View Poll Results: How long will it take?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • 4 Years

    4 10.26%
  • 8 years

    1 2.56%
  • 12 Years

    2 5.13%
  • 16 or More Years

    3 7.69%
  • Democrats don't know how to fix the economy

    29 74.36%
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 128 of 128

Thread: Enlightenend Society

  1. #121
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Fortunately our forefathers were wise enough to see that a flat tax for everyone led to a two class system of robber barons and serfs when they instituted a progressive tax system, and as we saw in the Presidential election and all the polls, the majority of voters still support a progressive tax system.




    Are you seriously asking why Congress didn't take your opinion rather than the CBO? The CBO testified before Congress that they and the nation's top economists have determined that unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.




    Because the GOP was more interested in scoring political points with their base than they were concerned for Americans without jobs.




    Because a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of the money is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers. We learned this first in the 1920's and repeated the mistake in the 2000's.



    I've seen no one suggest that the government control the economy. All that I have seen done is to stimulate the economy when the private market is not doing it. The goal of the whole Constitution is to promote the welfare of we the people. A strong economy promotes the welfare of we the people.
    Actually, it was not our "fore-fathers" if you mean the founders. The first income tax was in 1861, under Lincoln and was dropped after the war. The first permanent income tax was not until 1894. So, for more than a hundred years, we had no income tax at all, yet we still grew.

    Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts? Maybe because it could not be proven one way or another? So lets see, I can take the opinion of Liberal economist that espouse the idea of socializing the economy or I can accept that the benefit could not be definitively proven and no actual growth derived from it. Sorry, taking the "it cannot be proven" side on this.

    Were they? Really. I don't believe so, for one thing, it took place too far ahead of any election, and the voting public has shown that it has a very, very short political memory. No, I believe that if the Dems had also proposed cuts equal to what they wanted to spend, it would of passed.

    I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy. For one thing, without government interference, there would not be such a concentration at the top. No, the consumer market failed and became more concentrated at the top when American goods became too costly and too low of quality for Americans to buy. Americans went for either price or quality, neither of which most of the American manufactures could supply. Between that, high labor costs (which was causing American made products to be so expensive) and burdensome regulation (like EPA), companies were forced to outsource or go bankrupt, some did outsource, some died off. When this began occurring, monies that were flowing downward were cut off to Americans and the outflow went overseas, but cost a lot less, so those at the top kept more of it. Combine this with the consumer credit frenzy we saw very much of in the 1990 and it is a matter of when, not if, the economy is going to fail. Support of Unions and failure to enact fair work legislation, government interference in health care, EPA regulation, NAFTA Government encouragement of bad credit (fair housing act amendment in the early 1990s), and government forcing of the use of credit agency (in the name of privacy) instead of letting credit companies determine if someone was qualified, all of these and more, all actions taken by the government, were the cause of the collapse of the consumer market and the concentration of wealth. And all of them came from one political party, the Dems.

    BTW, it says "promote the [B]general[B] welfare". That does not mean every single individual. Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves.

    I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.

    Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  2. #122
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts?
    The facts the CBO and economists studied showed that unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus.


    I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy.
    Perhaps we should hold an election then and let the citizens decide. Oh, that's right, we just did that.

    BTW, it says "promote the [B]general[B] welfare". That does not mean every single individual.
    Of course not, it means what is best for we the people collectively.


    Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves. I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.
    Since there are more people than jobs your reasoning above fails.


    Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."
    Exactly why we chose a leader that was concerned about the needs of the many, rather than a candidate that was just concerned with the wants of the few?
    Last edited by Catawba; 12-18-12 at 05:38 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The facts the CBO and economists studied showed that unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus.




    Perhaps we should hold an election then and let the citizens decide. Oh, that's right, we just did that.



    Of course not, it means what is best for we the people collectively.




    Since there are more people than jobs your reasoning above fails.




    Exactly why we chose a leader that was concerned about the needs of the many, rather than a candidate that was just concerned with the wants of the few?
    But the could not definitely prove it.

    Just because it is popular, doesn't make it right. The world is flat used to be a majority belief, how did that work out? Very few voters ever bother to really learn anything before voting, they don't research facts or apply logic, they go by who offers them the most. Votes are bought more than they are earned.

    Are there more people than jobs? Prove it. Or are there more people than jobs that people are willing to take instead of rely on the government. And if all the available jobs were filled, how many more jobs would be created because those people joined the economy? They are not in that position by choice(other than the disabled)? Prove it. (instead of going into that here, I suggest you check out the minimum wage thread currently going on, under polls.)

    Your last statement makes no sense when compared to what you have been saying. It is paradoxical to what you have been saying, since I already provided you with numbers that prove different.

    The wants of the many outweigh the wants and needs of the few is a more accurate statement of the philosophies you have so far espoused. Our maybe even more accurate, the Greed of the many outweigh the Greed of the few and the needs of everyone can be ignored to fulfill that Greed.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 12-18-12 at 06:08 PM.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #124
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    But the could not definitely prove it.
    The CBO is the most non-partisan, authoritative entity available, and they concurred with the leading economists.


    Are there more people than jobs? Prove it.
    For 34 Straight Months, There Have Been More Than Four Unemployed Job Seekers For Every Job Opening
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The CBO is the most non-partisan, authoritative entity available, and they concurred with the leading economists.




    For 34 Straight Months, There Have Been More Than Four Unemployed Job Seekers For Every Job Opening
    Did they definitively prove it or was it their opinion?

    Did they include all the jobs currently held by Illegals? Probably not. Can you say, with absolute certainty that they included every job available in America? Did the even include Walmart and McDonalds? The article you link says almost nothing about sources and methodologies for calculating that. Where are the facts they used to build their pretty little chart?
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #126
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Did they definitively prove it or was it their opinion?
    Since it was not possible to prove one way or the other, all the CBO and leading economists could do was give their opinion based on their analysis.



    Did they include all the jobs currently held by Illegals? Probably not. Can you say, with absolute certainty that they included every job available in America? Did the even include Walmart and McDonalds? The article you link says almost nothing about sources and methodologies for calculating that. Where are the facts they used to build their pretty little chart?
    The numbers were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you got a better source for the numbers than BLS, let's see it!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Since it was not possible to prove one way or the other, all the CBO and leading economists could do was give their opinion based on their analysis.




    The numbers were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you got a better source for the numbers than BLS, let's see it!
    So, since it cannot be proven, than my assertion that it didn't really work cannot be disproven. However, we were told that it would stimulate the economy, create jobs and put us back on the road to recovery. Did it stimulate the economy, NO. Did it create Jobs, Yes, but we kept losing more than it created, did it put us back on the Road to recovery? I doubt it since recovery was faster in some areas that didn't even take the money. And some areas the economy never really fell all that much either.

    What he did wrong was, he set it to last a set time period, that means contractors who tied up their equipment on it could not finish early and move to another job.

    He did it through contractors, a contractor is a business and must make a profit and in non-right-to-work states, they are influenced by the Unions. In some of these Union States, probably a lot of them, the jobs were seasonal. That is one problem with "infrastructure" jobs, they are subject to the weather and except for a few of the southern states, those jobs all halt for the winter. Because the jobs stop or are hit and miss during the winter, the companies "lay off" employees until in spring when the work can continue. That way the workers get unemployment benefits during the winter when they cannot work.

    The problem, in some areas, was that the Union had a lot of control of who got hired. So instead of the same worker keeping the same job for the entire time and actually earning money to put back into the economy, the Unions rotated out workers, once someone got enough time in for unemployment, they would go onto unemployment and another worker would take their place to get his/her unemployment updated. Even with this system, some, still lost their houses and a lot more because unemployment wasn't enough to update how far they were behind. In the end, no one actually had any extra money to put back into the economy.

    The biggest mistake he made was trying to force states to change their unemployment laws in order to accept it. This caused the stimulus to go to some but not to others, and if you want to stimulate the whole economy, you have to stimulate everywhere. Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma (even with a Dem Gov.) rejected it. Texas is a very large and populous state, at the time, unemployment in Texas was around 6%, maybe a bit lower, California's unemployment rate was 12%, the stimulus package was only offing $500 million (if I remember correctly) from the federal government to prop up unemployment benefits. The catch being that the state had to give unemployment benefits to not only those who had paid into the fund, but those who didn't and even those who came in from out of state. With it's size, that could of bankrupted the state in a matter of months. How many of those in Cali would of headed to Texas or other low unemployment areas if they could still keep drawing unemployment benefits? Great for Cali, since they no longer have to pay out, but bad for wherever they went to, because now that state had to pay them.


    Yes, I got that they came from BLS. But I was pointing out that any claim made on these numbers is a guess. Nobody knows how many jobs actually exist in the US. Didn't find real current stats, but one site Illegal Immigration Facts & Statistics says 7.7 million employed illegals in the US in 2008, that number also is just a guess, nobody knows absolutes. So, in 2008, there were 7.7 million jobs that could of been held by Americans. Some of them would undoubtedly disappear because the employer may not be willing or able to pay minimum wage. Now also consider that those illegals are costing the US an approximated $113 Billion a year. I don't know if that figure includes lost tax revenue or only layouts.

    So BLS, nor anyone else can accurately tell us how many jobs are actually out there. Therefore, it is impossible to prove whether or not there is actually more or less jobs than there are unemployed. Also, they cannot predict how many jobs would come into existence if all the jobs were filled.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #128
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Enlightenend Society

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    So, since it cannot be proven, than my assertion that it didn't really work cannot be disproven. However, we were told that it would stimulate the economy, create jobs and put us back on the road to recovery. Did it stimulate the economy, NO. Did it create Jobs, Yes, but we kept losing more than it created, did it put us back on the Road to recovery? I doubt it since recovery was faster in some areas that didn't even take the money. And some areas the economy never really fell all that much either.

    What he did wrong was, he set it to last a set time period, that means contractors who tied up their equipment on it could not finish early and move to another job.

    He did it through contractors, a contractor is a business and must make a profit and in non-right-to-work states, they are influenced by the Unions. In some of these Union States, probably a lot of them, the jobs were seasonal. That is one problem with "infrastructure" jobs, they are subject to the weather and except for a few of the southern states, those jobs all halt for the winter. Because the jobs stop or are hit and miss during the winter, the companies "lay off" employees until in spring when the work can continue. That way the workers get unemployment benefits during the winter when they cannot work.

    The problem, in some areas, was that the Union had a lot of control of who got hired. So instead of the same worker keeping the same job for the entire time and actually earning money to put back into the economy, the Unions rotated out workers, once someone got enough time in for unemployment, they would go onto unemployment and another worker would take their place to get his/her unemployment updated. Even with this system, some, still lost their houses and a lot more because unemployment wasn't enough to update how far they were behind. In the end, no one actually had any extra money to put back into the economy.

    The biggest mistake he made was trying to force states to change their unemployment laws in order to accept it. This caused the stimulus to go to some but not to others, and if you want to stimulate the whole economy, you have to stimulate everywhere. Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma (even with a Dem Gov.) rejected it. Texas is a very large and populous state, at the time, unemployment in Texas was around 6%, maybe a bit lower, California's unemployment rate was 12%, the stimulus package was only offing $500 million (if I remember correctly) from the federal government to prop up unemployment benefits. The catch being that the state had to give unemployment benefits to not only those who had paid into the fund, but those who didn't and even those who came in from out of state. With it's size, that could of bankrupted the state in a matter of months. How many of those in Cali would of headed to Texas or other low unemployment areas if they could still keep drawing unemployment benefits? Great for Cali, since they no longer have to pay out, but bad for wherever they went to, because now that state had to pay them.


    Yes, I got that they came from BLS. But I was pointing out that any claim made on these numbers is a guess. Nobody knows how many jobs actually exist in the US. Didn't find real current stats, but one site Illegal Immigration Facts & Statistics says 7.7 million employed illegals in the US in 2008, that number also is just a guess, nobody knows absolutes. So, in 2008, there were 7.7 million jobs that could of been held by Americans. Some of them would undoubtedly disappear because the employer may not be willing or able to pay minimum wage. Now also consider that those illegals are costing the US an approximated $113 Billion a year. I don't know if that figure includes lost tax revenue or only layouts.

    So BLS, nor anyone else can accurately tell us how many jobs are actually out there. Therefore, it is impossible to prove whether or not there is actually more or less jobs than there are unemployed. Also, they cannot predict how many jobs would come into existence if all the jobs were filled.


    Thanks for the rant! Sounds like sour grapes to me!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

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