Page 90 of 147 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192100140 ... LastLast
Results 891 to 900 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #891
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    For all the whizz-bang liberals who claim that raising the MW will grow the economy.

    "MW for Dummies": In order to grow the economy, one must increase productivity, which then increases income, and more importantly, standard of living. Raising the MW does not do this. Paying someone more to produce the same quantity of goods or services must then be offset by an increase in the price of the goods or services, as ther was no increase in productivity. Which means that the customer must now pay more of their disposable income to buy those g and s. Which leaves the customer with two choices 1) Purchase less; or 2) find a way to raise the price of their labor, if possible, so that they can also pass it on to someone else.

    In the end. you have not grown the economy. You will have a mix of inflation, job losses where an employer cannot meet the increased labor costs where there was no increase in productivity, and a reduction in standard of living, where folks now can only make do by purchasing less.

    Where customer demand then shifts to products and services, now costing less, where foreign labor is the beneficiary, you have really shot yourself in the foot.

    "Whoo-Hooo" eh liberals ? Been a while since I have seen such long-winded dumbassery as in this thread.

    Productivity is at it's highest rate in years. American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

    They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

    Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609. U.S. Workers World's Most Productive - CBS News

    In short, productivity has increased far beyond wages. Profits are up, and corporations are making more money than ever. Wages however are stagnant.

    which then increases income, and more importantly, standard of living.
    Clearly if that were true, the standard of living for everyone would be up. It isn't. Why not?

    Paying someone more to produce the same quantity of goods or services must then be offset by an increase in the price of the goods or services, as ther was no increase in productivity
    That's simply not true. They're producing more and getting paid less. The U.S. employee put in an average 1,804 hours of work in 2006, the report said. That compared with 1,407.1 hours for the Norwegian worker, and 1,564.4 for the French. The fact is that corporate profits have soared. The Dow is around 14,000. The reason for extremely high profits is cheap labor. In other words, it's simply greed.

    There are so many holes in your theory, it's hard to know where to begin. We should start with the understanding that it's theory. Not science. It's not demonstrably true. We can also say that you're simply making an argument for keeping wages low. Why you want to keep people from raising their standard of living is beyond me, but that's what the entire argument is centered on. High profitablity for the company at the expense of the worker. What it really boils down to is the amount of profit a company accepts as opposed to how much can they wring out of their employees. If they accepted slightely less to cover a higher wage for the employee what do they gain? For one thing they probably gain a more loyal workforce and reduced turnover. The longer they keep employees the higher their skills become, which makes them even more productive. An experienced worker is going to be more productive than a newbie. They're capable of producing more in less time. Another benifit is that with higher wages the employee has more money at his disposal which also translates into greater purchasing power. He'll buy a new appliance, or a car, or a home. He'll inject more money into the local ecomomy. With this additional purchasing power, other business benefit by selling more goods because of the higher demand for what they sell. That demand puts a strain on other businesses to meet the demand which they can do through hiring more people to keep up with that demand. The consumer always drives job creation. When there is a demand for goods and services, a company will hire people. No company hires a person without that demand. If they did, they'd be laying people off right away or go broke. It takes customers coming through the doors to sell the product. More money in peoples pocket, more spending of that money and more people hired to meet that demand. In the end, the effect of lowering the profit margin is offset through higher volume of goods sold. The company may make less per unit, but they offset that by selling more units of what they offer. It has to do with profit margin.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #892
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: SOTU Address:

    The Dow is not directly the result of just American labor. Look at how Walmart stock dropped on the leaked memo about sales being down. Did the workers work in less hard to cause that? If the answer is no, then how can you maintain that the workers alone caused what the price was before the drop?

    While the minimum wage should be raised, the argument does not reside in "productivity".

  3. #893
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That argument only "works" if you discount the fact that Obama added $787 billion ARRA spending, authorized in February 2009. Obama also directed most of the actual TARP spending. Considering that to be "Bush spending" is insane and very dishonest. Federal spending went up 20% from 2007/8 to 2008/9 and Obama, via his puppet Harry Reid, has kept it at that elevated level by using continuing resolutions, while he and the MSM insist how frugal he is. Get real!
    That argument only "works" if you discount the fact that Obama added $787 billion ARRA spending, authorized in February 2009..
    That's absolutely false.

    Obama also directed most of the actual TARP spending.
    ??? So what? Did you expect Bush to do it?

    Considering that to be "Bush spending" is insane and very dishonest.
    No. I'm afraid it isn't. Every president is going to inherit the spending of the guy that preceded him. Whoever succeeds Obama will inherit what he left. It's neither insane nor dishonest as Politifact points out. I know conservatives don't like Fact checkers...they have an aversion to facts, as we heard in the last election.

    Federal spending went up 20% from 2007/8 to 2008/9 and Obama, via his puppet Harry Reid, has kept it at that elevated level by using continuing resolutions, while he and the MSM insist how frugal he is. Get real!
    That's a good idea. Lets keep it real. Who was president from 07/8? That spending carried over into 08/9 from the Bush years. It was still the Bush economy. We were still under the Bush Tax cuts. We were still involved in Bush's wars. That spending rate has not increased under Obama as you've just pointed out. The rate of spending has actually slowed.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #894
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Youre new here, so you may not know this.

    If you use a source, you need to cite it.
    I did. Obama To Put Cost of War on the Books, for the First Time in Eight Years
    Posted by ralphon February 27, 2009

    Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds, LA Times:

    Did you miss that?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #895
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Believe it or not...I got cited for my reponse to all that nonsense. Apparently I was flaming. "This entire post is nothing but baiting. In the future, address the argument rather than the other poster". I've been warned. It came from a conservative moderator. I don't know...maybe she thought I'd posted all that garbage. Go figure.
    Considering how many times Fenton directly attacked me, that moderator is full of crap if they didn't ding him. Still, it's obvious just how outclassed fenton is. It's still hilarious how a guy who claims to have an IQ of 140 can't figure out he posted his responses twice in the wrong thread.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #896
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The lack of knowledge about how our govt. works, the fiscal year of the United States, basic civics, understanding of the deficit and debt by liberals is staggering as it seems they prefer buying rhetoric from the left vs. actual research. What is quite telling is how Bush is the scapegoat for everything even though he has been out of office for 4 years. It does seem that liberals are never responsible for anything and always blame someone else for their own failures.

    The fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September, not the calendar year. The 2009 budget was not signed by GW Bush as it was rejected by the Democrat Controlled Congress so the govt. operated on continuing resolutions until Obama signed it in March 2009. As has been pointed out here, Obama spent TARP money, Obama presented and spent the ARRA money, Obama took over GM/Chrysler, Obama spent money on the Afghanistan surge, and of course Obama never applied the repayment of TARP to the budget deficit but recycled it instead.

    Liberals always talk about the cost of the wars being off budget but they ignore that the cost of the wars are included in the debt charged to Bush. Liberals always ignore that the debt under Obama exceeds the entire Bush debt and he generated that debt in 4 years.

    Don't know what it is about liberalism that generates this kind of loyalty but that loyalty is destroying the country.
    Liberals always talk about the cost of the wars being off budget but they ignore that the cost of the wars are included in the debt charged to Bush.
    Oh this is good. The wars were off the books and you had no idea of what the debt was until Obama put it back on the books, and then you screamed like wounded badgers over that debt and accused Obama of massive debt. Now you want to tell us that the debt was charged to the Bush admin??? Yeah, now it is. But only because it's been pointed out to you. Very disingenuous of you. You weren't even aware of it, or you'd have screamed your head off during the last decade. All we heard were crickets. Now you have a problem with it? What would you say if Obama took the wars off the books? That's a good way of reducing the deficit isn't it??
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  7. #897
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SOTU Address:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Have yet to have any liberal here define the number of people on minimum wage, who they are, and how long they remain on minimum wage? Seems to me like you believe it is the government's responsibility to tell you what to pay your workers if you own your own business? What risk do they have in your business?
    Then your assessment is wrong. The government doesn't tell you what to pay your workers. They tell you the minimum amount. You're quite free to pay them more if you like, and most responsible companies do just that. Sounds like if it were up to you you'd pay them about $2.60/hr. What's the least amount you'd pay somebody? If you can't afford to hire somebody, then do it all yourself. How's that sound?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #898
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I think sometimes the sheer quantity of jackassery creates a sort of vortex, causing anomalies to occur. I have no idea what you're talkin' about.
    The poster you were referring to. I got cited for responding to some garbage he said on a huge post. Apparently the moderator thought I was flaming and attacking the poster, which if you read the post, I think you'd find strange.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #899
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Hagel did not look like he was ready the job at hand, which is tough and demanding. His Q&A was terrible on a variety of levels. Thats NOT bias. People from both sides have said that exact thing. Politicians dont exact revenge for someone that "turns" against a retired politician. There is nothing in it for them to do so---especially McCain who has already criticized Bush far and wide. Your premise is very flawed.

    Bolded is random jackassery and borderline flaming, just state your case without the peanut gallery.
    Politicians dont exact revenge for someone that "turns" against a retired politician. There is nothing in it for them to do so---especially McCain who has already criticized Bush far and wide. Your premise is very flawed.
    Well that's going to come as news to a lot of people. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is opposing Hagel as political payback
    MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, himself a former Republican congressman, was particularly upset with the Senate Republicans’ hold up of Hagel, expressing disbelief at Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) admission on Thursday that he’s opposing Hagel because Hagel broke with the GOP on the Iraq war: “They don’t have a Secretary of Defense running the Pentagon because of a 6 or 7 year old grudge? Really?”:



    McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

    “The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is,” writes the American Conservative’s Daniel Larison. It’s not just that their opposition is misguided, but they stand to gain nothing from it. No one outside of a small core of hard-liners sympathizes with what Senate Republicans are doing.”

    Politicians dont exact revenge for someone that "turns" against a retired politician. There is nothing in it for them to do so---especially McCain who has already criticized Bush far and wide. Your premise is very flawed.
    Care to rethink that?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #900
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I did. Obama To Put Cost of War on the Books, for the First Time in Eight Years
    Posted by ralphon February 27, 2009

    Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds, LA Times:

    Did you miss that?
    So are you telling me that the cost of the wars aren't included in the debt charged to Bush and would you like to make a wager on it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •