If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Deficits aren't dropping because we're doing something right, they're dropping because we're doing everything wrong   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 159
    More: Hero, deficits, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

7147 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 6:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 10:13:48 PM

pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place


Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.
 
2013-05-22 10:17:03 PM

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


You're going to honestly suggest that companies will completely abandon globalization and the opportunity to hire workers for dollars a day with little to no safety oversight at the opportunity to pay 10% of their profits in taxes rather than pay sweetheart rates they hashed out overseas to countries begging for their business and just not repatriate the money? If they get the promise of a tax cut? When companies like HP you mentioned purposely funnel their funds through Singapore and Bermuda to avoid taxes altogether on goods sold overseas?

Show me where any corporate officer ever promised to create jobs if their demands were met and then actually went through with it rather than reap the benefits and say they can't uphold their end of the agreement because they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to continue to minimize cost and that requires going overseas for new hiring. But hey, if the US government will just meet their next demand, they're sure that they will be able to bring those jobs back.

If
 
2013-05-22 10:17:04 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: PowerSlacker: So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?

One side believes the can we should be focusing on is employment. Fix employment and you'll fix the deficit and the debt.

The other side believes the can we should be focusing on is the deficit and debt. Fix the deficit and debt, you'll fix employment. tax cuts, except when proposed by a democrat or aimed at the middle or lower classes.  We totally need to just give trickle down enough time to work.  The sudden magical increases in GDP that result will more than pay for the cuts!

It's up to you to decide which of these makes sense, and which one defies math, history, and reality.


Fixed that fer ya.
 
2013-05-22 10:23:19 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?

Keynes:Friedman::Led Zeppelin:Cinderella


Keynes:Friedman::Fidel Castro:Monster Trucks

What are we doing here?
 
2013-05-22 10:25:12 PM

pxsteel: HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.

Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:34 PM
By the time 2016 and beyond roll around we'll have another Bush in the White House and deficits won't matterTM again so this is pretty much a non-issue.
 
2013-05-22 11:07:00 PM

Grungehamster: Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.


And even then they'll just send the manufacturing to the South because it's a much cheaper COL which means workers don't demand the highest wages
 
2013-05-22 11:09:51 PM
scm-l3.technorati.com

Tonight on Fox News... Lower Deficit: Is it a bad thing?
 
2013-05-22 11:22:52 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.


We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.
 
2013-05-22 11:39:28 PM
Now this graph may look favorable to the President, but if I add a projection on the end that suddenly ends this trend and swoops back downwards, just look how bad it gets! I call it Satan's Rollercoaster.
 
2013-05-23 12:06:15 AM

Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.


Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.
 
2013-05-23 12:29:23 AM

Shaggy_C: By the time 2016 and beyond roll around we'll have another Bush in the White House and deficits won't matterTM again so this is pretty much a non-issue.


first I

then I

www.buzzle.com
 
2013-05-23 12:31:02 AM

winterbraid: first I

(embarassing lack of setup image)

oops
 
2013-05-23 12:34:03 AM

chumboobler: there is no way in practical terms that you can ever even come close to paying down your debt to something manageable. It is over. Done. You are paying ZERO interest for the money you currently borrow. Up to .25% in certain circumstances. The day interest rates even hit 2.5% you are done. You can't pay that. Not now. You owe too much.


Dude, we had more debt during WW2, and we got out of it in like a decade.  We simply taxed the crap out of the rich (90% top rate) and used that money to fund private sector jobs with long-term growth as the overall objective.  America is not dead, we just need to go back to progressive economics like what dominated the most prosperous decades in American history and we must tell every conservative in Congress to eat a dick.  Simple.
 
2013-05-23 12:36:17 AM

HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.


This. As long as they can pay foreign workers a tiny fraction of what Americans make those jobs are not coming back. Though I fear their solution IS to turn the US into a third-world sweatshop.
 
2013-05-23 12:39:15 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...
[pictures.mastermarf.com image 600x258]


If you want to return jobs to this country I'd suggest mining the shipping lanes.
 
2013-05-23 12:42:16 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.


True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.
 
2013-05-23 12:53:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.

True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.


Well sure the cheapest slaves are the ones you don't have to buy or take care of. And we would've owned it all if it weren't for those pesky unions and that Rino Teddy Roosevelt ; )
 
2013-05-23 01:25:23 AM

MayoSlather: But if we pay people to dig ditches AND fill the ditches with poor people then you're getting rid of all the unemployed, and employing more ditch diggers. Win/win.


i.imgur.com

There is a disturbing lack of Judge Smails in this thread.
 
2013-05-23 01:35:29 AM

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Idiots who write articles they can barely read dont.
 
2013-05-23 01:41:28 AM

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth.


It's worked before.
seattletimes.com
 
2013-05-23 01:49:28 AM
ITT: Blithering morons who think that you can maintain a first-world economy with third-world wages. Every time the "we have to cut wages and taxes to compete with African shiatholes!" nonsense the coffin-stuffers spewing it conveniently omit the part where these companies rely on a first-world consumer base.

Austerity economics are theft and the fascist farks rely on the fact that liberals will eventually fix what they broke without either taking back what was stolen or fixing the economic underpinnings that allow it. Then they can do it again. This whole cycle relies on complicity of the victims.
 
2013-05-23 02:03:18 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ITT: Blithering morons who think that you can maintain a first-world economy with third-world wages. Every time the "we have to cut wages and taxes to compete with African shiatholes!" nonsense the coffin-stuffers spewing it conveniently omit the part where these companies rely on a first-world consumer base.

Austerity economics are theft and the fascist farks rely on the fact that liberals will eventually fix what they broke without either taking back what was stolen or fixing the economic underpinnings that allow it. Then they can do it again. This whole cycle relies on complicity of the victims.


That my friend is all too close to the truth. Yea, the truth is out there for those that wanna hear it but It will not be televised
 
2013-05-23 02:13:47 AM

Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.


Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.
 
2013-05-23 02:23:56 AM

Ehh: Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.

And alcohol is the solution?


To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
 
2013-05-23 02:55:35 AM

El Pachuco: Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.

Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.


Well said. Also, economizing on labor was the 20th century's economic paradigm. Economizing on RESOURCES will be the 21st century's. With 8 or 9 billion people on this planet, automation In the sense you describe is actually counterproductive. Labor used to be the most expensive part of production, but the marginal rateof return on labor efficiency is diminishing while the relative coat of materials is skyrocketing.

Use the available labor, make the increasingly costly materials and land go further... That will be the defining economic paradigm of our time...
 
2013-05-23 03:15:24 AM

Rwa2play: red5ish: That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.

Ezra Klein has standards?


He's usually a good numbers cruncher so yeah.
 
2013-05-23 04:01:54 AM

Kurmudgeon: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth.

It's worked before.
[seattletimes.com image 296x223]


If we substitute infrastructure for ditch digging it would help again.
 
2013-05-23 04:34:56 AM
How is it the people who benefited from the big stimulus project fail to remember it?
 
2013-05-23 04:57:28 AM
According to liberals, the best time to cut federal spending is always 5 years from now, and a penny given to the govt. automatically doubles in value because all of us are government contractors whether we realize it or not.
 
2013-05-23 05:10:06 AM

I sound fat: doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?

Idiots who write articles they can barely read dont.


You wrote an article?
 
2013-05-23 05:25:49 AM

pxsteel: There is a way to reduce the debt and add jobs.  Unfortunately it's the Democrats that hate what the real fix is.  All those manufacturing jobs we have lost in the last 3 decades.  Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.  Ask yourself, would you rather have the 0% we are getting now or 10% of their profits.


or reinstore an importation tax.
Or at least an importation tax only for country who don't have humane working conditions.
 
2013-05-23 05:41:01 AM

Tommy Moo: MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.

Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice. One of those will happen. Making up nonsense work for people to do is the same as increasing unemployment. Every person working a Keynesian job is on welfare, except that it's worse than welfare, because it disguises the unemployment and allows people to imagine that there is no underlying problem that needs to be addressed.


THIS


also, unemployment isn't going anytime soon, because it keep the wages low.

Without unemployment, workers would get a much better pay - it's a market!
 
2013-05-23 05:43:37 AM

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


done in 1
 
2013-05-23 06:07:14 AM
Did Klein get hungry for a snack in the middle of writing this?
 
2013-05-23 07:27:17 AM

El Pachuco: Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.

Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney a ...


Well, yes, protectionism would create more jobs here, but it would also raise the cost of everything, which effectively makes it the same thing as taxing people who have jobs that would survive in a free market and using the tax money to give jobs to everyone else. This is a snake eating its own tail. We are now effectively back to Keynesianism. The most efficient way to live is to let the free market allow everything to be produced in the place where it can be done the most efficiently, and let the population atrophy everywhere that excess workers result. If we were to do this, we could create a world with 2 billion people where every family on earth has a nice house and reliable transportation and indoor plumbing and entertainment and health care. It would also have the side effect (or main effect, depending on your perspective) of making our environmental impact as a species more sustainable.
 
2013-05-23 08:25:41 AM
Failing upwards is the new American dream. You still have to be asleep believe it.
 
2013-05-23 08:38:55 AM

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


the race card has gotten so old it's ridiculous. you are desreving of ridicule for using it.
 
2013-05-23 08:40:14 AM

ShawnDoc: The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.


liberals don't know the difference.
 
2013-05-23 08:44:53 AM
So Dick cheney was right... deficits don't matter?
 
2013-05-23 08:48:49 AM
The only thing we need to fix the financial problems of today is by drinking the blood of our children's future.

Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?
 
2013-05-23 08:59:24 AM

cabbyman: The only thing we need to fix the financial problems of today is by drinking the blood of our children's future.

Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?


The 1% do, and they are drinking the blood of other peoples children.
 
2013-05-23 08:59:35 AM

stirfrybry: Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.

the race card has gotten so old it's ridiculous. you are desreving of ridicule for using it.


True. Conservatives also hate Obama because he's a democrat. Only mostly because he's black.
 
2013-05-23 09:03:17 AM

Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.


So, how many people do we have to kill to get back to prosperity?  a million? a billion? Should they all be large-economic-footprint Americans, or can we kill three billion people who *don't* look like me instead ? If we could somehow instantly scrape Asia clean of the muck that inhabits it and gave it 200 years as a big-ass wildlife preserve,  would that make 'the economy' better?

Do we need to target certain locations and groups? Should we have a standardized test? Perhaps we should slay the low-performers over 35  ... you know, those past the age of exploitation?  Should we educate a billion in STEM and then hire the top half and kill the bottom half? Maybe we should kill just the ugly people? Or we could kill all the handsome people in order to make more on cosmetics and plastic surgery.  I know, Forced sterilization and laser  tattoos for all the people who aren't attractive and successful?

Of course, every person you kills also weakens demand for goods and service...
 
2013-05-23 09:07:53 AM
Can we restore science funding now? You know, the government spending that has one of the best returns for the economy... And creates jobs... And drives industry?

Oh wait no because literal interpretations of the bible and also because books are teh homo-gay or something.
 
2013-05-23 09:12:45 AM

pxsteel: HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.

Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Employee costs may be rising in China, but that doesn't mean working conditions are something we would recognize as acceptable.  Check out the quality of the air in many Chinese cities.  Or the stories of virtual slave-factories where a tiny infraction of the rules gets you fired, and if you're fired, you're going to starve because you're blacklisted.

I'm not buying the "if you lower taxes on job creators, then trust us, jobs will flow back to the US, it's simple economics" line.  I buy the "if you lower taxes on big corporations, they'll hoard yet more cash, and make even bigger payouts to the executives who tell us that jobs are about to flow from China back to the US, if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone, but then come up with other reasons why 0Bummer has destroyed the US middle class" line.
 
2013-05-23 09:37:44 AM

stirfrybry: ShawnDoc: The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.

liberals don't know the difference.


stirfrybry: So Dick cheney was right... deficits don't matter?


Your trolling is like the  erection during the pledge of allegiance: Obvious and embarrassing.

Kibbler: if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone,


It's pronounced "congress".
 
2013-05-23 10:04:40 AM

Kibbler: I'm not buying the "if you lower taxes on job creators, then trust us, jobs will flow back to the US, it's simple economics" line.  I buy the "if you lower taxes on big corporations, they'll hoard yet more cash, and make even bigger payouts to the executives who tell us that jobs are about to flow from China back to the US, if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone, but then come up with other reasons why 0Bummer has destroyed the US middle class" line.


This.

I'd like to see some kind of limit placed on executive corporate remuneration. Perhaps 1% of the five-year average profit level ? Also : No Stock options, no vesting, just w-2 cash.

Most of all, I'd like to see some kind of penalty for screwing things up. We don't allow a guy who drunkenly causes a 70-Car pileup to walk away on the idea that all parties were voluntary participants. Similarly, if a company goes bankrupt, I'd love to find a way to say "no, young man, you are not getting an extra cookie, and you are not going anywhere until this mess is cleaned up."
 
2013-05-23 10:06:42 AM

rubi_con_man: Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.

So, how many people do we have to kill to get back to prosperity?  a million? a billion? Should they all be large-economic-footprint Americans, or can we kill three billion people who *don't* look like me instead ? If we could somehow instantly scrape Asia clean of the muck that inhabits it and gave it 200 years as a big-ass wildlife preserve,  would that make 'the economy' better?

Do we need to target certain locations and groups? Should we have a standardized test? Perhaps we should slay the low-performers over 35  ... you know, those past the age of exploitation?  Should we educate a billion in STEM and then hire the top half and kill the bottom half? Maybe we should kill just the ugly people? Or we could kill all the handsome people in order to make more on cosmetics and plastic surgery.  I know, Forced sterilization and laser  tattoos for all the people who aren't attractive and successful?

Of course, every person you kills also weakens demand for goods and service...


Aaaaaaaand it's time for this strawman to get trotted out again. I almost made it through an entire thread without someone equating reducing the population with genocide.

Atrophy simply requires that we reduce birth rates below death rates. There are many ways to accomplish this. Educating women is the biggest one. Getting rid of tax incentives and social welfare incentives to have more children would also have some effect (note that to get rid of welfare incentives doesn't mean to starve people who have multiple children; it could mean to increase the welfare benefit to all families to a static level, say, that is equal to the level that a family of five or six currently gets. The important thing is that the benefit doesn't increase with each child.) Reducing some of the vast subsidies for the cost of raising children would have a large effect as well. If people actually had to confront the true cost of raising kids, we would mostly choose to have fewer of them.

This should cut across all races and socioeconomic statuses. But, for the record, rich white people are currently not generally having more than two children, so this is one problem you can blame on them. Blame all the others, perhaps, but not this one. It is not racism or eugenics to ask people of all races to have sustainable family sizes.
 
2013-05-23 10:14:27 AM

Animatronik: According to liberals, the best time to cut federal spending is always 5 years from now, and a penny given to the govt. automatically doubles in value because all of us are government contractors whether we realize it or not.


The problem is, it's been made into a political problem.  The country's infrastructure is failing (no major upgrades to it have been made since roughly the 60's - 70's), and the states are basically being left to fend for themselves.  Unless you truly believe the country would be better if we were nothing more than 50 separate fiefdoms, all responsible for their own people, infrastructure, education, etc.  But then again, maybe you'd rather we go back to the Articles of Confederation, since I doubt you think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't bring down the debt and deficit, but with the country in the shape it's in right now, this is definitely NOT the time to do it.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report