Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:43 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:19 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Once again, we come to the point where your response doesn't sync with what was written. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to pull the Bugs Bunny yes/no routine.



I don't care if you come up with a magical mathematical formula that turns cheese into gold, no matter how you want to spin this, you were arguing in favor leaving a piece of corporate welfare on the table. I expect politicians in DC to behave the way they do...again "dems are bad" is not the point...but I also expect that when it's a clear-cut case of people doing what I thought everyone here agreed was the wrong thing, that people here would say so. Instead we're treated to the usual "Aestu argues for the point of arguing" idiocy that has come to define our forums. Your arbitrary conditions as to what constitutes "good/bad faith" alone are enough to show that you do have a side, regardless of your objections to that being the case. It wasn't just "the GOP subverting the budget process," regardless of how you'd like to spin it.

I'm really tired of the "WE HAVE TO PASS THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!" bullshit feigned-melodramatics, too. I'm glad some of this legislation is being slowed down, because there's a lot of fluff in those bills that they rush through because it's "an emergency." If the bill's passage was so utterly important that it had to be passed "NOW!" then democrats were equally responsible for recognizing that, passing the bill, and bringing the matter of the corporate welfare back up at a later date if it were actually important enough to merit a debate. It takes two to tango. The "time of crisis" line of reasoning is utter bullshit.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:36 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

That's a cute meme but it is false, at least in this context. To "tango" implies mutual cooperation, not butting heads. To put it more accurately, "it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war".


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:44 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Not at all, actually.

Hey we need this bill passed. A and B have to agree on it. That's two, and to pass the bill they need to tango, because both parties need to vote yes to pass it. Not sure why you're arguing this point. Maybe because there was nothing else in his post you could argue?

I don't think emergency aid bills, and other emergency bills may fit in this, should have anything BUT the aid bill when it comes to voting. If it's really an emergency, streamline that process at least, its just good sense, and it will save lives.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:16 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Aestu wrote:
That's a cute meme but it is false, at least in this context. To "tango" implies mutual cooperation, not butting heads. To put it more accurately, "it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war".


It takes two to tango is a common idiomatic expression which suggests something in which more than one person or other entity are paired in an inextricably-related and active manner, occasionally with negative connotations.[1]
The tango is a dance which requires two partners moving in relation to each other, sometimes in tandem, sometimes in opposition.


As cute as the "let's redefine commonly used words and phrases to not mean what they actually mean" shtick is, I would think you'd avoid engaging in it while you're pointing out how that sort of thing is inappropriate in another thread.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:17 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Imma take a break for a while


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:44 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

If taxes go up, wouldn't that mean that borrowing (the main problem as I see it) go down? Spending isn't a problem as long as you have the money to do it, and taxes = the money to do it.


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:05 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

To a degree, yes, but the government isn't a 'producer,' and any money in the economy spent by the government is money not spent in the private sector, which is where our economic growth occurs. There's a balancing act that we still haven't gotten right yet. The government does need to eat a piece of the economic pie to fulfill its duties, but the amount the government is spending/borrowing is enormous in relation to our GDP and other economic measures/indicators. The spending would continue to be an issue, because DC has a tendency to look at the budget, come to the conclusion that it has 'X,' so it can spend 'Y' because it can still borrow.

When spending continues to be driven by borrowing, we have the same problem we just got done arguing about during the debt ceiling increase debate. The debt ceiling is admittedly a stupid fix, since congress keeps raising the ceiling, but it at least brings the issue to the front burners and puts the nation's focus on our unrestrained spending.

I think the 'debate,' such as it is, could come to a close if not for those who insist we can combat our problems just by throwing money at them. If we could at least agree that money isn't solving the problem after we've thrown a certain amount of money at whatever the problem is, and start looking at some different solutions, I think we'd be taking a step in the right direction. As it stands, we've been tossing an ever-increasing amount of money at things like the 'war' on drugs, poverty, and education yet seeing ever-decreasing returns on our investment. Instead of continuing to fund failed policies at ever-increasing levels, we should be looking at new solutions. New solutions, however, are usually politically risky, and career politicians aren't likely to put their jobs on the line in an attempt to do the right thing. Look at the reaction politicians have to ending the 'war' on drugs, legalizing certain substances and regulating their production and distribution, and taxing those products. Despite historical corollaries showing that prohibition leads to the very problems which the 'war' on drugs is supposed to be ridding us, the savings we'd reap not locking people up for having some weed, and the potential income from taxation, most politicians would rather be caught with a dead hooker than publicly say they'd support such things. You can blame M.A.D.D.-type injured-harpy groups and the usual petty-moralizing of social-conservative morons for not allowing such ideas any traction, but the rest of us aren't exactly doing a great job of making our voices heard and changing the dynamic.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:33 pm  
User avatar

Fat Bottomed Faggot
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:53 pm
Posts: 4251
Location: Minnesota
Offline

Fantastique wrote:
If taxes go up, wouldn't that mean that borrowing (the main problem as I see it) go down? Spending isn't a problem as long as you have the money to do it, and taxes = the money to do it.

Since 1950 (and the trend goes farther back, but I can't find a two charts that go that far) we've had tax rates as low as 28% and as high as 92% (top bracket percents), but the percentage of GDP collected has always sat between ~13% and ~20%

With this spreadsheet and graph, we can compare 1950 to 1950 - 91% top tax rate collected 13% of GDP.

TL:DR
Higher taxes do not always translate into higher revenue. It can actually lower revenue.

Also, borrowing goes down when you spend less too.


"Ok we aren't such things and birds are pretty advanced. They fly and shit from anywhere they want. While we sit on our automatic toilets, they're shitting on people and my car while a cool breeze tickles their anus. That's the life."
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:39 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

Weena wrote:
Also, borrowing goes down when you spend less too.


No I know, I was genuinely asking a question lol

thx for the explanations you two

<3


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:48 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Let's be honest though weena, if taxes went up, the idiots in washington would just take that as a sign that spending can go up too. and probably by a higher amount.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:18 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Fantastique wrote:
Weena wrote:
Also, borrowing goes down when you spend less too.


No I know, I was genuinely asking a question lol

thx for the explanations you two

<3


You're welcome, hopefully the corruption of your brain continues and you join our evil collective.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:04 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Image


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:27 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Weena wrote:
Aestu wrote:
This is false because of externalities. The price tag does not, and cannot, reflect all the costs of producing an item.

Also see: Impending seafood crash

You're arguing environmental cost, yes?

I don't lose sleep over environmental regulation, I lose sleep over environmental regulation that trades perceived or not fully proven heavy impact on the environment for guaranteed heavy impact on industry.


Actually, I'm not really referring to the environment, but it is one such externality that comes to mind.

I'm referring more to use of finite natural resources and land. Besides the inherently limited nature of such resources and the questionable fairness of any system of apportionment, there is the greater issue of opportunity cost.

I mentioned the seafood crash, but I wasn't referring to the ecological ramifications. The simplest analogy I can offer is the goose and golden eggs.

Another example is infrastructure. You pay $39.99 a month for your internet. If a company can pocket as much of the income as they can then pass the blame when their business tanks from lack of preventative maintenance, was your $39.99 a month well-spent? There's a lot of shell games like that in business. That's the nature of the beast.

Weena wrote:
There's a lot of regulation (in effect and could be in effect) that is good both for the environment as well as sustaining industries (which anybody in industry with a brain knows is a good thing). There's two things I dislike about many good regulations though:

They're done by the Federal Government, when they should be done by state governments, because of constitutionality reasons as well as practical reasons.


The Constitution establishes the federal government as the law of the land because that doesn't work.

If we did this, what's to stop corporations from playing states off against each other to get the best business environment? If, say, New Mexico had NO environmental or public safety regulations, what's to stop corporations from setting up shop and refusing to budge until every other state repeals as well? Isn't this what's going on in China right now - go manufacture your products in a country where there aren't laws against dumping mercury or beating workers?

Let me ask you this: If the federal government is forbidden from establishing uniform legislation across states, then would we also forbid corporations from operating across states?

Weena wrote:
Sometimes it's people that aren't part of the industry paying for said regulations, due to generalizing funds. If I don't eat fish, why should I be beholden to making sure a fishing industry that has no effect on me is made sustainable, or an environment across the world is kept up? This is generally ties into the first part. Why should people from New York have to pay for something people in California benefit from?


Because it is your country and the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Weena wrote:
Without production, you have nothing to demand. In which case, you get only what you yourself make - or produce. Now you're friend decides - hey you make this, I'll make that, and we'll trade extras with each other. You've created demand, you're now demanding this from your friend, and he's demand that from you. The simplest benefit to this, you're both making higher quality items because of increased practice and focus. If you both produce nothing - you don't have anything to demand.

Do you mean that production isn't always prosperity? Like in WWII? Where basically everyone had a job, but everybody was still scraping by?

If that's the case, you're right. But creating demand never brings about prosperity. I can demand all I want from my neighbor, but he's going to demand something back. Something I don't have without first producing.

Say he is producing something - he's going to demand something of me (if not to be prosperous, then to continue producing, if he is charitable, he's going to have to turn profit somewhere in order to remain charitable). If I'm not producing something to trade (whether it's money, time or service), he isn't getting anything from me, nor me from him, and the economy goes stale.


Life is not fair. The playing field is not so even that transactions will work themselves out.

If you start a game of Monopoly with a tenth as many dollars as the other guy, you might win, but you probably won't.


Weena wrote:
Aestu wrote:
There is no such thing as a free market in the sense you describe. A market is given definition by the regulations put upon it. Regulation was first implemented 80 years ago because it was necessary, and that "necessity" hasn't changed. The free market didn't exist 80 years ago because it didn't work.

Even before 80 years ago the government had structured the economy, assuming a monopoly on the printing of money.

The government took a monopoly on printing money, yes. A free market is where you aren't forced to spend money on anything, where all transaction is voluntary. This means voluntary on both ends - for both the consumer and producer. When government is the producer, you get a lot of involuntary transaction. Yes, roads are beneficial, yes most people use them, and we've done a pretty good job in making those transactions voluntary - gas tax - if you aren't driving, you aren't paying for roads, and the more you drive, the more wear on roads, the more you pay (at least was intended that way). Education - yes education is beneficial, yes everybody should be educated, but we've done a pretty bad job in making those transactions voluntary, to put it lightly.

I can argue that dictating how money should be spent (by public sector) only prolonged The Great Depression - that was caused by an artificial boom, something else you don't have with free markets - and such dictation is a major factor in prolonging this recession.


The market prior to the Great Depression had never been more unregulated, and this had happened before.

What caused the SnL crisis? Or the derivitives fiasco? Or the dot-bombs? Was it too much regulation or too little?

Go read about John Law or the Holland Tulip Crisis. Can you claim that there, too, government was to blame?

Weena wrote:
Aestu wrote:
What makes you think business is less prone to abuse its power than government?

What power does business have that isn't in some way shape or form through the government?

Government has a monopoly on force. A business can't force me to do anything without using government to do it. Most bad regulation is one business trying to stifle competition. Competition is a wonderful thing for consumers.

You limit government, you limit business by default.


"What would you do for a million dollars?"
"What would...that guy who is twice as crazy as you...do for a million dollars?"

Weena wrote:
Aestu wrote:
No, because whether the employer or the employee pays the tax, the cost is attached to the employer-employee contract. The employer promises the employee a certain level of material gain for being employed. Whomever "pays the tax" doesn't matter because either way, the tax gets paid, and the employee gets the same amount of money to spend. That amount will or will not be sufficient to his wants and needs, regardless of which end it comes out of.

If the employee is paying the tax, and he doesn't feel he has enough left over, the employer will have to pay more as the labor market will bear. Conversely, if the employer pays the tax, and the employee's wage is docked accordingly, he has the same amount of money to spend, and the employer is spending the same amount as if the employee were the one physically signing the check to Uncle Sam.

A) Employee for sale: $20/hr
B) Employee for sale: $15/hr, $5 mandatory labor tax

A) LF employee: $20/hr
B) LF employee: $15/hr, all taxes paid


Whether I'm right or wrong on that point, it sounds like we agree that payroll tax isn't a good thing, economics wise. Which sounds like what Dvergar is saying.

Ciiiiiiiiiiircle Jeeeeeeeerk.
[/quote]

You first.

Let me ask you, if there were no payroll or corporate taxes but only a sales tax, what would prevent the economy from reverting to barter?


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:33 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Aestu wrote:
The Constitution establishes the federal government as the law of the land because that doesn't work.


Someone needs to go back and re-read the Constitution. The powers delegated to the federal government, the powers to which it is supposed to be limited, are mentioned specifically. In fact, the 10th Amendment reinforces this principle: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Aestu wrote:
If we did this, what's to stop corporations from playing states off against each other to get the best business environment? If, say, New Mexico had NO environmental or public safety regulations, what's to stop corporations from setting up shop and refusing to budge until every other state repeals as well? Isn't this what's going on in China right now - go manufacture your products in a country where there aren't laws against dumping mercury or beating workers?


They do this now...or did the BBC not report on the ongoing bullshit between the NLRB and South Carolina?

Aestu wrote:
Let me ask you this: If the federal government is forbidden from establishing uniform legislation across states, then would we also forbid corporations from operating across states?


It's not an "if," unless the legislation directly relates to something which the Constitution specifically gives the federal government power to regulate, it's not supposed to pass and attempt to enforce those laws/regulations. That's gotten very murky since some assholes in robes decided that growing vegetables that never leave your farm, much less your state, constitutes interstate commerce, and expanded the federal government's power under the commerce clause.

There are also multiple states where corporations are not allowed to operate freely across state lines, with the insurance industry being the most relevant example.

Aestu wrote:
Let me ask you, if there were no payroll or corporate taxes but only a sales tax, what would prevent the economy from reverting to barter?


How many people do you know that make refrigerators, toothbrushes, shampoo, soap, electronics, etc. that you would be able to trade with on a regular basis? There would be some barter, I'm sure, but for the most part, our society is too specialized for that to come into play in a meaningful way. I've always favored taxes on consumption over taxes on productivity, so I'm probably a little bias.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:43 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Constitution explicitly states that federal law supercedes state law and that the federal government has supreme and sole authority over interstate commerce. The federal government has the right to pass whatever laws are "necessary and proper" to action their authority over interstate commerce. Since the issue in question is the dangers of states competing amongst themselves by endangering the well-being of their citizens - interstate commerce - the feds most definitely have authority here.

Also see: Holy Roman Empire


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group