Is the democratic party stupid, blind, clueless or is it based on ideology?

[Dan Kone]

This is incorrect. The Federal Government passed laws that went against sound economics. The main reason we had this housing bubble is the Federal Government manipulated the free market. They allowed people to purchase something and therefore amass a large debt when it was obvious from past history this would cause prices to rise over normal free market conditions AND the purchasers would not be able to pay the debt.

Them "allowing people to purchase something" was a result of deregulation. Deregulation allowed banks to merge with other financial service companies and allowed them to dip into more high risk investments such as credit default swaps. Since mortgage lenders could now sell their shitty loans to Wall St allowing them to evade responsibility, they started handing out really terrible loans to anyone who wanted them.

That is how our economy collapsed. It was deregulation, not too much regulation. It's just pure ignorance to think it was too much regulation. Read up on the Gramm Leach Bliley act and credit default swaps. The answer is there.

I don't know what you're reading into his posts but what he's advocating is nothing like the things which were responsible for the horrible mess the economy is in now.

Sure it is. He's suggesting we can solve our economic problems by "getting government out of the way". Government steping out of the way was the problem. Government should have stood in the way when the banks started merging with investment banks. Government should have stood in the way when mortgage brokers started handing out bad loans and selling them to Wall St. If government was more in the way, this mess would have never happened.

Republican fortune cookie wisdom won't fix the economy. I know it sounds good when people say "let the free market decide", but that's a bunch of crap. The free market will decide to get rich even if it destroys the country and the lives of the people in it. Is that really what you want? Basically that stance is advocating fucking over everyone so a few people can get rich quick. Why is that good?

I don't understand why you say it's debt

Because that's exactly what it is. When you cut taxes without cutting spending you are creating debt. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The long term effects of allowing these taxes to expire, will hurt more than the short term will help.

The help is the absolutely least efficient way to stimulate the economy. The effect is a long term one, not short. That is debt creation.

The money in the form of taxes is money not spent as efficiently by the government as it is in the private sector.

Well you aren't talking about cutting corporate taxes, you are talking about cutting personal income taxes. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

The particular income bracket you are talking about is the least likely to put that money back into the US economy. So if you are saying that we are better off giving the money to rich people than we are using that money to improve infrastructure or handing it out to the poor in the form of food stamps then I challenge you to prove it. Of course you won't be able to because you are dead wrong, but I encourage you to look into that yourself and find the truth. No need to take my word for it.

 

[RawBudzski]

I am going to make a new Party.. the Weedpublican

 

[Dan Kone]

Unions not the problem BS why do you think the jobs went over seas, a union goes on strike and they can put a company out of business. Do you know a union worker that is real rich, hell no, do you know a union member BOSS that is NOT real rich hell no. Anyway to fix the country some where there has to be changes.

lololol

A union member makes like 1/700th what a CEO makes. I seriously doubt there is a union member boss that makes what VP's of multinationals make.

Ok. Lets think about what would happen if things went your way. We dissolve every union so we can lower our labor costs to compete with China. In order to do that we would need to drop worker pay to about 70 cents an hour and work 10 hour days 6 days per week. The average Chinese person earns $2025 dollars per year. How would that be a good thing? We wouldn't be able to afford the goods we created.

If you want to work for $0.70 an hour be my guest, but I'll pass.

 

[NoDrama]

I challange every conservative on the board to prove that lower taxes on the rich equals a stronger economy. That directly contradicts everything that has happened in this country in the last 80+ years. The claim that the rich create more jobs because taxes are low is factually incorrect. Our history proves it.

Our economy was at it's strongest when the tax rate on the wealthy was above 70%. It's less than half of that now and through sheer ignorance you guys keep pointing to that as the main problem. That claim is a lie. If you believe this not to be true then explain how it can be true when it's been disproven by our country's history.

While this is technically correct the reason the USA was doing so well wasn't merely because of high tax rates on the rich. Manufacturing was stronger, we imported less oil, China was still a 3rd world country, Russia was a Communist disaster waiting to happen, many things contributed to our well being.

 

[NoDrama]

lololol

Ok. Lets think about what would happen if things went your way. We dissolve every union so we can lower our labor costs to compete with China. In order to do that we would need to drop worker pay to about 70 cents an hour and work 10 hour days 6 days per week. The average Chinese person earns $2025 dollars per year. How would that be a good thing? We wouldn't be able to afford the goods we created.

If you want to work for $0.70 an hour be my guest, but I'll pass.

that $.70 an hour wage is the average, you have to realize that 60% of China is rural. Not like in the USA where only 7% live in a rural area. So you have those people who live in the city and make many times more than their rural cousins, but the average is low because so many make no wage at all but are subsistence living. I will concede that even the middle class Chinese make less than their Western counterparts but it isn't as bad as the average makes it seem. check this out...http://www.worldsalaries.org/china.shtml
Average airline pilots make about $3,200 a month, certainly less than what a long time United pilot makes, but about par with some of the smaller regional airlines in the states.

 

[Dan Kone]

While this is technically correct the reason the USA was doing so well wasn't merely because of high tax rates on the rich.

`
It does prove beyond a doubt that taxing the rich does not destroy the economy and even when the rich were taxed at a rate of 90% decent paying jobs were still being created. The idea that taxing the wealthiest Americans another 3% (still below 40%) will kill job creation is just false.

Manufacturing was stronger, we imported less oil, China was still a 3rd world country, Russia was a Communist disaster waiting to happen, many things contributed to our well being.

Also a significantly larger portion of our countries wealth was in the hands of the middle class who could afford to go out and buy things without amassing debt. Since Reagan our government has been redistributing the countries wealth in the hands of the wealthiest Americans. We kept the economy good by spending. Eventually that spending turned into debt and now it is becoming clear that American's just don't make enough money to keep the economy going. We've been charging and refinancing for a decade, but that is backfiring now.

What we need is financial policies that benefit the majority of Americans, not just the top 1%.

 

[Dan Kone]

that $.70 an hour wage is the average, you have to realize that 60% of China is rural. Not like in the USA where only 7% live in a rural area. So you have those people who live in the city and make many times more than their rural cousins, but the average is low because so many make no wage at all but are subsistence living. I will concede that even the middle class Chinese make less than their Western counterparts but it isn't as bad as the average makes it seem. check this out...http://www.worldsalaries.org/china.shtml
Average airline pilots make about $3,200 a month, certainly less than what a long time United pilot makes, but about par with some of the smaller regional airlines in the states.

Well we are talking manufacturing jobs primarily here. I don't think we are losing airline jobs to the Chinese. According to your source the average Chinese manufacturing worker makes 1169 yuans per month which translates to $175 dollars. According to other sources manufacturing pay ranges from $100-$200 a month.

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/06/0502/art1.html

As a result, Chinese workers remain among the lowest paid in the world. The average total labor compensation for a Chinese manufacturing worker is 57 cents per hour, with many making far less than that, benefits included.

An average Chinese wage of $0.57 per hour -- or $104 per month -- is about 3 percent of the average U.S. manufacturing worker's wage, according to data collected by Banister. "Equally as striking, regional competitors in the newly industrialized economies of Asia had, on average, manufacturing labor costs more than 10 times those for China's manufacturing workers, and Mexico and Brazil had manufacturing labor costs about four times those for China's manufacturing employees."

The average hourly wage for a worker in a rural setting was $0.41 per hour, and migrant workers are making even less than that.

What is the point in having a strong economy if the people in our country are all living in poverty? I do not support changing our economic goals from good lives for Americans to lets all live in poverty to support an ultra wealthy class.

 

[NLXSK1]

What I find laughable is that the people who dont have money are acting like they and the politicians get to decide what they get to do with the rich guy's money because "he can afford it".

The government is spending us into the economic toilet and they wont stop until the money dries up. Giving them more is like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.

And for you who keep whining about the 700 billion over 10 years. Why dont you argue about the 3 TRILLION dollars that it will cost for the middle class tax cuts? I mean if we are going to share the burden dont you think that all taxes should be allowed to go up? You know, because the government needs the money!!

It just about doesnt matter anymore. Soon it will be too late to turn around if it is not already.

 

[Dan Kone]

What I find laughable is that the people who dont have money are acting like they and the politicians get to decide what they get to do with the rich guy's money because "he can afford it".

It's because they have benefited the most from being Americans. Government policies that have favored the rich have allowed the top 1% to become more wealthy than any time in our modern history.

Someone has to pay to run our government. Who ever that is we are "deciding what they get to do" with someone's money. Why shouldn't it be the people who benefit the most from American society and government policies?

Why should it go the other way? Why should the wealthy instead get to decided what to do with poor people's money. They wouldn't have become rich in the first place if it wasn't for the low wages they pay. They are becoming rich on the backs of the poor and middle class. Paying an extra 3% in taxes is the least they could do.

The government is spending us into the economic toilet and they wont stop until the money dries up. Giving them more is like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.

lol. Money doesn't evaporate because the government gets it. Ultimately that money goes back into the economy.

If what you are saying is true then why are the top 1% more wealthy than ever? How come out money is drying up and their money is not?

And for you who keep whining about the 700 billion over 10 years. Why dont you argue about the 3 TRILLION dollars that it will cost for the middle class tax cuts?

Well that's simple. It's because tax cuts to the middle class are more likely to go towards mortgage payments and/or being spent in the market which brings us closer to solving our problems. Tax cuts to the rich do neither of those things.

I mean if we are going to share the burden dont you think that all taxes should be allowed to go up? You know, because the government needs the money!!

The middle class is paying a historically higher % of the tax burden than any other time in our modern history. They are paying their fair share and then some. I just think we should get our tax rates closer to historical averages. That isn't unreasonable at all. Our country was just fine when we had these tax rates.

You are the one who is asking for historically unprecidented low taxes for the rich based on unproven assumptions, not me. Don't act like what I am asking for is unusual or unreasonable. I am simply asking for something closer to the historical norms during our countries most prosperous era. That is entirely sane.

 

[NLXSK1]

Well that's simple. It's because tax cuts to the middle class are more likely to go towards mortgage payments and/or being spent in the market which brings us closer to solving our problems. Tax cuts to the rich do neither of those things.

So, rich people do not have mortgages, multiple mortgages and/or do not invest money in the market. Gotcha...

Dan, I am going to quit arguing with you here because you are not being honest. It wastes my time.

Peace

 

[doc111]

So, rich people do not have mortgages, multiple mortgages and/or do not invest money in the market. Gotcha...

Dan, I am going to quit arguing with you here because you are not being honest. It wastes my time.

Peace

The whole progressive ideology is based on dishonesty.

 

[NLXSK1]

The whole progressive ideology is based on dishonesty.

Yes, because it is based on 2 classes of people, the have's and the have nots. However, in the case of progressives the haves are the political elite who are appointed to rule the masses who are obviously too stupid to make the correct decisions.

This gives them the right to say or do anything to achieve the solutions that they feel are appropriate for the country.

Of course, we simply have to give up all liberties so they can achieve their progressive agenda... You know, for the common good.

 

[Dan Kone]

So, rich people do not have mortgages, multiple mortgages and/or do not invest money in the market. Gotcha...

Dan, I am going to quit arguing with you here because you are not being honest. It wastes my time.

Peace

You're not getting it. A billionaire maybe buys enough goods and services for himself. Sure that is a lot more than the services a middle class person buys for himself, but it is not the equivalent of what 10k people with $100k buy in the market.

It doesn't matter if the billionaire can afford to invest more in the economy if no one can afford to spend money in the market. Why would a billionaire invest in goods/services no one can afford to buy?

The wealthy have a historically large amount of wealth. The problem is not that they can't afford to invest, the problem is it currently isn't in their financial best interests to invest because no one can afford to buy goods and services, so many investments aren't profitable.

You can keep ignoring that fact all you want, but it's still true.

 

[Dan Kone]

The whole progressive ideology is based on dishonesty.

lol. The whole conservative ideology is based on willful ignorance.

The core of your argument is based on something that is completely false. The idea that the wealthy can't afford to invest in the economy simply isn't true. Why do you continually ignore the fact that the wealthy are controlling a larger portion of the countries wealth than any time in our modern history?

You guys just ignore any fact that doesn't fit into your argument. This whole debate about rich people needing more money to stimulate the economy is all bullshit. It's factually incorrect that the wealthy can not afford to create jobs. You can't disagree with that fact. It's a fact, not an opinion. If you say it isn't true then you are the one lying.

 

[doc111]

lol. The whole conservative ideology is based on willful ignorance.

The core of your argument is based on something that is completely false. The idea that the wealthy can't afford to invest in the economy simply isn't true. Why do you continually ignore the fact that the wealthy are controlling a larger portion of the countries wealth than any time in our modern history?

You guys just ignore any fact that doesn't fit into your argument. This whole debate about rich people needing more money to stimulate the economy is all bullshit. It's factually incorrect that the wealthy can not afford to create jobs. You can't disagree with that fact. It's a fact, not an opinion. If you say it isn't true then you are the one lying.

I'm not a conservative.

 

[doc111]

lol. The whole conservative ideology is based on willful ignorance.

The core of your argument is based on something that is completely false. The idea that the wealthy can't afford to invest in the economy simply isn't true. Why do you continually ignore the fact that the wealthy are controlling a larger portion of the countries wealth than any time in our modern history?

You guys just ignore any fact that doesn't fit into your argument. This whole debate about rich people needing more money to stimulate the economy is all bullshit. It's factually incorrect that the wealthy can not afford to create jobs. You can't disagree with that fact. It's a fact, not an opinion. If you say it isn't true then you are the one lying.

I just never understood hating on someone because they are successful or have money. Simply because someone has more than someone else we are supposed to take a higher proportion of their money? This goes against everything that this country was founded on!

 

[NLXSK1]

And what peole dont seem to get is that those millionares and billionares do not hide the money in giant caves of gold bars or something.

That money is invested in the market, in businesses, in investments. And those things create jobs. The government wants to steal that wealth generating money and spend it on welfare programs for the 10% unemployment...

I am not rich. I just want to defend my ability to one day become rich.

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

Who ever said the "Rich Is not Buying Gold and hording it is wrong",,,Why do you think prices are so high? Silver is even a better investment a long time,,,3-4 ounce... ago a great time to selll! $27-28,,, Precious metal selling and buying is a "gamble",,,But If I could corner the "market",,,???,,,I would not invest now,lol,,,But wise enough a long time ago the future looks good,,,For tho's who see.lol,,,Damn,,ww.

 

[MrDank007]

lol. The whole conservative ideology is based on willful ignorance.

The core of your argument is based on something that is completely false. The idea that the wealthy can't afford to invest in the economy simply isn't true. Why do you continually ignore the fact that the wealthy are controlling a larger portion of the countries wealth than any time in our modern history?

You guys just ignore any fact that doesn't fit into your argument. This whole debate about rich people needing more money to stimulate the economy is all bullshit. It's factually incorrect that the wealthy can not afford to create jobs. You can't disagree with that fact. It's a fact, not an opinion. If you say it isn't true then you are the one lying.

First, "the wealthy" are not billionares. They are now couples who make over $250,000/yr, which is not a shitload of money if you have kids and live in the city. They do not sit around it dark rooms conspiring on how to enslave you...they are the you and I's of the world that have worked hard and are moderately successful. After mortages, goods, ins, kids and a safety net typically the rest is invested for retirement or a better lifestyle.

The "billionares" in the US (I know it wasn't you that made that comment)...there are approximately 400 in the US. I'm tired of people talking about them. Kill em for all I care. What most people think of as the rich are the successful you and I's of the world that work for institutions. And these institutions are not investing because there is too much uncertainty in the market and nothing makes any sense. The government does not have the ability to improve anything let alone the economy. Any excess monies are wasted. Better in the hands of the $200-250k ranges of people and small buisnesses to put back into the system.

 

[Dan Kone]

I just never understood hating on someone because they are successful or have money. Simply because someone has more than someone else we are supposed to take a higher proportion of their money? This goes against everything that this country was founded on!

It's not at all about hating. It's about saving the middle class from extinction. The country thrived when we had a strong middle class. Do you really want America to be a place where their is only an ultra wealthy class and everyone else is dirt poor? That's the direction we are headed. The economic data isn't disputable. Please tell me how that is a good thing.