's political economic theory, yes. Looking at the GOP vs the Dems, yes, that is exactly the basic, essential difference in what they believe.

And we have the past 100 years of economic actuality to see which has been factually more productive in this country.

Of course it's far more complicated than that.



Yes, zero-sum game theory versus the economic theory that that paradigm no longer exists (or never did)

When exactly did you lay out any Democratic economic theory? Is unemployment is high a theory?