Americans favor GOP on budget - Polidicks

[QUOTE=s0beit;29533366]The problem is though that banks shouldn't have been making those loans to begin with. I'll follow up on this in the next quote.[/QUOTE] Exactly, because before the recession, inflation began. [QUOTE]Yes markets will always go up and down and it's a natural, good thing. However, when intervention in the process tells you that everything is fine and good, malinvestments take hold and make the process much, much more painful. Housing should have grown for a while and stopped, some people would have lost meager investment but interest rates would have risen, people would have stopped borrowing to obtain homes and people would have stopped making homes that never needed to be built. It could have been such a small blip on the radar when compared to the disaster that exists today.[/QUOTE] Does that mean that solving the problem is irrelevant? No, it doesn't. [QUOTE]Recessions are a symptom that you should stop spending and start saving, they shouldn't be an indicator for the government to start consuming. Then you're just perpetuating bad spending and investing money into sectors of the market that shouldn't be thriving. Housing should have gotten cheaper AND interest rates should have risen, then when housing is cheap and interest rates become low, that's when you invest in housing.[/QUOTE] No. They aren't HERE LET ME EXPLAIN IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS RECESSIONS ARE PERIODS OF ECONOMIC TIME WHEN THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN CIRCULATION. JUST BEFORE WE FELL INTO RECESSION, WE WERE IN A PERIOD OF INFLATION. THERE WAS TOO MUCH MONEY IN THE MARKET, AND CORRECT ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN. IT BACKFIRED, AND PEOPLE LOST MONEY DUE TO SAID MAL-INVESTMENT. SINCE MOST PEOPLE COULD ONLY AFFORD THE CHEAPER GOODS SOLD AT LARGE CHAINS LIKE WAL-MART, SMALL BUSINESSES STARTED LOSING MONEY, FELL, AND JOBS WERE LOST. NO MORE MONEY. NO MORE CIRCULATION. ECONOMIC DECLINE. How hard is it for you to understand, I mean seriously? [QUOTE]Who can't afford to buy products overseas? If it's a supply problem then we should be picking up the slack here in the United States (if supply of Chinese goods can't meet our demand for Chinese goods, prices should be rising although they are also notorious for distorting their market they do it at their own expense since it's not really a healthy economic policy) but if it isn't I'm fairly sure even small businesses could afford it.[/QUOTE] Not Chinese goods themselves, but to ship jobs across the planet just to cut costs. Sure, Dominos Pizza could hire foreign workers to make their boxes (if they wanted to), but a mom-and-pop pizza shop surely couldn't do so [QUOTE]"work poor wages", i hope you don't mean minimum wage. As an economics person you must understand that the minimum wage is only effective when it reflects market prices. I dislike the minimum wage personally, mostly because politicians tend to override market prices by a wide margin (it's been proven almost conclusively that exceeding the market price for employment actually destroys jobs). As for asbestos, that's a good thing but even if it wasn't enforced by law people wouldn't use them in their buildings. Do you know what the property value of an asbestos riddled home would look like? Not good.[/QUOTE] No. Increased minimum wages do create jobs, at least local ones. If you need some evidence, I'll gladly give you the Santa Fe example I posted in another ITN thread. [QUOTE]Sure it does to me and you, I'm not sure about them. If it was my company and i was an investor or CEO i would use those gains to expand my company, to those that don't they're doing so at their own expense. It isn't a good thing.[/QUOTE] It is for them. Look at Winn Dixie for example. The CEO still gets a hearty paycheck, and yet they're still on their feet. [QUOTE]Greed, as you well know, isn't such a bad thing. It's never us that is greedy it is only somebody else, usually the person with more money (the irony). If big business can shove down small business than one of two things is happening. 1) They're being assisted by the government and it must be stopped at any cost, it isn't a healthy thing and corporations often lobby for government regulation just so they can destroy competitors. Taxes, regulation are only good things for gigantic companies who can afford it. For smaller starting companies it only provides barrier to entry and burdens and will only hurt them financially. 2) They're doing a good thing, if they can outbid the competition without government assistance then they're making cheaper products for everyone. The market tells us that given the technology it couldn't possibly be done more efficiently, if they're overcharging for their products somebody will underbid them.[/QUOTE] this is reaganomics reasoning look what happened to the economy since reaganomics

Whether you're liberal or conservative, a $14,000,000,000,000 debt is not a good thing and must be cut. "Planned Parenthood" and "NPR" are not essential programs, and probably can raise there own funds anyway. Things such as Homeland and Border Security are essential and keep the united sates safe. Personaly i agree with the Pual Ryan Budget proposal on most issues.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29554353']Whether you're liberal conservative, a $14,000,000,000,000 debt is not a good thing and must be cut. "Planned Parenthood" and "NPR" are not essential programs, and probably can raise there own funds anyway. Things such as Homeland and Border Security are essential and keep the united sates safe. Personaly i agree with the Pual Ryan Budget proposal on most issues.[/QUOTE] The TSA isn't essential

[QUOTE=Lizard Of Guilt;29554650]The TSA isn't essential[/QUOTE] Mostly because they are worthless

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29554353']Whether you're liberal conservative, a $14,000,000,000,000 debt is not a good thing and must be cut. "Planned Parenthood" and "NPR" are not essential programs, and probably can raise there own funds anyway. Things such as Homeland and Border Security are essential and keep the united sates safe. Personaly i agree with the Pual Ryan Budget proposal on most issues.[/QUOTE] Anyone who thinks homeland security shouldn't be cut is paranoid. More people die a year from peanuts then they do from terrorist. Really to don"t deserve that avatar. I did the math and if we cut military and by half we would stop are dept in 15 to 20 years.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29557863]Anyone who thinks homeland security shouldn't be cut is paranoid. More people die a year from peanuts then they do from terrorist. Really to don"t deserve that avatar. I did the math and if we cut military and by half we would stop are dept in 15 to 20 years.[/QUOTE] This is true. At the same time, America needs a big stick, because being assholes around the world for the better part of a century has made them more than a few enemies.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29559915]This is true. At the same time, America needs a big stick, because being assholes around the world for the better part of a century has made them more than a few enemies.[/QUOTE] Yea but unless its china we would be able to defend against any country with only have since we would still have more men and research money then the other countries.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29536495]I'm not even contesting it you're just not setting up a good discussion if you just run in saying "X is true because...I say so." It's also not clear if you believe the inverse (that tax hikes need to be applied across the board as well rather than graduated.)[/quote] I don't really understand what the purpose of taking more money away from companies who employ [i]more[/i] workers is, exactly. If it's about revenue you would tax the earnings of the higher income individuals (at least it isn't passed on to other people, although, there's ways around this too) not the company itself. Taxing revenue that is diverted directly into future or current projects seems somewhat counter-productive, if you're doing it unevenly to affect the more effective, anyway. (continuing on this later) [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29536495]Realistic tax increases you'd see in the U.S. or a relevant first world economy.[/quote] This is still ambiguous and largely subjective and don't go diatribe about American exceptionalism, I'm just saying that tax rates should never be 'expected' nor should they be 'realistic'. Our tax rates when you combine local and federal taxes for individuals and corporations alike are quite formidable when held in comparison to other nations depending on what state you live in. Taxes shouldn't be constructed around other 'relevant first world' economies, they should be constructed based on their own merits. [quote] You're claiming increased taxes on businesses hurt consumers via product price increases. I want proof. If you have no proof, you have no argument. If you can't find anything that could apply to companies in the U.S. (e.g. data from a U.S. company during a period where taxes did markedly increase or a relevant international firm), then you're really just making speculation.[/quote] There's proof that higher corporate tax rates get passed on [url=http://ftp.iza.org/dp5293.pdf]to the employed[/url] [quote]In a 2006 study, the economist William C. Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office estimated who wins and who loses from this tax. He concluded that "domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden."[/quote] but you're not considering when i say that prices are increased do i only mean directly, bottom line. That's not what I'm saying, it can be effected indirectly by less investment, less employment and so on. (I would provide more links for the corporate tax rates on the worker but the cbo.gov seems to be down right now) [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29536495]Consumer product prices are actually way more complex than that. You're not going to peg price spikes because Uncle Sam shaved a bit more off the top of businesses one year, but if you're going to make those sorts of claims, you better try, and looking at historical CPI data versus corporate tax rates or public financial information would be a start. You're failing to take into account a shitload of factors that make a tax burden more easily borne by a corporate entity than you think. I don't see you providing any numbers not an explicit refutation. Nice attempt at dodging, your point was still wrong.[/QUOTE] Just because they're 'more easily borne' doesn't mean that there is no outcome because of that. Like i said before, if you want to tax personal income on a bracket system that would be fine, it would be able to more accurately impact people with more money instead of a blanket effect on the entire economy causing all sorts of ruckus. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]Exactly, because before the recession, inflation began.[/quote] You'll just have to elaborate on this. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]Does that mean that solving the problem is irrelevant? No, it doesn't.[/quote] Yes, it is. Focusing on the 'bust' portion of the cycle is gigantically moronic, the bust leads to recovery. It fixes things that have gone horribly wrong in the boom portion of the cycle, the BUST is the cure it isn't something to be avoided. The BUST is when resources are reallocated properly and diverted AWAY from bad investments. Preventing the bust from occurring is just a futile attempt at preserving bad investment and bad businessmen who made bad decisions. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]No. They aren't HERE LET ME EXPLAIN IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS RECESSIONS ARE PERIODS OF ECONOMIC TIME WHEN THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN CIRCULATION. JUST BEFORE WE FELL INTO RECESSION, WE WERE IN A PERIOD OF INFLATION. THERE WAS TOO MUCH MONEY IN THE MARKET, AND CORRECT ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN. IT BACKFIRED, AND PEOPLE LOST MONEY DUE TO SAID MAL-INVESTMENT. SINCE MOST PEOPLE COULD ONLY AFFORD THE CHEAPER GOODS SOLD AT LARGE CHAINS LIKE WAL-MART, SMALL BUSINESSES STARTED LOSING MONEY, FELL, AND JOBS WERE LOST. NO MORE MONEY. NO MORE CIRCULATION. ECONOMIC DECLINE. How hard is it for you to understand, I mean seriously?[/quote] Yes it's very hard for me to understand things that are [b]wrong[/b]; The circular flow theory is a flawed, retarded theory that no doubt was drilled into your head by your professor who no doubt ignored all the [url=http://mises.org/daily/3384]alternative[/url] [url=http://mises.org/daily/3194]viewpoints[/url] on the matter. The problem is that view is far too simplistic. Maybe you should shoot off an email to your professor and have him respond, it would amuse me immensely. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]Not Chinese goods themselves, but to ship jobs across the planet just to cut costs. Sure, Dominos Pizza could hire foreign workers to make their boxes (if they wanted to), but a mom-and-pop pizza shop surely couldn't do so[/quote] Do you want to elaborate on this? I mean, fuck, the dollar store down the street can import goods from China. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]No. Increased minimum wages do create jobs, at least local ones. If you need some evidence, I'll gladly give you the Santa Fe example I posted in another ITN thread.[/quote] Increased wages create jobs, not increased minimum wages. Increased minimum wage can only provide jobs PROVIDED it meets the market price. If it's above market prices then you can ONLY destroy jobs. There is no alternative, if there's 6 people willing to work for 6 dollars an hour and then they raise the minimum wage by 1 dollar what will happen, more likely than not, is 5 people will be paid 7 dollars (7.2 if you want to remain consistent, by why go above minimum wage? You get to save 1 dollar an hour now) and the expense is lower production. [url]http://mises.org/daily/2130[/url] before you start talking about how heartless i am and how below minimum isn't a 'living wage', you'd have to first blatantly ignore that more people being employed means an increase in overall productive capacity. Things would be cheaper. You'd also have to ignore the fact that those people are [i]unemployed now[/i] which means they don't earn [i]any wage[/i] let alone a 'living wage'. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]It is for them. Look at Winn Dixie for example. The CEO still gets a hearty paycheck, and yet they're still on their feet.[/quote] Yes and if you look at [url=http://image1.mapmuse.com/images/all/coverage_WINNDIXIE.gif]Winn Dixie[/url] locations as opposed to [url=http://bbb4m.wikispaces.com/file/view/walmartus.jpg/75754745/walmartus.jpg]Wal-Mart[/url] they're in pretty big trouble. Probably would have been smarter to invest more of that money into expansion. [QUOTE=joes33431;29536549]this is reaganomics reasoning look what happened to the economy since reaganomics[/QUOTE] A healthy economy being good for people is reaganomics reasoning? lol (Sorry it took a while to reply, i wasn't home and when i got back this page was still open :v:)

[U]snip[/U]

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29554353']Whether you're liberal conservative, a $14,000,000,000,000 debt is not a good thing and must be cut. "Planned Parenthood" and "NPR" are not essential programs, and probably can raise there own funds anyway. Things such as Homeland and Border Security are essential and keep the united sates safe. Personaly i agree with the Pual Ryan Budget proposal on most issues.[/QUOTE] planned parenthood absolutely is essential just because you've never depended on it doesn't meant countless other people haven't

[QUOTE=s0beit;29564617]Yes, it is.[/QUOTE] so how does the economy get fixed when it does bust? we just sit with our thumbs up our asses? you really aren't making sense. "my car broke down so i wont focus on the problem or fix it ill just let it sit there and pray to jesus that it'll get fixed by magic"

Republicans suck at economics, case closed.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29564617]Words[/QUOTE] Well I'm a lazy bugger who skimmed your posts, but essentially you're arguing for a lower corporate tax and a flat corporate tax? Just curious, what would be the ideal corporate tax rate in your opinion?