Archive

Another reason why to hate Unions

  • gut
    dlazz;1336402 wrote:CANT BELEIVE WE REELECTED OBAMA. HE'S WHATS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
    Well, maybe ask yourself why corporations have recovered but the economy hasn't....Ask yourself what is prompting them to sit on piles of cash, as opposed to investing and hiring people.
  • dlazz
    gut;1336479 wrote:Well, maybe ask yourself why corporations have recovered but the economy hasn't....Ask yourself what is prompting them to sit on piles of cash, as opposed to investing and hiring people.
    I was mocking ccrunner.
  • sleeper
    gut;1336479 wrote:Well, maybe ask yourself why corporations have recovered but the economy hasn't....Ask yourself what is prompting them to sit on piles of cash, as opposed to investing and hiring people.
    One word: Republicans.
  • jmog
    A total dollar profit is meaningless, one needs to look at a P/E or profit ratio to see what % of profit they are getting.

    A typical company strives for around 15% profit, so for every dollar they spend in materials/labor/etc they get back $1.15.

    Some companies like insurance agencies get MUCH less, like 4%. Oil companies sit around 9%.

    FYI, places like Cedar Point make like 75%, maybe we should scream at Cedar Fair and not the oil/insurance companies huh?

    Oh, and you completely fail by using a Rachel Maddow blog.

    That is about as credible as if someone used a Rush Limbaugh quote as proof.
  • I Wear Pants
    Well the article did have links to a NYT article and Department of Commerce charts. Any analysis of that data is certainly not exactly the most credible coming from that blog but the data itself is correct.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337559 wrote:Well the article did have links to a NYT article and Department of Commerce charts. Any analysis of that data is certainly not exactly the most credible coming from that blog but the data itself is correct.
    There isn't any debate corporations are sitting on a pile of cash. This is a fact.

    But what people are missing, intentionally or otherwise, is why? They see a bad economy going forward, they see higher taxes raising their B/E investment hurdles...all that points to accumulating a war chest to sustain them in the expected coming downturn.

    It's fair to say corporations are being overly conservative, but this is the economic reality that Obama has helped create.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1337569 wrote:There isn't any debate corporations are sitting on a pile of cash. This is a fact.

    But what people are missing, intentionally or otherwise, is why? They see a bad economy going forward, they see higher taxes raising their B/E investment hurdles...all that points to accumulating a war chest to sustain them in the expected coming downturn.

    It's fair to say corporations are being overly conservative, but this is the economic reality that Obama has helped create.
    Using this logic we can never again raise taxes on corporations or the wealthy.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337577 wrote:Using this logic we can never again raise taxes on corporations or the wealthy.
    No, because it's not just about taxes. And you're oversimplifying because it's not just a small, one-time tax increase. Unsustainable deficits point to this being just the first in many, significant tax hikes. And the reason we see vastly different tax regimes still only yielding about 18.2% of GDP, on average, is because corporations and the wealthy take actions to counteract tax increases.

    It's also true that our corporate tax rates are becoming increasingly uncompetitive globally.

    The logic that we can tax our way out of this mess is the real utter failure.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1337584 wrote:No, because it's not just about taxes. And you're oversimplifying because it's not just a small, one-time tax increase. Unsustainable deficits point to this being just the first in many, significant tax hikes. And the reason we see vastly different tax regimes still only yielding about 18.2% of GDP, on average, is because corporations and the wealthy take actions to counteract tax increases.

    It's also true that our corporate tax rates are becoming increasingly uncompetitive globally.

    The logic that we can tax our way out of this mess is the real utter failure.
    We should be concerned with growth right now not deficits.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1337591 wrote:We should be concerned with growth right now not deficits.
    Agreed, but how does higher taxes on the rich and corporations help growth? The answer is that it does not.

    You sound like someone who agreed with Bush and his tax cuts since they came right after the recession that followed 9/11. He did them solely for growth, deficits be damned.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337591 wrote:We should be concerned with growth right now not deficits.
    But what you are not understanding is the cumulative debt and deficits are killing growth. The borrowing from the future means there's less and less black powder in the future, so these deficits are very damaging to the long-run health of our economy. One theory says govt intervention prevents the economy from healing itself and re-allocating resources in an optimal manner. I might tend to agree with you if we weren't getting absolute shit growth for the massive deficits we are running.

    Businesses tend to be apolitical. They are concerned mainly with making a profit, and survival/competitiveness. So it would be completely asinine to assume corporations are just sitting on all this cash to punish Obama and those who elected him.

    Companies are doing pretty well. So ask yourself why aren't they investing and why aren't they hiring?
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1337615 wrote:Agreed, but how does higher taxes on the rich and corporations help growth? The answer is that it does not.

    You sound like someone who agreed with Bush and his tax cuts since they came right after the recession that followed 9/11. He did them solely for growth, deficits be damned.
    Well I was 13 at the time but yeah I would have been supportive of those measures. Of course they shouldn't have been made essentially permanent and should have been removed once we were hitting high points (even though the one we hit in the middle of the last decade was built on a lie).

    The taxes on the rich discussion is separate from the growth discussion for me. I don't think you have to be of the "no new taxes ever" crowd to think growth is key.

    Why is the taxes on the wealthy the sticking point for conservatives? Why are you willing to allow taxes to increase on everyone rather than allow them to increase, even somewhat, on the top 1%? (That wasn't directed necessarily at you jmog).

    And then we get McConnell today who didn't allow a motion that he himself proposed continue with a majority. That sort of shit is insane.
  • sleeper
    I Wear Pants;1337624 wrote: Why is the taxes on the wealthy the sticking point for conservatives? Why are you willing to allow taxes to increase on everyone rather than allow them to increase, even somewhat, on the top 1%? (That wasn't directed necessarily at you jmog).
    You could say the exact same thing for liberals. Why are the Democrats holding middle class Americans hostage over a measly tax increase for the wealthy? Interesting how easily the media controls your mind. :thumbdown:
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1337618 wrote:But what you are not understanding is the cumulative debt and deficits are killing growth. The borrowing from the future means there's less and less black powder in the future, so these deficits are very damaging to the long-run health of our economy. One theory says govt intervention prevents the economy from healing itself and re-allocating resources in an optimal manner. I might tend to agree with you if we weren't getting absolute shit growth for the massive deficits we are running.

    Businesses tend to be apolitical. They are concerned mainly with making a profit, and survival/competitiveness. So it would be completely asinine to assume corporations are just sitting on all this cash to punish Obama and those who elected him.

    Companies are doing pretty well. So ask yourself why aren't they investing and why aren't they hiring?
    Well there is the whole fiscal cliff and debt ceiling issue that's surely bothering a lot of companies that do contracts with the government. Even though it's absolutely ridiculous to purposely put ourselves through a fiscal cliff sort of scenario. It's entirely different than in Greece where they lost the ability to borrow at reasonable prices so they had to deal with those cuts and austerity measures. It has basically killed them but they didn't really have options outside of being bailed out by the rest of Europe (who some people are saying should have done that because Greece and Spain's problems are dragging demand down for places like Germany). We on the other hand are still able to borrow at an incredibly low price so austerity/the cliff make no damned sense.

    No matter what both sides need to make sure the damned cliff/sequestration doesn't occur. We don't need to have a double dip recession by choice. That'd be insanity.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337624 wrote: And then we get McConnell today who didn't allow a motion that he himself proposed continue with a majority. That sort of **** is insane.
    Why single out McConnell? Why are you also not calling Harry Reid (you know, the guy that is actually SML) to the mat for blocking a vote on Obama's proposal?
  • I Wear Pants
    sleeper;1337627 wrote:You could say the exact same thing for liberals. Why are the Democrats holding middle class Americans hostage over a measly tax increase for the wealthy? Interesting how easily the media controls your mind. :thumbdown:
    That's a fine point but Democrats haven't been the one making pledges and screaming about how tax increases are the worst thing ever/literally Hitler, etc. If they truly thought that and cared about most people then they would work foremost to assure that most people don't see those tax increases. But they're only concern appears to be that top percentage.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1337634 wrote:Why single out McConnell? Why are you also not calling Harry Reid (you know, the guy that is actually SML) to the mat for blocking a vote on Obama's proposal?
    Which proposal/vote was that? (Finals and shit I've been behind on news)

    I single out McConnell because it was today and it was his damned proposal. He basically filibustered himself.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337633 wrote:Well there is the whole fiscal cliff and debt ceiling issue that's surely bothering a lot of companies that do contracts with the government.
    Uncertainty is obviously part of it. But the obvious answer - which doesn't take a lot of searching to find and understand - is the anti-business agenda. The fiscal cliff and debt ceiling are only recent developments and do not explain 4 years of a completely lackluster recovery.

    And spare me the diatribe about how trimming the deficit a bit is somehow equivalent to austerity. You can't spend your way out of debt. If more spending was such a wonderful boost to the economy, then govts would just print money into perpetuity. If $1T in stimulus is always good and beneficial, then $10T must be even better. Obviously that's completely asinine.
  • I Wear Pants
    gut;1337638 wrote:Uncertainty is obviously part of it. But the obvious answer - which doesn't take a lot of searching to find and understand - is the anti-business agenda. The fiscal cliff and debt ceiling are only recent developments and do not explain 4 years of a completely lackluster recovery.

    And spare me the diatribe about how trimming the deficit a bit is somehow equivalent to austerity. You can't spend your way out of debt. If more spending was such a wonderful boost to the economy, then govts would just print money into perpetuity. If $1T in stimulus is always good and beneficial, then $10T must be even better. Obviously that's completely asinine.
    Where did I say to spend out of debt?

    But you can't cut your way out of a downturn.

    And the cliff is not "trimming the deficit a bit". Hopefully whatever comes out of these discussions actually does that.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337637 wrote:Which proposal/vote was that? (Finals and **** I've been behind on news)

    I single out McConnell because it was today and it was his damned proposal. He basically filibustered himself.
    My understanding is Reid's move was in retaliation to McConnel proposing a vote on what Geitner presented.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-blocks-vote-on-obamas-fiscal-cliff-proposal/article/2515186#.UMFEn3eb6So

    “There is no Geithner proposal,” Reid said. “This is all made up.” Reid’s comment might come as a surprise to Geithner and the reporters who interviewed him over the weekend.

    “We laid out a very detailed, carefully designed set of spending, savings and tax changes that help put us on a path offiscal responsibility,” Geithner told Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday.

    Can't make this crap up. Harry Reid is the biggest partisan moron in DC.
  • sleeper
    I Wear Pants;1337636 wrote:That's a fine point but Democrats haven't been the one making pledges and screaming about how tax increases are the worst thing ever/literally Hitler, etc. If they truly thought that and cared about most people then they would work foremost to assure that most people don't see those tax increases. But they're only concern appears to be that top percentage.
    Same with Democrats about budget cuts to entitlements. I mean Christ, could you be any more biased towards one party? Both sides are fuck ups.
  • I Wear Pants
    Sounds like he's just a moron, not partisan. If he was partisan he would support an Obama proposal.
  • I Wear Pants
    sleeper;1337647 wrote:Same with Democrats about budget cuts to entitlements. I mean Christ, could you be any more biased towards one party? Both sides are fuck ups.
    I don't see how it's the same. Democrats tend to think entitlements are valuable and therefore don't want to vote for them being cut.

    And yes I could be more biased. I could be Ty Webb or Quaker Oats/Belly/etc.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337643 wrote: And the cliff is not "trimming the deficit a bit". Hopefully whatever comes out of these discussions actually does that.
    It's $100B this year, an average of $150B (cuts and tax increases ) over 10years. We are talking 10-15% of the deficit but only about 2-3% of the budget...about 0.65% of GDP. If that's austerity we are in a world of trouble. Horribly irresponsible to pretend like we are incapable of making those cuts, or that they are so damaging. IMO the lack of confidence and deficit overhang is sapping more growth than that out of the economy - so there's potential to offset this by unlocking growth thru responsible budget actions.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1337636 wrote:But they're only concern appears to be that top percentage.
    That is some serious bullshit, liberal propaganda at its finest. Repubs aren't trying to give handouts to the rich, it's a philosophical difference that higher rates hurts the economy. More directly, it's their only leverage to negotiate for spending/deficit reduction that is really dragging the economy down.

    Besides that, one can just look at history to see changes in rates have a pretty marginal impact on revenues. That makes this whole debate nothing more than mental masturbation. The only way to close the deficit are spending cuts and expanding the tax bases.