Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth

[Psycho4Bud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Bit of an agenda here....sounds real similar to the preachings of Rev. Wright.

Have a good one!:s4:

[maladroit]

redistribution of wealth has been going on LONG before obama got in government


Posted 3/13/2006 11:42 PM Updated 3/14/2006 7:30 AM

Federal aid programs expand at record rate
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care.

A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. (Related: Federal entitlements have changed)

It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending. Enrollment growth was responsible for three-fourths of the spending increase, according to USA TODAY's analysis of federal enrollment and spending data. Higher benefits accounted for the rest.

The biggest expansion: Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. It added 15 million beneficiaries over five years to become the nation's largest entitlement program.

Not a factor: Social Security and Medicare. Those retirement programs will not see their enrollment explode until 79 million baby boomers start to become eligible for Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011.

Programs that grew over the past five years are aimed at the under-65 population, especially families earning less than $40,000 a year. For example, the number of mostly low-income college students receiving Pell grants rose 41% over five years to 5.3 million.

Robert Greenstein, head of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says the growth in the number of people in many programs is due to a rise in the poverty rate from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, the most recent year available. "It's certainly better that people falling into poverty can get Medicaid, but I'd prefer fewer poor people and employers not dropping medical coverage," he says.

Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a conservative Republican from Minnesota, says the number of people in entitlement programs should not be growing when unemployment is near a record low. "It's probably time to revisit food stamps and its goals and costs," says Gutknecht, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees food stamps. Food stamp enrollment climbed from 17.2 million in 2000 to 25.7 million in 2005.

USA TODAY found three major causes for soaring enrollment in government programs:

â?¢Expanded eligibility: Congress has expanded eligibility for programs in ways that attracted little attention but added greatly to the scope and cost of programs. Congress added food stamp eligibility for 2.7 million people by ending a rule that disqualified people from receiving food stamps if they had a car or truck worth $4,650 or more. The change, one of a series of expansions in 2001 and 2002, was designed to make it easier for food stamp recipients to work.

â?¢Increased participation: The government has made applying for benefits easier, prompting more eligible people to get them. Forms have been shortened, office visits reduced and verification streamlined.

â?¢Welfare reform: 996 overhaul pushed millions of people off cash assistance and into the workforce. Congress expanded eligibility for benefits to support people with low-wage jobs.

[killerweed420]

I'm a conservative but not a republican. They're not really conservatives. I like how the repubs like to call this redistribution of wealth.lol It's not. It's a re-redistribution of wealth. The big companies have been stealing from employees and customers for decades. The dems just want them to pay there fair share for cheating people out of a living wage for so long. So its not really a redistribution. Its just trying to get people what they deserve. A living wage.

[JaySin]

I'm a conservative but not a republican. They're not really conservatives. I like how the repubs like to call this redistribution of wealth.lol It's not. It's a re-redistribution of wealth. The big companies have been stealing from employees and customers for decades. The dems just want them to pay there fair share for cheating people out of a living wage for so long. So its not really a redistribution. Its just trying to get people what they deserve. A living wage.

Very well said.

[happiestmferoutthere]

The neo- republicans must really be in a death roll if all they can come up is with stuff from 2001 that really doesn't mean much a week before the elections . Sad, really.

[IAmKowalski]

The neo- republicans must really be in a death roll if all they can come up is with stuff from 2001 a week before the elections . Sad, really.

Sad, yes. But also funny! Just kick back and enjoy the show while it lasts - and get a bottle of champagne and a joint ready for election night! :S2:

[IAmKowalski]

Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/27/145024/36/995/643777)

Transparently Backwards: The "Common Alliance" of Smearmongerers Strikes Again
by georgia10
Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM PDT

Fresh off of breaking the "story" that a McCain volunteer was "mutilated" (er, scratched) by a big, bad black man (er, herself, really), Drudge continues his decent into the absurd and the McCain campaign is again willing to join him in the nosedive down the rabbit hole.

Today's false story of choice? Drudge claims this:

2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

The "headline" links to a YouTube video of a seven year old radio interview which, as was expected, reflects the complete opposite of the screeching headline.

In the interview, Obama actually states the following:

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

The "tragedy" wasn't that the Supreme Court did not, as Drudge screeches, pursue the "redistribution of wealth." In fact, he states that the "tragedy" was that the civil rights movement, in seeking equalizing policies, focused too much on courts and not enough on political and community organizing.

In other words, the Drudge/McCain/Fox "News" hype of this story is as painfully desperate and transparently faux as a backwards "B" scratched into the face of a McCain volunteer by her own hand.

The legal minds over at the Volokh Conspiracy agree:

[Obama] seems to think that it was a huge error for activists to try to achieve more general redistribution through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (In the waning days of the Warren Court, there was a movement to try to constitutionalize a right to a minimum income.) Co-interviewee Dennis Hutchison even suggests that in pre-interview conversation, Obama agreed with him that Goldberg v. Kelley, establishing procedural protections for welfare recipients, was wrongly decided, or at least promised much more than it could possibly achieve.

And Cass Sunstein sets the record straight, pointing out that not only was Obama arguing the exact opposite of what the smear claims, but that "redistributive" doesn't mean what most people think it means in this narrow legal context:

Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didnâ??t mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What heâ??s saying â?? this is the irony of it â?? heâ??s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

Meanwhile the Obama campaign responds to the faux outrage de jour:

"This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months. In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all. Americans know that the real choice in this election is between four more years of Bush-McCain policies that redistribute billions to billionaires and big corporations and Barack Obamaâ??s plan to help the middle class by giving tax relief to 95% of workers and companies that create new jobs here in America. Thatâ??s the change we need, and no amount of eleventh-hour distractions from the McCain campaign will change that."

[JakeMartinez]

The top 1% of the world owns 40% of the wealth.

How many of those people have had to work for 40 years to be that wealthy?

Just because Marx's call for a redistribution of wealth evolved into socialism doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea to do so.

Besides, Obama isn't proposing that the top 1% have their assets forcibly seized and given to the public. It's just an extra 3% of their income. They'll still have 61% of those multi-millions to do what they please with it.

You conservatives complain about word-parsing and the biased media, but that way of thinking works both ways. Obama used the best phrase he could to describe his goal of letting the common man compete with the wealthy few who run our country by calling it a redistribution of wealth, and now the right-wing media immediately claims that he is a socialist.

It's a bit hypocritical, and grossly immature.

[Psycho4Bud]

Besides, Obama isn't proposing that the top 1% have their assets forcibly seized and given to the public. It's just an extra 3% of their income. They'll still have 61% of those multi-millions to do what they please with it.

You conservatives complain about word-parsing and the biased media, but that way of thinking works both ways. Obama used the best phrase he could to describe his goal of letting the common man compete with the wealthy few who run our country by calling it a redistribution of wealth, and now the right-wing media immediately claims that he is a socialist.

It's a bit hypocritical, and grossly immature.

Raise the income tax, capital gains, corporate tax.....lets see how many jobs are created with this "system".

You want to talk immature? Don't ya think that it's a bit immature for one adult to expect another to pay for his services? You want the government to play the "daddy role" and supply you with everything you need then don't bitch when he searches your room.

IF the better off want to help people out through charities they have that option whether or not to give their moneys and where they feel it's best needed. For example, cheap Joe Biden feels that you all have it VERY good according to his donation record.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

The neo- republicans must really be in a death roll if all they can come up is with stuff from 2001 that really doesn't mean much a week before the elections . Sad, really.

How about us independents that feel that this is b.s.? He stated this in "01" and confirmed it with "Joe the Plumber". If an "01" statement come out from either McCain or Palin I'm sure that the left would be all over that shit. :rolleyes:

Like I stated to Jake, if you want government to play the daddy role then don't bitch when he searches your room. Sure hope Obama bumps up the welfare programs ya all because your going to need it.

Have a good one!:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

Raise the income tax, capital gains, corporate tax.....lets see how many jobs are created with this "system".

You want to talk immature? Don't ya think that it's a bit immature for one adult to expect another to pay for his services? You want the government to play the "daddy role" and supply you with everything you need then don't bitch when he searches your room.

IF the better off want to help people out through charities they have that option whether or not to give their moneys and where they feel it's best needed. For example, cheap Joe Biden feels that you all have it VERY good according to his donation record.

Have a good one!:s4:

Okay, then. If you're so confident that businesses and the wealthy should be asked but not forced to give, do you support the idea of no government? The obvious endgame for capitalism is that business takes over the roles of government, so is that acceptable to you or to any other member of this board?

If you answer "no", then you should sit back and realize that without money, Government doesn't exist in a free-market economy. Where does that money come from?

*ding ding ding* We have a winner! The word was...

TAXES!!!

Not donations, not lobbying, not even the Federal Reserve's corrupt behavior. Taxes give money to the government so it can take care of the things we need done. That means public transportation (roads and bridges included), Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, FDA, Army, CIA, FBI, FEC, SEC, Navy, NSA, etc.

If you have an issue with all those, don't pay your income taxes this year. See how far you get by telling the IRS "I don't want to use my hard-earned cash to boost anyone else except myself". I'm sure they'll understand.

[texas grass]

under republican president for 8 years and congress for 6 of those years

we lost the middle class
people have less money in their pockets today
energy cost has redistrubuted most wealth
perscription drugs redistrubute wealth
more people are losing their houses
majority of people i know today work harder and bring home less money


that sounds like redistribution of wealth and it was done by the republicans

it is a fact most people will gain from obama's tax plan and infact will get more money back so the redistribution of weath will go to them not come from them

[daihashi]

Okay, then. If you're so confident that businesses and the wealthy should be asked but not forced to give, do you support the idea of no government? The obvious endgame for capitalism is that business takes over the roles of government, so is that acceptable to you or to any other member of this board?

If you answer "no", then you should sit back and realize that without money, Government doesn't exist in a free-market economy. Where does that money come from?

*ding ding ding* We have a winner! The word was...

TAXES!!!

I've said this before; but apparently you've missed it.

There are more ways to generate revenues from taxes than by simply raising them. Through lowering of taxes you do a number of things for companies that allow the government to create greater tax revenue:


Job creation puts more individuals out there with taxable income. As the simple sentence suggests these new jobs are essentially new money that the government wasn't previously getting. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.

Lower taxes increase company productivity. Through increased productivity the company is able to generate more product that may be high in demand. Leading to a high amount of trade in volume. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.

Lower taxes also result in cheaper products. When prices fall then demand goes up. With demand up you are also trading at a higher volume than previously. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.


There's more that goes into this and then you have how lower taxes effects the market which also effects the economy but you get the basic gist of it.

Raising taxes doesn't create jobs or create cheaper products or increase productivity. However it does create more tax revenue for the government for a SHORT TIME. It will only create more revenue for as long as businesses can keep their productivity up under the new stresses.

Decreasing taxes has always proven to increase trade volume, create jobs and create cheaper/better products.

but to each his own, but the next time you go off on a rant that has an air of condescending tone to it be sure that you understand the topic you are discussing from all angles.

[maladroit]

"Lower taxes increase company productivity. Through increased productivity the company is able to generate more product that may be high in demand. Leading to a high amount of trade in volume. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated."

- i can see how lower taxes increase company profitability but how do lower taxes increase productivity? generating more product does not increase demand - increased demand generates more product supply, even if a business has to borrow money to increase supply...if the demand is there, it will be met...nobody walks out of walmart empty handed because corporate taxes are too high

decreasing taxes can increase demand, especially among the lower and middle classes who spend almost all of their disposable income...obama claims that he will reduce those taxes...YAY! decreasing taxes to the rich doesn't increase demand because they can already buy everything they need, and they still have high savings rates...the trickle down tax cuts for the rich theory is dead

[Psycho4Bud]

Okay, then. If you're so confident that businesses and the wealthy should be asked but not forced to give, do you support the idea of no government? The obvious endgame for capitalism is that business takes over the roles of government, so is that acceptable to you or to any other member of this board?

If you answer "no", then you should sit back and realize that without money, Government doesn't exist in a free-market economy. Where does that money come from?

*ding ding ding* We have a winner! The word was...

TAXES!!!

Who pays the most at the current time? Do you think that it's fair that the few have to support the others? Some of the Obamites are the lazy asses that feel that the government OWES them. What was JFK's theme again....Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? And they compare this socialist to him? What a joke!

You need medical care, maybe a loan for a vehicle to get back and forth from your job? Send a letter to the million dollar man Obama and we'll see how "compassionate" he really is. LMAO...don't ask cheap Joe Biden though, that would be a complete waste of time.

Besides all that, where in the constitution does it say that if you succeed that you have to support those that don't really give a rats ass if they live in a ghetto or a trailer court?

Have a good one!:s4:

[silkyblue]

ahhh the wealth !




I call it 'giving money back' to the hard working folk, money the Amercian government takes

FROM WALLETS


whats in your wallet?


$$ has a whole new meaning dude




nobody walks out of walmart empty handed because corporate taxes are too high



thats a shame huh!


OMG! How dare the Walmart shoppers )

[Psycho4Bud]

"Lower taxes increase company productivity. Through increased productivity the company is able to generate more product that may be high in demand. Leading to a high amount of trade in volume. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated."

- i can see how lower taxes increase company profitability but how do lower taxes increase productivity? generating more product does not increase demand - increased demand generates more product supply, even if a business has to borrow money to increase supply...if the demand is there, it will be met...nobody walks out of walmart empty handed because corporate taxes are too high

decreasing taxes can increase demand, especially among the lower and middle classes who spend almost all of their disposable income...obama claims that he will reduce those taxes...YAY! decreasing taxes to the rich doesn't increase demand because they can already buy everything they need, and they still have high savings rates...the trickle down tax cuts for the rich theory is dead

Joe has a small business that is over $250,000. He NOW has to pay for health care and also is getting nailed for higher taxes. Joe has to lay off one or two people in order to make his company solvent. How much of their unemployment check will be spent at Walmart?

Have a good one!:s4:

[maladroit]

that is a valid point about profitability, but it has nothing to do with productivity

productivity
Definition
The amount of output per unit of input (labor, equipment, and capital). There are many different ways of measuring productivity. For example, in a factory productivity might be measured based on the number of hours it takes to produce a good, while in the service sector productivity might be measured based on the revenue generated by an employee divided by his/her salary.

productivity Definition (http://www.investorwords.com/3876/productivity.html)

[JaySin]

So he makes $250,000 AFTER paying his employees and all The expenses? So after profiting $250,000, how would it make his life any harder to pay a little bit more in taxes? Yet the people that don't get such a massive surplus in profit are suppose to spend almost all of there disposable income just to get by?

Like I've said before, If I made that much money I would GLADLY give a little extra to help 95% of the country out. I'm not a greedy little pig that thinks 95% of the country is trailer trash that just sits on their lazy ass all day looking for handouts.

[maladroit]

i live in one of the richest cities in the world and i have to step over the bodies of homeless people who were kicked out of their accomodation so it could be converted into expensive condos...meanwhile, all three levels of government found $5 billion taxpayer dollars to fund the 2010 olympic games in my city that will take decades to pay off...our priorities are badly messed up

[killerweed420]

You know its sad because I think the future holds a lot more unions. With the dems in power and trying to get living wages for employees the simple answer is for more unionized workers. I've been union a couple times and I absolutely hate it. I think its closer to communism than anything else. But I understand why people want to become unionized. And the couple companies that I worked for had a reason for unionizing. The owners were absolute crooks.
But with greedy companies refusing to be fair and pay living wages I think its coming. Congress won't do anything about corporate greed. All they do is talk about it.

[maladroit]

unions aren't the only answer...the government can do better things to encourage domestic job development by reducing the profit incentive of exporting jobs to foreign countries

[JakeMartinez]

I've said this before; but apparently you've missed it.

There are more ways to generate revenues from taxes than by simply raising them. Through lowering of taxes you do a number of things for companies that allow the government to create greater tax revenue:


Job creation puts more individuals out there with taxable income. As the simple sentence suggests these new jobs are essentially new money that the government wasn't previously getting. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.

Lower taxes increase company productivity. Through increased productivity the company is able to generate more product that may be high in demand. Leading to a high amount of trade in volume. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.

Lower taxes also result in cheaper products. When prices fall then demand goes up. With demand up you are also trading at a higher volume than previously. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.


There's more that goes into this and then you have how lower taxes effects the market which also effects the economy but you get the basic gist of it.

Raising taxes doesn't create jobs or create cheaper products or increase productivity. However it does create more tax revenue for the government for a SHORT TIME. It will only create more revenue for as long as businesses can keep their productivity up under the new stresses.

Decreasing taxes has always proven to increase trade volume, create jobs and create cheaper/better products.

but to each his own, but the next time you go off on a rant that has an air of condescending tone to it be sure that you understand the topic you are discussing from all angles.

I appreciate being told off like a child, but you didn't answer my question. And, for that matter, neither did the person it was directed to.

If lower taxes are better for the economy, then obviously the best thing we could do for it is do away with government altogether. So, why not?

And Daihashi, our economy grows and acts independent of what our government does. Saying that lower taxes is the only reason we can live in such a wonderfully materialistic, free-market society is to ignore the U.S.'s vast resources. That's why we have such a great economy, taxes have nothing to do with it.

[daihashi]

that is a valid point about profitability, but it has nothing to do with productivity

productivity
Definition
The amount of output per unit of input (labor, equipment, and capital). There are many different ways of measuring productivity. For example, in a factory productivity might be measured based on the number of hours it takes to produce a good, while in the service sector productivity might be measured based on the revenue generated by an employee divided by his/her salary.

productivity Definition (http://www.investorwords.com/3876/productivity.html)

sigh.. ok here we go again.

Lower taxes on businesses that work in large numbers (meaning that regardless if they are a small or large business.. they pull in large amount of revenue/profit) would increase productivity by allowing the business to purchase more equipment/tools/assets etc etc that make the efficiency/productivity of the company much higher.

Here's a crude example: Johnny runs a paper route before school that allows him to deliver papers to 40 houses on his 10 speed bicycle.. johnny is currently taxed 33% on his earnings. Johnny saves his money to be able to buy a Moped which allows him to take on 2 additional routes in 2 neighborhoods outside of his own in the same amount of time it took him to deliver papers in his neighborhood alone. Johnny has increased both his productivity and efficiency.

Tax Johnny an additional 3-6% and now you impede Johnny's ability to be able to purchase that moped. That 3-6% could've been all that Johnny had to set aside for the Moped budget; all the other money could've already been accounted for some of Johnny's other needs personally and for the cost to maintain his paper route.

Secondly.. lower taxes; can hire more employee's. Which could also increase your productivity. More employees working typically mean shorter wait times for product development, research or whatever else. Anyway you look at it; regardless if it directly puts a product on the shelf or not, additional employees equate to higher productivity within the company; which indirectly effects the cost of the product and the volume of which it is traded.

[maladroit]

thanks for your patience in explaining that to me

buying more equipment to increase productivity makes sense, but as productivity increases due to new equipment, fewer employees are required to do the same work so joe the plumber and max the media tycoon will be firing people and pocketing the difference

[daihashi]

I appreciate being told off like a child, but you didn't answer my question. And, for that matter, neither did the person it was directed to.

If lower taxes are better for the economy, then obviously the best thing we could do for it is do away with government altogether. So, why not?


I didn't answer your question and I was never obligated to. If you took it as being told off like a child then I'm sorry, but that is your own problem of perception and not mine. If you can't handle having one of your posts picked apart.. analyzed and criticized resulting in an answer that you disagree with then you really shouldn't be posting. Being told off as a child? I completely disagree, explaining how there are more ways to generate taxes when you gave the impression that you believed that the only way to generate income for the government is through raised taxes.. then yes of that I'm guilty. So sue me

Your question that you pose actually makes no sense what so ever. If we have no government then the things that we do need the government for will no longer be there either.

Do you enjoy the roads you drive on? Do you enjoy being able to go to work without worrying if we will be invaded by another country? Do you enjoy having a legal system as opposed to a lawless system where if you piss somoene off they could shoot you without any consequence to them?

You probably do enjoy these things, I know I do. For these things we do need a government; however with that said that doesn't mean the government is the end all answer to our problems. The real root of the problem is government spending and over complicated/under performed government programs.

Raising taxes is a short term fix that will inevitably come back to bite us in the ass in a few years.


And Daihashi, our economy grows and acts independent of what our government does. Saying that lower taxes is the only reason we can live in such a wonderfully materialistic, free-market society is to ignore the U.S.'s vast resources. That's why we have such a great economy, taxes have nothing to do with it.

No, you're right it does act independantly but what we do can and does influence the economy. In case you haven't realized it our economy isn't in the crapper but it's not doing so hot. It is a very good reflection of the current bonds markets; which are a fairly good snapshot of how our economy is doing. I am not just talking about t-bills.. I am also referring to corporate bonds as well.

In a time when the economy is on shakey ground and you propose tax increases then here's where the chain reaction begins.

Companies jobs are to protect it's owners and investors.. protecting it's employees are actually very low on the agenda list. To protect it's investors it will cut back production... which will decrease supply and in the end effect the final dollar of what you pay at the store.. leaving you with less and less money to spend on other needs.

In addition a company may choose to cut employees.. creating a higher number of those unemployed.. without any taxable income now. So the government get's no money from them and they only get money from the government (MAYBE!! if they qualify) for a short time. The result is the same, less spending and a stagnant economy.

So you're right.. the market does work independently.. but you're wrong... the government can and does influence which way the economy turns. Key word being influence...

[daihashi]

thanks for your patience in explaining that to me

buying more equipment to increase productivity makes sense, but as productivity increases due to new equipment, fewer employees are required to do the same work so joe the plumber and max the media tycoon will be firing people and pocketing the difference

That would be true if you're only trying to do the same amount of work. If you are a business and are trying to increase your profits during a period of growth for your business.. then it is very unlikely that you would fire that employee. Instead you can have the employee help out where you are lacking or take up new tasks all together that would benefit everyone in the company.

People don't realize this but in order to make money.. you have to spend money.

If you were making 250k a year and this new equipment allowed you to free up the work of 1 person... then you could choose to fire a person and keep making 250k a year or you could choose to keep them on, assign them a new task that would help increase your companies productivty and in turn maybe help your company make 275k-300k next year or more.

Most companies want to continue growing... most don't want to get smaller.

[maladroit]

i think you're putting the cart before the horse...joe's plumbing business doesn't automatically grow by increasing labour or increasing efficiency...business grows because demand grows

[daihashi]

i think you're putting the cart before the horse...joe's plumbing business doesn't automatically grow by increasing labour or increasing efficiency...business grows because demand grows

And demand grows with prices of products are down. Supply dictates the cost of a product. Therefore if supply (in this case you've switched to plumbers) is low and demand is high.. then Joe will have to charge a premium for his time.

While this sounds good on paper because Joe is getting more money.. it's actually bad because he is bound to have fewer customers which means less recurring business; If he loses a customer then it has a larger impact on his business, not just that but if business is doing well he will have to turn people away.. resulting in less money generated.

If he had another hand helping him then Joe could take on more business.

In addition to this let's say Chuck down the road was able to get hired because of decreased taxes on a small business near by. Now Chuck has some disposable income to give to Joe... which would increase the demand for his business. Chuck is a completely new entry into the economy. Chuck's new money can then be handed off to Joe.. which Joe then uses to hire an additional hand.. who generates more income for Joe and more taxes for the government (both for the new hires income tax and for the net income of the company.) in turn Joe's company is naturally going to need to buy more supplies than normal... he turns to some wholesale retailer to buy products.. who in turn has, let's say 200 employees which joes money in turn helps to employ, these 200 employees then go out with their money and are able to get services they need or spend it on entertainment..

either way you can see that this is a never ending cycle. In a business you plan for the worst but you implement scalable solutions. If you are not constantly trying to expand your business then it will fail.


I suspect you're going to use the argument "well if someone doesn't have any money to spend then Joe get's nothing.". Which would be a valid argument except the following:

If taxes are raised 3-6% then at best.. BEST job creations will come to a dead slow crawl or a halt altogether. Which means when you have turnovers in your workforce.. that workforce are not finding new jobs; or if they are then it takes a while. So for a while you have people with no jobs and cannot find jobs; as opposed to the people who have maintained their jobs now making an extra $10-20 a week on their paycheck.

What's better for the economy? A person with an extra 10 bucks in their pocket or a person who has a full time job with 100-200 dollars in their pocket that they can spend? Hell.. what's better morally? Putting $10 in your own pocket or passing the plate and letting the person to the right of you who has nothing be able to claim a job?

[Psycho4Bud]

So he makes $250,000 AFTER paying his employees and all The expenses? So after profiting $250,000, how would it make his life any harder to pay a little bit more in taxes?

It won't in the end because he'll just lay off a couple of employees in order to stay within the lifestyle he/she is accustom to. The work won't decrease but the expectations of the workers left will increase for sure.


Yet the people that don't get such a massive surplus in profit are suppose to spend almost all of there disposable income just to get by?

Why own company "x" and have all the headaches of dealing with employees, codes, general issues when you can be just as comfortable being an employee? If I'm pulling refrigerant for a company and fail to keep up the records, the company is the one accountable to the EPA with possible fines of $27,000/day of violation. Just one example of what risks the small business owner takes.

If he/she wants to ride in a Lincoln then good for them, they can have it. I'm just as happy of a person on my bike and I don't have the headaches to take home with me. I go in and bust my ass I get rewarded; if not, I take my tail down the road to one of his competitors.



Like I've said before, If I made that much money I would GLADLY give a little extra to help 95% of the country out.

I'm with ya on that but I want to decide where the hell it goes. Cheap Joe Biden made $250,000 and gave roughly $350 in charity; I made less than a fifth of that and gave 3 times the amount. IF he was so hip on this idea that people making over $250,000/yr. should be giving more don't ya think he should be showing it by his actions?


I'm not a greedy little pig that thinks 95% of the country is trailer trash that just sits on their lazy ass all day looking for handouts.

I hear ya! Joe kind of pisses me off too from time to time!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

unions aren't the only answer...the government can do better things to encourage domestic job development by reducing the profit incentive of exporting jobs to foreign countries

Great point...that's called lowering the capital gains tax.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

[maladroit]

"Supply dictates the cost of a product."

- not if the product is oil...what about demand? cost of labour/manufacturing/parts? in traditional economic theory, price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves...these days, i'm not so sure


"If he had another hand helping him then Joe could take on more business."

- *IF* there is demand...otherwise, joe could hire 100 extra people and take on all the business in the surrounding 1000 square miles


"If taxes are raised 3-6% then at best.. BEST job creations will come to a dead slow crawl or a halt altogether."

- if joe had extra demand and was turning away customers, but taxes depleted his cash reserves, he could borrow money to cover the additional salary, and the money the new employee earned would pay back the bank loan plus a tidy profit for joe and more tax revenue for the government...increased demand is a win-win-win situation


i like joe...y'know he just came out and endorsed mccain? celebrity endorsements work!

[Psycho4Bud]

buying more equipment to increase productivity makes sense, but as productivity increases due to new equipment, fewer employees are required to do the same work so joe the plumber and max the media tycoon will be firing people and pocketing the difference

Joe the plumber is buying trucks, inventory, tools, and advertising. Now he needs people behind the trucks and hopefully a few new receptionists to get the calls.;)

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

"Supply dictates the cost of a product."

- not if the product is oil...what about demand? cost of labour/manufacturing/parts? in traditional economic theory, price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves...these days, i'm not so sure

Yes it does.. Currently there is an overwhelming supply of oil with very few buyers since just about everyone in the world has cut back on their oil consumption. This is why Oil has plummeted to in the $60 range.

Not sure about where you live but here in Texas the price of gas has dropped off about $1 from where it was a month ago. Hell we even went through a Hurricane and costs are still down.

It seems to me that supply/demand is still working.




"If he had another hand helping him then Joe could take on more business."

- *IF* there is demand...otherwise, joe could hire 100 extra people and take on all the business in the surrounding 1000 square miles

You don't make demand by putting $10 into people's pockets every week. Demand is created when people have more disposable income. $10 is hardly either worth investing nor could you call it disposable.

Creating new jobs and putting people who were currently making an income of $0 is how you stimulate demand. Create a new workforce out of those unemployed. More people you have making money then the more people you have spending money.

Demand doesn't just make itself.. and demand doesn't come out of people who are unemployed or if companies are not hiring new employees/giving out pay raises.



"If taxes are raised 3-6% then at best.. BEST job creations will come to a dead slow crawl or a halt altogether."

- if joe had extra demand and was turning away customers, but taxes depleted his cash reserves, he could borrow money to cover the additional salary, and the money the new employee earned would pay back the bank loan plus a tidy profit for joe and more tax revenue for the government...increased demand is a win-win-win situation


You miss the point here all together. If hiring comes to a halt.. there is not going to be demand, making the borrowing moot all together because without demand then there is no need to hire. Raising taxes will cause businesses to put on the brakes and maybe even cut jobs; why do you ask? Because a businesses job is to protect the health of the business and it's investors first and foremost. Raising taxes is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy.

Supply dictates the cost of a product while demand drives the need for supply.

Why not kill two birds with one stone and lower taxes. It will counteract the increasing unemployment rate.. giving more disposable income.. which will drive up demand for products...which will drive up the need to better supply the products... which will in turn raise the need for more assets/equipment/manpower to put out the supply.... which creates more jobs.. which creates more disposable income... which helps demand for products/services go up... which creates the need to increase supply.. which increases the need to get more assets/equipment/manpower to put out the supply...

As you can see it's an endless cycle.. Please show me where raising taxes will create the same positive perpetual cycle.


i like joe...y'know he just came out and endorsed mccain? celebrity endorsements work!

I'm not even sure why we're talking about Joe.. I never even brought him up. I mentioned a hypothetical involving a kid on a paper route but I'm glad you like Joe.


FYI, you do realize that several times through our discussion you've indirectly agreed with me. P4B has pointed out a few of those instances.

[JaySin]

If someone is making over $250,000 and they are not having a surplus of money every year, then there is something wrong with how they are spending their money. There should be no reason for them to need to lay off any employees just cause they can't afford to run one of their ten fountains in the back yard or whatever rediculous things that might add up to having to spend that much.

It all sounds good in writing. We give them their tax cut, they use it to improve their business, so in turn they need more employees and can produce more product or provide more services. That or they already have a good business running, and they use the extra profit to lower prices of their goods and services.

Holy crap, we all just won big off of that idea.

The problem I see is this...

The companies see this extra money come in and say "Hey, I've become bored of my $250,00 (or more) a year lifestyle, let's kick it up a notch" My business doesn't need updating or any prices lowered, cause people are already paying the prices and I'm makeing profit, so who cares.

Oh crap, you're telling me that I was doing bad business practices? Well, my business is so huge that if it drowns, lots of people will lose jobs and it could hurt the economy. Come on government, you HAVE to bail me out. What would you do without me? Then come next election maybe you can lower our taxes a little more and help me "improve my business".

Now if you give that tax cut to the lower income population then they will be able to spend more money on the things that are already higher cost. So with these people spending more money, the businesses will probably see the same profit after taxes even though the taxes went up. Hell, maybe they'll even increase their profit.

[daihashi]

If someone is making over $250,000 and they are not having a surplus of money every year, then there is something wrong with how they are spending their money. There should be no reason for them to need to lay off any employees just cause they can't afford to run one of their ten fountains in the back yard or whatever rediculous things that might add up to having to spend that much.

The business makes 250k.. which is used for further expansion of the company. The reason is not for you to determine; it is for the business and investors to determine. Your perception of what is rightand wrong is just that.. your perception and nothing more.

A business is entitled to make profit and protect it's investors. You don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.



It all sounds good in writing. We give them their tax cut, they use it to improve their business, so in turn they need more employees and can produce more product or provide more services. That or they already have a good business running, and they use the extra profit to lower prices of their goods and services.

Holy crap, we all just won big off of that idea.

The problem I see is this...

The companies see this extra money come in and say "Hey, I've become bored of my $250,00 (or more) a year lifestyle, let's kick it up a notch" My business doesn't need updating or any prices lowered, cause people are already paying the prices and I'm makeing profit, so who cares.

Oh crap, you're telling me that I was doing bad business practices? Well, my business is so huge that if it drowns, lots of people will lose jobs and it could hurt the economy. Come on government, you HAVE to bail me out. What would you do without me? Then come next election maybe you can lower our taxes a little more and help me "improve my business".

You're really reaching for something to grab onto here. You are making the assumption that all businesses have bad business practices when that is not true at all. Also a number of people who created the situation you're describing are currently advising Obama or the people who pressured the financial institutions to give out sub prime loans that helped to sink the market occurred is the same party that is proposing cutting taxes for the middle class (which is a red herring. You won't actually see much of a change from pay check to paycheck).

That is an argument for another time.. back to your assumption. You cannot make tax changes or legislative changes based on what you speculate.

This is the same as arresting someone because you THINK they'll murder someone.

Again your arguments point to what you think will happen from a personal standpoint as opposed to how things typically work when viewed from a business stance.

That's not to say it's not plausible.. but it's not likely either and you can't constantly speculate otherwise. If you did then nothing would ever get done.


Now if you give that tax cut to the lower income population then they will be able to spend more money on the things that are already higher cost. So with these people spending more money, the businesses will probably see the same profit after taxes even though the taxes went up. Hell, maybe they'll even increase their profit.

Maybe you didn't see my other posts where I did the math but here.. I'll do it again.

At the low end of the spectrum people making about 18k/year will see a tax reduction of $567/year From Obama's tax plan... Which comes out to roughly $11/week less that you are paying taxes on.

At around 66k Obama plans to cut taxes by $1042/year.. this comes out to be roughly $20/week.

So tell me.. how is this going to spur the economy?

Now tell me... How is a company that was making 100-200 million a year that get's 6% of it's profits ripped away from it due to new taxes going to react?

Which one has the bigger impact on the economy?

[maladroit]

"Yes it does.. Currently there is an overwhelming supply of oil with very few buyers since just about everyone in the world has cut back on their oil consumption. This is why Oil has plummeted to in the $60 range."

- the price of oil is less than half it was five months ago, but the world is not consuming 50% less oil...prior to that, the price of oil increased by 600% since the invasion of iraq but the world wasn't consuming six times as much oil...supply and demand are not driving the price of oil as much as speculation


"Demand doesn't just make itself.. and demand doesn't come out of people who are unemployed or if companies are not hiring new employees/giving out pay raises....If hiring comes to a halt.. there is not going to be demand, making the borrowing moot all together because without demand then there is no need to hire."

- demand is usually stable if employment levels are stable...if hiring comes to a halt, demand will be relatively constant


"Raising taxes is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy."

- raising the national debt is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy too...that has to be dealt with SOON


"Supply dictates the cost of a product while demand drives the need for supply. "

- you got the theory half right:
Economics Basics: Demand and Supply (http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp)


"you do realize that several times through our discussion you've indirectly agreed with me."

- sure i agree with you sometimes...i'm not a total asshole! there's lots of smart folks here and i've been set straight a few times...it's all good

[silkyblue]

I dont want or need Obamas precious money

tell the govenment to give % back those tax brakes are a joke
to the rich!


lower heating cost, legalise weed, make food affordable, dont make peeps
eat crap and for heavens sake,
legalise the plant


I can sell and clear 12 grand a month!

If I could sell?


this ones the kicker


Now if you give that tax cut to the lower income population then they will be able to spend more money on the things that are already higher cost. So with these people spending more money, the businesses will probably see the same profit after taxes even though the taxes


Thats giving the rich too many Wahu-Mart shoppin bags

greedy ass country

[McDanger]

This is one of those so called "greedy" business owners.

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me â??Cory the well drillerâ?�. I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didnâ??t go to college like you, I was too ready to go â??conquer the worldâ?� when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80â??s oil boom. I didnâ??t get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawnshop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self-discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldnâ??t afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second timeâ?¦ $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didnâ??t work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night, as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so an employee and I (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customersâ?? pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturersâ?? product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but thatâ??s ok, I didnâ??t expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesnâ??t it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countryâ??sâ?? (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldnâ??t get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. Itâ??s funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, Iâ??m the guy you intend to raise taxes on. Iâ??m the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. Iâ??m the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didnâ??t want to take a risk, and wouldnâ??t demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. Iâ??m the guy you characterize as â??the Americans who can afford it the mostâ?� that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution â??to spread the wealthâ?� to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. Whatâ??s worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self-reliance, self-motivation, self-determination, self-discipline, personal betterment, and hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldnâ??t it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever-expanding dependence on government. Whatâ??s remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldnâ??t need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because Iâ??ve had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, Iâ??ve seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce â??politically motivatedâ?�); you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone elseâ??s money you are giving to them. I wonâ??t say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (donâ??t you just hate goggle?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self-reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help usâ?¦

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real Americanâ?¦

[silkyblue]

yeah you got took dude but thats alot of money your talking then getting behind dint help the situation

I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I


live and learn I imagine you will recover in the future


Why is Barack to blame? I missed it

[maladroit]

"In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country."

- that absolute declaration overstates the case...obama isn't everything wrong with america, nor is he the answer to everything wrong with america...obama is proposting to cut taxes the same way republican ronald reagan did, and proposing progressive taxation the same way republican teddy roosevelt did...would the author of that letter claim that reagan and roosevelt represent everything that is wrong with america?

[JakeMartinez]

People like Cory are shining examples of capitalism.

But, maybe if he'd stuck with one of these already very lucrative businesses instead of constantly expanding, his company wouldn't be at the mercy of an extra 3-6%. Or, maybe he could have tried issuing stocks or bonds. He should know, as such a successful businessman, that overextending yourself like that is extremely dangerous with or without taxes.

Eh.

I think Cory's a great, hard-working man but I also think times are changing. There are too many people living too close together to think "If we all act out of self-interest, we'll all be better off."

Well, no matter how you cut it, self-interest means you have to step over the back of someone weaker, and I think that's sick. I think the man who knocks down 30 people to get his loaf of bread, and then refuses to share once he gets it, is an asshole who's more of a detriment of society than a help.

Is it really so much to ask for every human being born to be guaranteed food, shelter, heat, water, and good health (if medical knowledge allows for it)? What's so bad about that idea?

And don't tell me free market trade is the way to give everyone those things. Poverty, under/unemployment, and the wealth gap haven't gone away, and in many parts of the world, they're getting a lot worse.

Maybe the answer is socialism, maybe it's a resource-based economy, who knows? I just know for damn sure it isn't capitalism.

[daihashi]

"Yes it does.. Currently there is an overwhelming supply of oil with very few buyers since just about everyone in the world has cut back on their oil consumption. This is why Oil has plummeted to in the $60 range."

- the price of oil is less than half it was five months ago, but the world is not consuming 50% less oil...prior to that, the price of oil increased by 600% since the invasion of iraq but the world wasn't consuming six times as much oil...supply and demand are not driving the price of oil as much as speculation

Really? Because I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand. Speculation raises prices; not lower it.



"Demand doesn't just make itself.. and demand doesn't come out of people who are unemployed or if companies are not hiring new employees/giving out pay raises....If hiring comes to a halt.. there is not going to be demand, making the borrowing moot all together because without demand then there is no need to hire."

- demand is usually stable if employment levels are stable...if hiring comes to a halt, demand will be relatively constant

This makes no sense.. If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off. People begin spending less during times of economic slow down or a poor job market.


"Raising taxes is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy."

- raising the national debt is just like asking for a way to further slow the economy too...that has to be dealt with SOON

I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results.


"Supply dictates the cost of a product while demand drives the need for supply. "

- you got the theory half right:
Economics Basics: Demand and Supply (http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp)

From the same link you provided:

Supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a market economy. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price; the relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship. Supply represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much of a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price, therefore, is a reflection of supply and demand.

What this means is that if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it. The higher demand is over supply then the higher the price.



"you do realize that several times through our discussion you've indirectly agreed with me."

- sure i agree with you sometimes...i'm not a total asshole! there's lots of smart folks here and i've been set straight a few times...it's all good

uhh, well first off The times you agreed with me you were trying to prove me wrong and were arguing your point with me. During your argument you mentioned several things that were basically exactly what i was saying. P4B pointed out two of them. So you were not agreeing with me because you agreed with me; you agreed with me in the process of presenting your argument without even realizing it. That was the point I was trying to make.. Even when you tried to tell me I was half right above.. I was able to take the same link provided.. post the first paragraph and use your own information to affirm my beliefs and make my case stronger.

I don't understand what point it is you're trying to make when you just keep overlapping what I've been saying.

[McDanger]

"Is it really so much to ask for every human being born to be guaranteed food, shelter, heat, water, and good health (if medical knowledge allows for it)? What's so bad about that idea?"

The bad thing about it is, it takes freedom away from the individual.And it does not work. The Declaration of Independence says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, there are no guarantees of anything. The letter was a response to "O"boy wanting to redistribute income.
I am curious how you would "guarantee good health", since this is simply impossible.

"Why is Barack to blame? I missed it "
He was not blaming "O" for his situation, he was saying if he gets his way at least 3 of his businesses, and the jobs that go with them, would not exist.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

okay seriously i do not wish ill on anyone or anything, but im too fed up with people who EXPECT to be given better benefits for having a higher responsibility job. im not going to reword it, i would greatly appreciate if the greedy folk just disappeared one day.

bosses that make more than their collective employees should be shot, and survivors shot again, end of story.

authority positions are obligatory based on the need for such positions to be filled, not the arbitrary individual needs to do it. these positions are more difficult and as an incentive to attract someone to fill the position, more luxuries are offered to the person.

that's wrong right from the get-go. we shouldnt be paying luxurious wages to anyone who cannot prove themselves worth those wages! let the CEOs work just like the employees: from the bottom rung of the ladder up.


new ceo? new pay. rather than payoing the new CEO the same as (or more than) the LAST CEO, pay them the minimum until they EARN those big bucks.

you dont earn respect in the work place with a fancy degree, or a track record, you earn it here and now with what you do or dont do.

you dont offer prizes to ensure a job well done, you offer prizes FOR a job well done!


and OFFER. you OFFER THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. the prizes are a CHOICE made by the WORKERS. not that it works like that, but that's how it ought to work, considering if we pay them to do a good job BEFORE the job is done, what ensures that they will even make the effort? you cannot gaurentee that they will be honorable and keep their word. sure, you could have faith in them, and then when they take away all your benefits, dip into the 401k, and lay off 50% of the employees, just shrug it off and say "oh well", OR you can just not have faith in them at all until they have proven themselves competent and beneficial to the company's best interests, and not their own.



Who are you to say what's rewarding? Personally for me.. I like making plenty of money. I can pay my bills.. and enjoy luxuries that I wouldn't be able to afford on a lesser salary.

ah yes, that's the clincher though, isnt it?

the bigwig who gets to sit behind a desk and go through all the stress of protecting investors is more deserving of luxuries and medical care than the workers who are risking their saftey in the shop, producing parts, running big machines, and physically meeting the company's needs. it doesnt add up. the company is a single thing, all parts of the company are of equal importance.

honestly, when i said they deserve less, iwas just ranting. to be honest, no one deserves any more or less than anyone else. we are all human, we are all doing what we need to do to survive, and yet somehow we are not all equally afforded comforts. somehow we place more and less value on people based on what? what their job is in society??
what is it that determines how a gas pump attendant just barely affords food, while the texaco CEO has more food than can be eaten by an entire starving family?!


the whole point of my argument is that priorities are misplaced and the balance of society is too far tipped to one side.


i got into it in a rage, and said things out of hate toward the general mentality of greed, but my point remains unchanged. can you look past the anger and see that i only mean to say that we are human, we are all human, we all got pulled out of some woman's vagina, so how is it that we are not all equal?


and of course, i am also protesting the reliance on currency. without currency, everyone is a worker, and everything we do to survive is work. survival is the paycheck.

we should do things for the sake of getting them done. not for the sake of a paycheck or extra toys for getting them done. that's inflation.

if we are to expect to get more than the job affords us in exchange for completing a job, then we're on the fast road to exhausting our resources.


in other words, if you are expecting to get paid anything more than you farm, you're a fool.


i do not see any benefits of currency that outweigh the ills it causes, no more than i see any benefits from corporations that outweigh their monopoly on economics.

the shame, however, still lies on those who are trying to "get ahead".

[maladroit]

"Speculation raises prices; not lower it."

- speculation does both...speculators can profit from lower stocks and prices by selling short or betting on the futures markets


"I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand."

- there wasn't 600% more demand between 2003 when oil was under $25 a barrel and 2008 when oil was $150 a barrel, and there hasn't been a 50% reduction in demand since july...supply and demand are factors but speculation is a greater factor


"If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off."

- if job creation comes to a halt, and the population remains constant, demand should be relatively stable because employment levels will be the same (barring other economic factors)


"I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results."

- it didn't work for ronald reagan or george bush...that theory is based on the laffer curve...at some point, the reduction in taxes will have a negative effect...in george bush's case, the expansion of the economy had more to do with low interest rates and the real estate bubble...tax cuts and stimulus checks failed to save america from that disaster so i don't expect more tax cuts will work either...both obama and mccain are going to add trillions to the national debt while leaving the unfunded liabilities in medicaid and social security for another president's crisis management team...the longer that debt is put aside, the worse the correction is going to be

Laffer Curve (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp)


"if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it."

- in the real world, that isn't how soda or oil is priced:
Oil speculators 'riding roughshod' over OPEC, say analysts (http://business.maktoob.com/NewsDetails-20070423143088-Oil_speculators_riding_roughshod_over_OPEC_say_ana lysts.htm)

[Psycho4Bud]

If you can't debate without insults don't bother posting at all! This thread is now clean.....

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

"Speculation raises prices; not lower it."

- speculation does both...speculators can profit from lower stocks and prices by selling short or betting on the futures markets

I think you misunderstand what speculation is. Here is an excerpt from the book by Benjamin Graham "The Intelligent Investor"

Chapter 1, page 20:

" The distinction between investment and speculation in common stock has always been a useful one and it's disappearance is cause for concern. We have often said that Wall Street as an institution would be well advised to reinstate this distinction and to emphasize it in all it's dealings with the public. Otherwise stock exchanges may some day be blamed for heavy speculative losses, which those who suffered them had not been properl warned against. Ironically, once more, much of the recent financial embarassment of some stock-exchange firms seem to have come from the incusion of speculative common stocks in their own capial funds. We trust that the reader of this book will gain a reasonably clear idea of the risks that are inherent in common-stock commitments=risks which are inseparable from the opportunities of profit that they offer, and both of which must be allowed in for the investor's calculations.

What we have just said indicates that there may no longer be such a thing as a simon-pure investment policy comprising representative cmmon stocks- in the sense that one can always wait to buy them at a price that involves no risk of a market or "quotational" loss large enough to be disuieting. In most periods the investor must recognize the existence of a speculative factor i his common-stock holdings. It is his task to keep this component within minor limits and to be prepared financially and psychologically for adverse results that may be of short or long duration.

Two paragraphs should be added about stock speculation per se, as distinguised from the speculative component now inherent in the most representative common stocks. Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook. More than that, some speculation is necessary and unavoidable, for in many common stock situations there are substantial possibilities of both profit and loss, and the risks therein must be assumed by someone.* There is intelligent speculation s speculation may be unintelligent. Of these foremost are: (1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) specuating seriously instead as a pastime, whe you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.







*Speculation is beneficial on two levels: First without speculation, untested new companies (like Amazon.com or in earlier times, the edison electric light co.) would never be able to raise thenecessary capital for expansion. The auring, long-shot change of a huge gain is the grease that lubricates the machinery of innovation. Secondly, risk is exchanged (but never eliminated) every time a stock is bought or sold. The buyer purchases the primary risk that this stock may go down. Meanwhile, the seller still retains a residual risk-the chance that the stock he sold may go up!"

Now then with all that said and typed up we have an understanding what speculators and speculative trading is. A place such as oil futures doesn't need MUCH speculative trading because it is a proven market. It is the life blood of the world economy. However when you get people speculating what they THINK oil will cost and people buying at that rate then you seriously inhibit future buying power.

So again, speculative trading drove the price up... with talks of other countries increasing production from 50k upwards of 200k more barrels a day.. the increase of future supply went up.. and therefore stocks traded at a more reasonable value. Perhaps you don't recall the drop in the price of oil when saudi arabia announced it would be increasing production. It further dropped when other nations also announced they would be increasing production.

Then in light of the economic downturn globally india and china reduced their number and the barrell of oil went down even further due to the increase global surplus of oil.

Really it's not that difficult to understand.



"I could've sworn that the trending was directly inline with china and india both consuming less oil in combination with the US. The price of oil has come down because of less demand."

- there wasn't 600% more demand between 2003 when oil was under $25 a barrel and 2008 when oil was $150 a barrel, and there hasn't been a 50% reduction in demand since july...supply and demand are factors but speculation is a greater factor


Really? So what were India and China doing when there was a spike in the amount of oil they were importing? Oil usage is effected on a global scale and is not local to just the United States. And there has been a significant reduction in oil since July.

I am not sure where you're getting your information from but it's just flat out wrong.

"
If hiring comes to a halt demand will drop off."

- if job creation comes to a halt, and the population remains constant, demand should be relatively stable because employment levels will be the same (barring other economic factors)


"I've already explained how lowering taxes would achieve the same if not better results."

- it didn't work for ronald reagan or george bush...that theory is based on the laffer curve...at some point, the reduction in taxes will have a negative effect...in george bush's case, the expansion of the economy had more to do with low interest rates and the real estate bubble...tax cuts and stimulus checks failed to save america from that disaster so i don't expect more tax cuts will work either...both obama and mccain are going to add trillions to the national debt while leaving the unfunded liabilities in medicaid and social security for another president's crisis management team...the longer that debt is put aside, the worse the correction is going to be


Really? During Ronald Reagan's era he created approximately 20 million new jobs and pulled the economy from the dead hole it was in from the Carter administration.

In George Bush's case, and Bill Clinton has even admitted this, he was entering an economic downturn partly to blame for the dot com bubble bursting. The housing market was still hot and going; however it was only going on strong due to sub par lending practices that were leveraged against financial institutions from the Clinton Administration. Something also that Clinton admits to.

You are confused on what our current down turn resulted from.



Laffer Curve (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp)


uhh.. did you really read what is said on there? It is not much different from what I've been saying in regards to taxes.

Invented by Arthur Laffer, this curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue collected by governments. The chart below shows the Laffer Curve:

Laffer Curve

The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.


"if a producer has a demand for 200 sodas at 99 cents a pop but wants to sell it at 1.25 then he would reduce supply to reflect the price at which he wants to sell it."

- in the real world, that isn't how soda or oil is priced:
Oil speculators 'riding roughshod' over OPEC, say analysts (http://business.maktoob.com/NewsDetails-20070423143088-Oil_speculators_riding_roughshod_over_OPEC_say_ana lysts.htm)

Did you even read this article? It touches briefly on pricing but doesn't actually explain how oil is priced.

here are a few excerpts placed in bold from that link:

OPEC's move to keep oil output unchanged was a message to the market that crude supplies are sufficient, a view not shared by speculators who pushed the price of crude to fresh record highs on Thursday, analysts said.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which produces 40 percent of the world's oil, decided at an output policy meeting on Wednesday in Vienna to maintain its daily crude production target of 29.67 million barrels.

Following the decision, the price of New York crude rose to new all-time highs, reaching more than 105 dollars per barrel on Thursday.

"Prices surged in the fallout from what was an absolute hysterical reaction to OPEC's decision" and news that US crude inventories had fallen last week, said the Schork Report, which provides analysis of energy markets.

"Thus, when OPEC tells us the (oil supply and demand) fundamentals have decoupled from prices and the speculators are running roughshod over the futures market, they have a point," it added.

OPEC on Wednesday blamed the high cost of crude on speculative buying as investors sought a haven amid a weak dollar and high inflation.

"You get the feeling that even if OPEC had announced a production increase the market was still going to move higher," said the Schork Report.

"So let this be a lesson (to OPEC). When you tell the market you lost control of the pricing mechanism, then the market is going to assume that mechanism in your place," it added.

OPEC, which comprises 13 member countries including Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer of crude, said in a statement Wednesday that the market was "well-supplied, with current commercial oil stocks standing above their five-year average".

But US President George W. Bush was said to be "disappointed" that the cartel chose not to increase output.

"He is disappointed that they decided not to increase production," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Bush "does not think it's a good idea for their biggest customers, such as the United States, to have an economic slowdown, in part because of high gas (gasoline or petrol) prices.

"We know that there is high global demand and there is tighter supply. So what we would like is to see an increase in supply from OPEC," Perino added.

The price of oil has doubled since the start of 2007, driven in large part by soaring demand for crude from emerging economic powers China and India.

Speculators have latched onto this, as well as diplomatic friction or unrest affecting oil producing countries such as Iran and Nigeria.

"The fundamentals are still miles away from providing a clear justification for the current price level," Petromatrix analyst Olivier Jakob said following OPEC's latest output decision.

The International Energy Agency, an official energy watchdog for oil-consuming countries, criticised the cartel's move to leave its production unchanged and urged OPEC to take note of high crude prices.

"The decision by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to leave output unchanged may allow crude stocks to rebuild ... but high prices are sending a strong signal that the market thinks it is not enough," IEA said in a statement.

The Paris-based organisation added: "We may need more oil before the summer and therefore urge OPEC countries to listen to market signals."

So this article seems to be in line with the definition of supply and demand.. which you provided to me in hopes of proving me wrong... only for it to further prove me right.. then you post this article on OPEC to prove me wrong only for it to fall back to the basics of supply and demand.. which is what I originally stated.. again further solidifying my point.

What is it again that you're trying to prove? Are you arguing against me for the sake of arguing? At this point it seems like you don't understand what you're talking about. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say; although I doubt it.

[JaySin]

It won't in the end because he'll just lay off a couple of employees in order to stay within the lifestyle he/she is accustom to. The work won't decrease but the expectations of the workers left will increase for sure.



Why own company "x" and have all the headaches of dealing with employees, codes, general issues when you can be just as comfortable being an employee? If I'm pulling refrigerant for a company and fail to keep up the records, the company is the one accountable to the EPA with possible fines of $27,000/day of violation. Just one example of what risks the small business owner takes.

If he/she wants to ride in a Lincoln then good for them, they can have it. I'm just as happy of a person on my bike and I don't have the headaches to take home with me. I go in and bust my ass I get rewarded; if not, I take my tail down the road to one of his competitors.



I'm with ya on that but I want to decide where the hell it goes. Cheap Joe Biden made $250,000 and gave roughly $350 in charity; I made less than a fifth of that and gave 3 times the amount. IF he was so hip on this idea that people making over $250,000/yr. should be giving more don't ya think he should be showing it by his actions?



I hear ya! Joe kind of pisses me off too from time to time!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:


okay seriously i do not wish ill on anyone or anything, but im too fed up with people who EXPECT to be given better benefits for having a higher responsibility job. im not going to reword it, i would greatly appreciate if the greedy folk just disappeared one day.

bosses that make more than their collective employees should be shot, and survivors shot again, end of story.

authority positions are obligatory based on the need for such positions to be filled, not the arbitrary individual needs to do it. these positions are more difficult and as an incentive to attract someone to fill the position, more luxuries are offered to the person.

that's wrong right from the get-go. we shouldnt be paying luxurious wages to anyone who cannot prove themselves worth those wages! let the CEOs work just like the employees: from the bottom rung of the ladder up.


new ceo? new pay. rather than payoing the new CEO the same as (or more than) the LAST CEO, pay them the minimum until they EARN those big bucks.

you dont earn respect in the work place with a fancy degree, or a track record, you earn it here and now with what you do or dont do.

you dont offer prizes to ensure a job well done, you offer prizes FOR a job well done!


and OFFER. you OFFER THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. the prizes are a CHOICE made by the WORKERS. not that it works like that, but that's how it ought to work, considering if we pay them to do a good job BEFORE the job is done, what ensures that they will even make the effort? you cannot gaurentee that they will be honorable and keep their word. sure, you could have faith in them, and then when they take away all your benefits, dip into the 401k, and lay off 50% of the employees, just shrug it off and say "oh well", OR you can just not have faith in them at all until they have proven themselves competent and beneficial to the company's best interests, and not their own.




ah yes, that's the clincher though, isnt it?

the bigwig who gets to sit behind a desk and go through all the stress of protecting investors is more deserving of luxuries and medical care than the workers who are risking their saftey in the shop, producing parts, running big machines, and physically meeting the company's needs. it doesnt add up. the company is a single thing, all parts of the company are of equal importance.

honestly, when i said they deserve less, iwas just ranting. to be honest, no one deserves any more or less than anyone else. we are all human, we are all doing what we need to do to survive, and yet somehow we are not all equally afforded comforts. somehow we place more and less value on people based on what? what their job is in society??
what is it that determines how a gas pump attendant just barely affords food, while the texaco CEO has more food than can be eaten by an entire starving family?!


the whole point of my argument is that priorities are misplaced and the balance of society is too far tipped to one side.


i got into it in a rage, and said things out of hate toward the general mentality of greed, but my point remains unchanged. can you look past the anger and see that i only mean to say that we are human, we are all human, we all got pulled out of some woman's vagina, so how is it that we are not all equal?


and of course, i am also protesting the reliance on currency. without currency, everyone is a worker, and everything we do to survive is work. survival is the paycheck.

we should do things for the sake of getting them done. not for the sake of a paycheck or extra toys for getting them done. that's inflation.

if we are to expect to get more than the job affords us in exchange for completing a job, then we're on the fast road to exhausting our resources.


in other words, if you are expecting to get paid anything more than you farm, you're a fool.


i do not see any benefits of currency that outweigh the ills it causes, no more than i see any benefits from corporations that outweigh their monopoly on economics.

the shame, however, still lies on those who are trying to "get ahead".

Now if only there was a way to get everyone to realize this. Too many people are driven by greed and their ego.

[JaySin]

This is one of those so called "greedy" business owners.

Mr. Obama,

....
....
....


God help usâ?¦

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real Americanâ?¦

I was thinking, and just realized this is the exact reason why we need lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for the wealthy businesses.

Did he start that business with any of his own money? Hardly! He borrowed money every way that he could. Sure he risked losing everything he "owned", but he really didn't own any of it until he was successful. It doesn't matter that the government didn't give him any "handouts" as he is calling them, he still got handouts.

What if he had failed, then what? He would have lost "his" business and oh well right? I guess he is back to where he started. Not like it hurts him any, now all that money that he lost is passed on to someone else to have to take care of. Where was the actual risk that was cast solely upon him?

This is why people need to make more money instead of being able to borrow money that they can barely afford to pay back and almost fail on several occasions. Not everyone is willing to gamble with credit in order to be "successful". The prudent person tries to save up there money to start a business without a major amount of borrowing. Yet with the way the economy has been running and how a lot of things work, that is almost impossible. So the only way to be "successful" is to borrow money and gamble on other peoples behalf.

[maladroit]

"I think you misunderstand what speculation is."

- nope



"A place such as oil futures doesn't need MUCH speculative trading because it is a proven market."

- regardless, there is MUCH speculative trading on oil futures...even fox news can see that:
FOXNews.com - The Danger of Speculation - FOX Fan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166038,00.html)

Study pins oil-price volatility on speculation - Oil & energy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26641528/)




"Oil usage is effected on a global scale and is not local to just the United States. And there has been a significant reduction in oil since July. I am not sure where you're getting your information from but it's just flat out wrong."

- if i am flat out wrong, then it should be a simple matter for you to prove it by showing me how global oil demand or supply changed enough to justify a 600% increase in price between 2003 and 2008, and then a 50% decrease in price in the past 3.5 months



"You are confused on what our current down turn resulted from."

- nope again



"The housing market was still hot and going; however it was only going on strong due to sub par lending practices that were leveraged against financial institutions from the Clinton Administration."

- fannie and freddie are not from the clinton administration, and they were on the sidelines of the subprime crisis:
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/12/2008 | Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html)



"uhh.. did you really read what is said on there? It is not much different from what I've been saying in regards to taxes."

- of course i read it...i posted that link because it is exactly what you've been saying in regards to taxes...i understand the theory, but it doesn't match reality



"So this article seems to be in line with the definition of supply and demand"

- nope...here are a few excerpts from that link:

OPEC's move to keep oil output unchanged was a message to the market that crude supplies are sufficient, a view not shared by *speculators* who pushed the price of crude to fresh record highs on Thursday, analysts said...Prices surged in the fallout from what was an absolute hysterical reaction to OPEC's decision...Thus, when OPEC tells us the (oil supply and demand) fundamentals have decoupled from prices and the speculators are running roughshod over the futures market, they have a point...OPEC on Wednesday blamed the high cost of crude on speculative buying as investors sought a haven amid a weak dollar and high inflation. "You get the feeling that even if OPEC had announced a production increase the market was still going to move higher," said the Schork Report..."The fundamentals [supply and demand] are still miles away from providing a clear justification for the current price level," Petromatrix analyst Olivier Jakob said following OPEC's latest output decision.



"What is it again that you're trying to prove?"

- i am trying to prove that supply and demand have been 'decoupled' from oil prices and that supply side economics doesn't work


"Are you arguing against me for the sake of arguing? At this point it seems like you don't understand what you're talking about."

- i am not stupid and i don't think you are either or i wouldn't waste my time discussing these important issues related to the current financial crisis and government policies...i am not disagreeing with you for the sake of argument, or trying to piss you off with snarky comments about your being confused and lacking understanding...i am trying to be as clear and polite as simple text allows...some of these issues are extremely complicated and i learn a lot from people in these type of discussions

[daihashi]

all I have to say is the information is there and you can use google just as well as I can.

I'm not conceding but I've grown tired of this topic. I've explained it numerous times; pointed out how the exact links you're sourcing fall in line with what I'm saying.

I don't know how much clearer it can be shown and I have lost interest in trying to explain. The loan crisis did stem from the clinton administration which I've provided you with more than a dozen links across multiple threads. A few of which Bill Clinton even says in interviews that his administration and democrats from that era placed plenty of pressure on the financial institutions.

Enjoy the thread; I'm done.

[daihashi]

I just want to make it clear.. I'm not mad, upset or anything like that. I am genuinely just tired of participating in the thread. I like to take the time to put a lot of detail into my posts.

I feel I've contributed enough info to the thread and I'm just cutting out. I've grown tired of this thread.

People seem to think when I cut out of a thread it's because I'm mad. It's usually just because I'm tired of discussing it. The same holds true for this thread.

Hope some other people join in though. I feel this thread had some good dialogue going.

[maladroit]

i googled the global oil consumption information many times during the past couple of years and the proof is not there, so i'm not flat out wrong

i've provided links to evidence directly from the federal government websites that the bush administration and george bush personally had way more to do with the subprime crisis than bill clinton (see link below)...bill clinton has been out of office for 8 years and people are still blaming stuff on him...subprime loans accounted for about 4% of all mortgages when clinton moved out of the white house compared to late 2007 when subprime mortgages accounted for over 20% of all mortgages...i am not saying that bill clinton or the democrats are totally innocent but there should be more accountability for the fiscally negligent president who has been in the white house for seven years leading up to the current crisis

http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/163491-what-you-get-850-billion.html#post1923895

[maladroit]

i enjoyed the dialogue too! you and psycho taught me a thing or two about productivity and taxes

[GoldenBoy812]

All i have to say is, look at 3 years of crude inventories and the US dollar index during that time. The answer lies in there...

[maladroit]

ok i'm looking...what is the answer?

[GoldenBoy812]

ok i'm looking...what is the answer?

Both are a tad bit outdated, and lack current information. Low US dollar values allowed inventories to increase until market fundamentals trumped speculation... The US dollar rebound and lower fuel price during this current time period are a testament to the validity...