• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

114th congress can't be worse then the 113th was RIGHT?

The 113th congress was the worst in morden day history they nothing. Im sure the 114th will be even worse damn shame too the American people deserve better.

what makes the 113th "the worst"?... and on what premise do you believe he 114th will be "even worse"?
 
...
I've always seen employees and really valuable parts of my business to be treated as such. I guess a dark building does have some merit, but I'm not sure how that helps grow the economy.

That's a concern of mine also, but that's the way our system is going. More technology and fewer employees.

One of my competitors is vistaprint.com. They are exceptionally automated, and are producing more printing with fewer employees than any of their closest competitors. They don't have salespeople like most of their competitors do, they compete based upon low prices and lot's of advertising. They don't have graphic artist individually designing the products that they print, the design work is mostly do it yourself using premade templates. They can be cheap because the don't have pre-press people, imposing artwork, it's all automated. Virtually everything in their plants is automated.

Long term, we will be able to produce enough for everyone, without there being enough jobs for every family to have a 40 hr per week job for 40 years. Long term (50-100 years), our biggest issue is going to be how to distribute goods and services, without many or most families having what we consider now to be a full time job. There will have to be a major paradigm shift if we desire to avoid the economic collapse that massive poverty would create, or to avoid a welfare state which is so large that it's staggering.
 
Last edited:
Long term, we will be able to produce enough for everyone, without there being enough jobs for every family to have a 40 hr per week job for 40 years. Long term (50-100 years), our biggest issue is going to be how to distribute goods and services, without many or most families having what we consider now to be a full time job. There will have to be a major paradigm shift if we desire to avoid the economic collapse that massive poverty would create, or to avoid a welfare state which is so large that it's staggering.

In your inevitable scenario, unless we end the idea of private ownership of the means of production only a brutal Oligarchic state or a civil war will solve this problem and nothing else. There is no way that the extremely small number of rich owners left would willingly submit to the taxes it would take to fund the lives of the millions that they have put out of a job. In their eyes these people would now just be free loaders and we all know that no one that has enough money for 1000 life times knows the idea of enough is enough.
 
That's a concern of mine also, but that's the way our system is going. More technology and fewer employees.

One of my competitors is vistaprint.com. They are exceptionally automated, and are producing more printing with fewer employees than any of their closest competitors. They don't have salespeople like most of their competitors do, they compete based upon low prices and lot's of advertising. They don't have graphic artist individually designing the products that they print, the design work is mostly do it yourself using premade templates. They can be cheap because the don't have pre-press people, imposing artwork, it's all automated. Virtually everything in their plants is automated.

Long term, we will be able to produce enough for everyone, without there being enough jobs for every family to have a 40 hr per week job for 40 years. Long term (50-100 years), our biggest issue is going to be how to distribute goods and services, without many or most families having what we consider now to be a full time job. There will have to be a major paradigm shift if we desire to avoid the economic collapse that massive poverty would create, or to avoid a welfare state which is so large that it's staggering.

As with any industry, competition opens doors to finding ways around the advantages your competitors offer. Seems to me there is little creativity at Vistaprint, despite their clever ads on TV. So you offer those services as part of the value added benefit of your business. Either that or you get out of that business and do something else.

I've successfully manufactured and sold products in markets saturated by dominant competitors for decades. No way I could compete on scale with the well establish players, so I carved my own niche. All this talk of automation only relates to tasks that are repetitive and in volume. Don't sell things that fall into that category. Not everything can be automated and done by robots. That just never going to happen.

When it comes to investing in capital equipment, here is my experience. I used to have to prototype products for customers to view and test. The molds were carved by hand, and they took days and sometimes weeks to build. I then bough a 4 axis CNC milling machine that could do the same thing out of a special high density plastic in hours. I took the designers and mold makers and had them develop and build a prototype production line, where I could actually supply working functional prototypes in sufficient quantities where my customers could actually test them in real world conditions. This gave me a tremendous competitive advantage over my much larger competitors. Had I not invested the substantial sum in that CNC machine and related equipment, all the new markets I was able to develop would never have been possible, and the new employees I hired from the result benefited as well. Had the government said we will help offset that risk if you do it, I would have done it sooner. That is what I am talking about.
 
Oh boy. Here we go.

Define the middle class tax cut you're proposing and how many people would benefit from it....

Lowering the tax rate of the bottom three income tax brackets. Slightly more than half our citizens would qualify (the rest don't pay any net income tax anyhow).
 
Lowering the tax rate of the bottom three income tax brackets. Slightly more than half our citizens would qualify (the rest don't pay any net income tax anyhow).

So drop 25%, 15%, and 10%. By how much? 5%, 2%? What is the marginal tax rate these three are paying?

I can't believe I'm arguing against tax cuts, but I am against the alternative I am proposing.

We have a very large anti-business incremental regulatory agenda underway in this country. If we want to get people back to work in decent paying jobs, we need to embrace ways to do that. Creating more minimum wage jobs, which is just about the only thing the current administrations effort is achieving, is not going to provide the opportunities this country is capable of providing.

You can cheer empty buildings but no CEO is interested in that. Talking Point memes have no place in the discussion of real solutions.
 
In your inevitable scenario, unless we end the idea of private ownership of the means of production only a brutal Oligarchic state or a civil war will solve this problem and nothing else. There is no way that the extremely small number of rich owners left would willingly submit to the taxes it would take to fund the lives of the millions that they have put out of a job. In their eyes these people would now just be free loaders and we all know that no one that has enough money for 1000 life times knows the idea of enough is enough.

Exactly. That's my largest fear for the future. It's not a pretty picture.

When I try to work through the mechanics of this step by step, the only solution that I can find is for our work hours to significantly decrease, without a reduction in annual pay. Business owners aren't going to accept that willingly, and it defies the principals of the free market, so there's no easy way to make this happen, outside of government intervention, which in itself isn't a good thing.

But on the other hand, if businesses have no customers, because the masses have no income, then the rich would no longer have an income, just ownership of far more property than they could ever personally utilize. which makes me believe that "the rich" may be willing to accept a government mandate on a maximum number of work hours per employee, because to not accept such a mandate does the rich no good.

If we established a max number of work hours, and prohibited employees from working more than one job, then even though there might not be a need for many work hours in our society, there would still be a need for lot's of employees (the work hours just get spread around to more employees). With a need for lot's of workers, then weekly/annual wages would tend to remain high because employers would still have to compete for workers in a tight labor market, and with nearly every family having the equivalent of today's wage (or higher), then demand will remain high, profits will remain high, and the wealthy would still have a nice income.
 
So drop 25%, 15%, and 10%. By how much? 5%, 2%?

I'm all for having tax rates that are as low as possible. Zero % works for me, if that's doable. This country existed without an income tax at all for will over 100 years.

What is the marginal tax rate these three are paying?

I dunno. But I see what you are getting at. Most middle class folks don't pay a lot of income taxes. But even a two or four percent tax savings, for over 50% of our population, would likely increase demand by a percent or two, and thus we would need a percent or two more workers. Our unemployment rate right now is 5.8%, we could see that immediately drop to 3.8% or 4.8%, which indicates a very healthy economy.

I can't believe I'm arguing against tax cuts, but I am against the alternative I am proposing.

I can't believe it either, so we are in agreement on at least one point.

We have a very large anti-business incremental regulatory agenda underway in this country.

Aside from Obamacare, can you list any of these unneeded overly burdensome regulations? No? Don't worry, neither can anyone else. I've asked this question a zillion times, and no one has been able to tell me any specific regulations which are unneeded and harming our economy.

If we want to get people back to work in decent paying jobs, we need to embrace ways to do that.

Creating more minimum wage jobs, which is just about the only thing the current administrations effort is achieving, is not going to provide the opportunities this country is capable of providing.

How is it that regulations are preventing the creation of good paying jobs, but not minimum wage jobs? Ever consider the possibility that it's not the type of jobs that's the issue, it's the fact that jobs which used to be good paying (ie manufacturing) have now been automated, and we have been in a employers market for nearly eight years?

You can cheer empty buildings but no CEO is interested in that. Talking Point memes have no place in the discussion of real solutions.

I'm not cheering empty buildings, I'm just pointing out that as technology continues to improve, we will be able to produce more and more with fewer and fewer workers, working fewer and fewer hours, and as competition for workers dwindles, wages will also dwindle.

It's reality, not a talking point.
 
I'm all for having tax rates that are as low as possible. Zero % works for me, if that's doable. This country existed without an income tax at all for will over 100 years.



I dunno. But I see what you are getting at. Most middle class folks don't pay a lot of income taxes. But even a two or four percent tax savings, for over 50% of our population, would likely increase demand by a percent or two, and thus we would need a percent or two more workers. Our unemployment rate right now is 5.8%, we could see that immediately drop to 3.8% or 4.8%, which indicates a very healthy economy.



I can't believe it either, so we are in agreement on at least one point.



Aside from Obamacare, can you list any of these unneeded overly burdensome regulations? No? Don't worry, neither can anyone else. I've asked this question a zillion times, and no one has been able to tell me any specific regulations which are unneeded and harming our economy.



How is it that regulations are preventing the creation of good paying jobs, but not minimum wage jobs? Ever consider the possibility that it's not the type of jobs that's the issue, it's the fact that jobs which used to be good paying (ie manufacturing) have now been automated, and we have been in a employers market for nearly eight years?



I'm not cheering empty buildings, I'm just pointing out that as technology continues to improve, we will be able to produce more and more with fewer and fewer workers, working fewer and fewer hours, and as competition for workers dwindles, wages will also dwindle.

It's reality, not a talking point.

Well there was a typo there in the "I'm against the alternative I'm proposing". I against tax cuts when compared to the alternative I'm proposing.

You've dismissed me on the regulatory issue, which means we really have nothing more to discuss. Perhaps a print shop doesn't get exposed to the regulatory burden the type of businesses I've owned does, so your point of reference is limited.

Regardless, no point in moving on. Have a good one.
 
Aside from Obamacare, can you list any of these unneeded overly burdensome regulations? No? Don't worry, neither can anyone else. I've asked this question a zillion times, and no one has been able to tell me any specific regulations which are unneeded and harming our economy.

Working in the pharmaceutical industry I can tell you that many of the FDA regulations we have to follow are unneeded and overly burdensome. I can see the need to regulate for safety but like all regulations they always go too far or at least farther then intended. IMO the FDA should have to fall under a no victim no crime burden for implementing and enforcing regulations.
 
Well there was a typo there in the "I'm against the alternative I'm proposing". I against tax cuts when compared to the alternative I'm proposing.

You've dismissed me on the regulatory issue, which means we really have nothing more to discuss. Perhaps a print shop doesn't get exposed to the regulatory burden the type of businesses I've owned does, so your point of reference is limited.

Regardless, no point in moving on. Have a good one.

So instead of listing some of those unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations, you take your ball and go home.

That's what ALWAYS happens when I ask people what those regulations are. I've been asking this question for years, and not a single person has ever identified any specific regulations, not even one.
 
...IMO the FDA should have to fall under a no victim no crime burden for implementing and enforcing regulations.

Yea, seeing how it is a government agency, has no profit motive and only seeks to protect the public, that makes sense to me.
 
So instead of listing some of those unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations, you take your ball and go home.

That's what ALWAYS happens when I ask people what those regulations are. I've been asking this question for years, and not a single person has ever identified any specific regulations, not even one.

My guess is that they have attempted to fill you in on the burden, and you've rejected what they've offered out of hand. When most of the business community across the nation is complaining about the ever growing burden of government regulation, who are you to declare all of them are full of crap? Do you think they are just spewing talking points?

I think the problem with your question, and your belief it is left unanswered stares back at you in the mirror. I have 5 employees who work full time on regulatory compliance. That's all they do, make sure we are operating by the book, and we're crossing the t's and dotting the i's. From OSHA, to EPA, to CARB, to local, to state, the list goes on and on. I used to have 2 people doing that.

I guess that doesn't mean anything because you've decided such a thing amounts to nothing. Think about that, if you can.
 
My guess is that they have attempted to fill you in on the burden, and you've rejected what they've offered out of hand. When most of the business community across the nation is complaining about the ever growing burden of government regulation, who are you to declare all of them are full of crap? Do you think they are just spewing talking points?

For the most part, yes.

I mean there are zillions of regulations, so certainly some of them are bad, but most of them aren't really very burdensome to employers, and aren't a big deal at all, and are needed to keep our workers, consumers, and environment safe.

So do you think that we should repeal the regulation that requires flamable chemicals to have one of those triangle decals on them? How much added burden and expense do you think that a warning label really creates?

Do you think that we should repeal the regulation that prevents food processing companies from allowing an excessive amount of insects in our food?


I think the problem with your question, and your belief it is left unanswered stares back at you in the mirror. I have 5 employees who work full time on regulatory compliance. That's all they do, make sure we are operating by the book, and we're crossing the t's and dotting the i's. From OSHA, to EPA, to CARB, to local, to state, the list goes on and on. I used to have 2 people doing that.

And you are still in business? Well golly gee, how's that even possible?

You should probably fire some of them - right after you ask them which regulations are not needed and are overly burdensome. Have you ever wondered if they aren't exagerating the importance of their jobs for their own personal job security needs?

Seriously, I have no clue what type of industry you are in. If it's food or medical or construction or chemical related, five compliance people might not be unreasonable. I would surely hope that any large company had someone ensuring quality and safety of everything.

In my micro-sized business, we pretty much just go by common sense. I mean we comply with the basics, we have MDS sheets for every chemical we use, methods for tagging and locking out equipment, we have fire extinquishers at ever exit, we have an eye wash station and a first aid kit, we don't poor liquid chemicals down the drain, we have a fire retardant chemical cabinet, I skim through the trade journals each month to look for any major changes in regulations, I maintain workers comp insurance, and use a payroll service for payroll tax compliance, etc. But for the most part, the guberment doesn't **** with us, aside from our annual fire inspection, which I welcome because it's a service that I pay for through my property taxes.

I guess that doesn't mean anything because you've decided such a thing amounts to nothing. Think about that, if you can.

The day that someone can point out these specific regulations, l might change my mind, but as of now, no one has done it yet.
 
For the most part, yes.

I mean there are zillions of regulations, so certainly some of them are bad, but most of them aren't really very burdensome to employers, and aren't a big deal at all, and are needed to keep our workers, consumers, and environment safe.

So do you think that we should repeal the regulation that requires flamable chemicals to have one of those triangle decals on them? How much added burden and expense do you think that a warning label really creates?

Do you think that we should repeal the regulation that prevents food processing companies from allowing an excessive amount of insects in our food?




And you are still in business? Well golly gee, how's that even possible?

You should probably fire some of them - right after you ask them which regulations are not needed and are overly burdensome. Have you ever wondered if they aren't exagerating the importance of their jobs for their own personal job security needs?

Seriously, I have no clue what type of industry you are in. If it's food or medical or construction or chemical related, five compliance people might not be unreasonable. I would surely hope that any large company had someone ensuring quality and safety of everything.

In my micro-sized business, we pretty much just go by common sense. I mean we comply with the basics, we have MDS sheets for every chemical we use, methods for tagging and locking out equipment, we have fire extinquishers at ever exit, we have an eye wash station and a first aid kit, we don't poor liquid chemicals down the drain, we have a fire retardant chemical cabinet, I skim through the trade journals each month to look for any major changes in regulations, I maintain workers comp insurance, and use a payroll service for payroll tax compliance, etc. But for the most part, the guberment doesn't **** with us, aside from our annual fire inspection, which I welcome because it's a service that I pay for through my property taxes.



The day that someone can point out these specific regulations, l might change my mind, but as of now, no one has done it yet.

I'll just ignore the snarky crap, because I always assume you'll throw it around.


White House says it's eliminating useless rules, but not deregulating » peoplesworld

EXCERPTS

For the first time in history, the federal government has undertaken a "look back" process to identify and eliminate anachronistic, redundant or unwarranted regulations.

The Obama administration says it is not "deregulation" and points to its beefing up of regulations in areas like health and the environment. Instead, officials say the review will help the public and save money.

Among other rules that have been identified for elimination or revision include a set of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) employer reporting rules. According to the Sunstein's office, the elimination of these redundant rules and reporting procedures will save $40 million and 1.9 million work hours. A new OSHA rule that will streamline hazards classification and labels will save business owners close to $600 million every year.​

A couple of things from above. Note the bolded sentence. First, these changes never went through. Second, note the cost savings projected from this one simple change regarding labeling. How many new products could be developed, or people hired, with $600,000,000 that apparently isn't really needed?

Want to learn something about regulations? Get good at digging on this site.

Regulations.gov


If you don't want to, then realize you ignorance against a sea of more qualified voices doesn't add any validity to your claims.
 
"114th congress can't be worse then the 113th was RIGHT?"

I think that is right. We still have gridlock thanks to Obamas veto. So the new congress should be just as shackled as the last one. It should be about the same. Good news.
 
"114th congress can't be worse then the 113th was RIGHT?"

I think that is right. We still have gridlock thanks to Obamas veto. So the new congress should be just as shackled as the last one. It should be about the same. Good news.

There is little reason to believe that congress was shackled by the veto. there were plenty of bills that were passed by one side, but were never put to a vote. Can you tell me exactly how many bills that Obama vetoed? Wait, I just looked it up, it was a grand total of two.
 
There is little reason to believe that congress was shackled by the veto. there were plenty of bills that were passed by one side, but were never put to a vote. Can you tell me exactly how many bills that Obama vetoed? Wait, I just looked it up, it was a grand total of two.

He didn't get to see many that he didn't like. That is likely to change now.
 
He didn't get to see many that he didn't like. That is likely to change now.

He might veto a repeal of Obamacare 46 times.

No net result in government.
 
Well since our no good Congress just past a bill to sue other nation's. I wonder who will sue us 1st for some of the horrors we have done in the past to people. How about we start with slavery. And I'm sure other nation's peoples would like to sue us for all kinds of wars we have been involved in. Congress just go home.
 
Well since our no good Congress just past a bill to sue other nation's. I wonder who will sue us 1st for some of the horrors we have done in the past to people. How about we start with slavery. And I'm sure other nation's peoples would like to sue us for all kinds of wars we have been involved in. Congress just go home.

This is just a feel good bill, we have no authority to force any other nation to accept any law suit brought forth with this bill. None.
 
Back
Top Bottom