Obama tries to screw us again

[Wild Cobra]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150506152659-trade-new-balance-nike-maps-large-169.png


The Obama administration's view is that if lower-cost foreign labor makes Nike's shoes and athletic gear cheaper to make, that can mean more profits to plow into development efforts in Oregon, where the company says it employs 8,500 workers and delivers an economic impact that tops $2.5 billion per year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/obama-trade-deal-tpp-nike-new-balance/

So, is their point to send even more jobs overseas, and put USA workers out of jobs?

Buy New Balance.

Made in USA!

[m>s]

I don't know what to think about him, 99% of the time he's a full blown Marxist and then out of the blue he's acting like a republican

[Wild Cobra]

To call him "acting like a republican" is incorrect. Rich people of both sides can be unscrupulous capitalists, rather than the good version of an industrialist.

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

[m>s]

yeah but what he's doing would be considered free market capitalism at work, i've never seen him do anything that wasn't out of the marxist textbook before this. i'd except him to say that outsourcing is racist and force the company to give those jobs exclusively to african americans.

[Spurminator]

Sounds like trickle down, which you guys swear by. What's the problem?

[m>s]

The only "trickle down" that I believe in is me pissing on your face

[ChumpDumper]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150506152659-trade-new-balance-nike-maps-large-169.png



http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/obama-trade-deal-tpp-nike-new-balance/

So, is their point to send even more jobs overseas, and put USA workers out of jobs?

Buy New Balance.

Made in USA!
But Obama's administration has convinced New Balance -- which maneuvered behind the scenes to work some extra protections into the negotiations -- to put its opposition on hold.

That's in part because of one of the industry's dirty secrets: Even its model citizen, New Balance, imports 75% of its product from overseas, and it stands to gain from the axed tariffs as well.
And most of the New Balance shoes are made in China, so you need to be more specific in your call to action.

[Blizzardwizard]

I don't know what to think about him, 99% of the time he's a full blown Marxist and then out of the blue he's acting like a republican

No idea what a Marxist is :lol

Full blown hyperbole :lol

Calling a Conservative like Obama Marxist :lol

[m>s]

"A conservative like Obama" lol that just made my whole day

[Blizzardwizard]

"A conservative like Obama" lol that just made my whole day

You're telling me that someone who supports massive capitalism, big businesses, a booming private sector, private healthcare, individualism, austerity, is Marxist?

Don't think you've ever met or spoken to a Marxist before.

[m>s]

Obama doesn't support capitalism he says "you didn't build that." Austerity? He's doubled or tripled welfare under his reign, and the deficits are bigger than ever.You're an idiot.

[cantthinkofanything]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150506152659-trade-new-balance-nike-maps-large-169.png



http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/obama-trade-deal-tpp-nike-new-balance/

So, is their point to send even more jobs overseas, and put USA workers out of jobs?

Buy New Balance.

Made in USA!

I've bought my last pair of NB. Had several pairs of the 993s and it was one of the most comfortable durable shoes I've owned. Came in a wide as well. Worth the $150. The replaced it with the 990 which looks identical and is priced the same. But it's cheaply made in comparison. Expensive yard shoes now.
Have some Asics now and they are better made and more comfortable.

[Blizzardwizard]

Obama doesn't support capitalism he says "you didn't build that." Austerity? He's doubled or tripled welfare under his reign, and the deficits are bigger than ever.You're an idiot.

Doesn't support capitalism :lol

Only person in the entire world that believes that :lol

Still recovering from Nazis being whipped by the west :lol

[boutons_deux]

Nike, like so many US corps,has screwed US workers without any assist from Obama

Olbama'sbig lie is that tpp and trip are prmarily about trade

Warren is right onp tpp and Obama is wrong, lying

[m>s]

B-but muh austerity muh nazis


ill leave it up to you how you want to do it but please kill yourself

[Blizzardwizard]

B-but muh austerity muh nazis


ill leave it up to you how you want to do it but please kill yourself

I'm not a coward, unlike your Adolf and Heinrich :lol

[m>s]

Yeah not wanting to be tortured and have crap stuck up your butt by sadistic mongoloids after what happened to Mussolini is called being smart. Come up with better insults next time other than "oh yeah well hitler did something smart" lol retard

[Clipper Nation]

Doesn't support capitalism :lol

Only person in the entire world that believes that :lol

Still recovering from Nazis being whipped by the west :lol
:lmao Actually thinking socialism works

[velik_m]

I don't know what to think about him, 99% of the time he's a full blown Marxist and then out of the blue he's acting like a republican

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2012.png

[Nbadan]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2012.png

I believe Hillary would fall even further to the right than Obama on your political scale......but don't confuse pro-business with pro-social agenda like most GOP candidates...

[Winehole23]

Obama is a Tory. A caretaker of power. Country shit the bed in 2008...Obama's task was to hand it over to his successor intact, which he will. With enhanced executive powers...

[Winehole23]

The GWB excesses became customary under Obama. He even extended them a little bit.

[m>s]

i'm sorry but obama is not a fucking right winger he grew up being mentored by communists. the guy says if you have a business "you didn't build that," expanded the hell out of welfare, and uses race and class to divide the people communist style. instead of "bourgeois" it is "white people" who are the great satan in his eyes.

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry, you're deluded. Obama is a moderate Republican -- his big health care idea was swiped directly from the Heritage Foundation, the deficit went down and there's no bigger friend of Wall Street and the 1%, judging from the returns and the course of policy.

[Winehole23]

Corporate profits are at an all time high, effective tax rates close to historic lows.

[Winehole23]

Obama has been a good friend to big money.

[Winehole23]

TPP only underscores it.

[Winehole23]

as for using race and class to divide, no one beats the GOP.

[boutons_deux]

Nike, Obama, and the Fiasco of the Trans Pacific Partnership

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-O.jpgn Friday, President Obama chose Nike headquarters in Oregon to deliver a defense of his proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.
It was an odd choice of venue.

Nike isn’t the solution to the problem of stagnant wages in America. Nike is the problem.

It’s true that over the past two years Nike has added 2,000 good-paying professional jobs at its Oregon headquarters (http://www.oregonlive.com/playbooks-profits/index.ssf/2014/10/nike_hires_2000_in_oregon_in_p.html), fulfilling the requirements of a controversial tax break it
wrangled from the state legislature. That’s good for Nike’s new design, research and marketing employees.

Just before the President spoke, Nike announced that if the Trans Pacific Partnership is enacted, Nike would “accelerate development of new advanced manufacturing methods and a domestic supply chain to support U.S. based manufacturing,” thereby creating as many as 10,000 more American jobs.

But that would still be only a tiny fraction of Nike’s global workforce. While Nike makes some shoe components in the United States, it hasn’t assembled shoes here since 1984.

Americans made only 1 percent of the value of Nike products (http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/) that generated Nike’s $27.8 billion revenue (http://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-reports-fiscal-2014-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-results-fiscal-2014-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-results) last year. And Nike is moving ever more of its production abroad. Last year, a third of Nike’s remaining 13,922 American production workers were laid off.

Most of Nike’s products are made by 990,000 workers in low-wage countries (http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/) whose abysmal working conditions have made Nike a symbol of global sweatshop labor.
As wages have risen in China, Nike has switched most of its production to Vietnam (http://policydialogue.org/publications/backgrounders/casestudies/nike_and_vietnam_a_labor_case_study/en/) where wages are less than 60 cents are hour (http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/vietnam). Almost 340,000 workers (http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/) cut and assemble Nike products there.

In other words, Nike is a global corporation with no particular loyalty or connection to the United States. Its loyalty is to its global shareholders.

I’m not faulting Nike. Nike is only playing by the rules.

I’m faulting the rules.

In case you hadn’t noticed, America has a huge and growing problem of inequality. Most Americans are earning no more than the typical American earned thirty years ago, adjusted for inflation – even though the U.S. economy is almost twice as large as it was then.

Since then, almost all the economic gains have gone to the top.

The President is angry at Democrats who won’t support this trade deal.

He should be angry at Republicans who haven’t supported American workers. Their obduracy has worsened the potential impact of the deal.

Congressional Republicans have refused to raise the minimum wage (whose inflation-adjusted value is now almost 25 percent lower than it was in 1968), expand unemployment benefits, invest in job training, enlarge the Earned Income Tax Credit, improve the nation’s infrastructure, or expand access to public higher education.

They’ve embraced budget austerity that has slowed job and wage growth. And they’ve continued to push “trickle-down” economics – keeping tax rates low for America’s richest, protecting their tax loopholes, and fighting off any attempt to raise taxes on wealthy inheritances to their level before 2000.

Now they – and the President – want a huge trade agreement that protects corporate investors but will lead to even more off-shoring of low-skilled American jobs.

The Trans Pacific Trade Partnership’s investor protections will make it safer for firms to relocate abroad – the Cato Institute (http://www.civismo.org/files/informes/2014/EPICENTER-Briefing-ISDS-20th-November-2014%20%281%29.pdf) describes such protections as “lowering the risk premium” on offshoring – thereby reducing corporate incentives to keep jobs in America and upgrade the skills of Americans. CATO! :lol

Those same investor protections will allow global corporations to sue the United States or any other country that raises its health, safety, environmental, or labor standards, for any lost profits due to those standards.

But there’s nothing in the deal to protect the incomes of Americans.

We know that when Americans displaced from manufacturing jobs join the glut of Americans competing for jobs that can’t be replaced by lower-wage workers abroad – personal service jobs in retail, restaurant, hotel, hospital, child care, and elder care – all lower-skilled workers face downward pressure on wages.

Jobs being lost to imports pay Americans higher wages than the jobs left behind (http://www.epi.org/blog/less-than-half-the-truth-jobs-and-wages-in-export-industries/). Government data show wages in import-competing industries (e.g. manufacturing jobs) beat those in exporting industries overall.

Without a higher minimum wage, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, affordable higher education, and a world-class system of job retraining – financed by higher taxes on the wealthy winners in the American economy – most Americans will continue to experience stagnant or declining wages.

Instead, the Trans Pacific Partnership – which includes twelve nations, including Vietnam, but would be open for every nation to join – would lock us into an expanded version of the very policies that have failed most American for the past twenty years.

No doubt Nike is supporting the TPP. It would allow Nike to import its Vietnamese and Malaysian-made goods more cheaply. But don’t expect those savings to translate into lower prices for American consumers. As it is, Nike spends less than $10 for every pair of $100-plus shoes it sells in the U.S.

Needless to say, the TPP wouldn’t require Nike to pay its Vietnamese workers more. Nikes’ workers are not paid enough to buy the shoes they make much less buy U.S. exported goods.

Nike may be the perfect example of life under TPP, but that is not a future many Americans would choose.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30075-focus-nike-obama-and-the-fiasco-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership

[Blizzardwizard]

:lmao Actually thinking socialism works

Libertarianism :lmao

Conservatives that think they're 'radical and want change :cry' :lmao

Senile Paul :lmao

[Clipper Nation]

Libertarianism :lmao

Conservatives that think they're 'radical and want change :cry' :lmao

Senile Paul :lmao

We do want change. Down with big government and statism, up with the Constitution and a limited republic. :downspin:

:lol The only change socialists want is to increase the balance on their LoneStar Cards.

[Wild Cobra]

And most of the New Balance shoes are made in China, so you need to be more specific in your call to action.

At least they give consumers a choice, with several Made in the USA.

How many Nike shoes are made in the USA?

[ChumpDumper]

At least they give consumers a choice, with several Made in the USA.

How many Nike shoes are made in the USA?None.

I'm just clarifying what might be a misconception.

I prefer NB to Nike because NB shoes run true to size and 13.5 Nikes aren't generally available.

[Wild Cobra]

None.

I'm just clarifying what might be a misconception.

I prefer NB to Nike because NB shoes run true to size and 13.5 Nikes aren't generally available.
LOL...

That's a good size foot, you occasionally put in your mouth!

I have bough New Balance since the 90's. I am one that shops for USA products, and limit my purchases to them when I can find them. It increasingly frustrating to not be able to buy some things from here.

[Blizzardwizard]

We do want change. Down with big government and statism, up with the Constitution and a limited republic. :downspin:

:lol The only change socialists want is to increase the balance on their LoneStar Cards.

Socialists have fought revolutions, only 'Libertarians' I've ever seen are those hipster dweebs on twitter with the twitter bio 'free-thinking Libertarian' :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Socialists have fought revolutions, only 'Libertarians' I've ever seen are those hipster dweebs on twitter with the twitter bio 'free-thinking Libertarian' :lol

:lol Socialists
:lol Fighting and dying for their foodstamps in the past
:lol Now the #1 ideology of choice for privileged white college kids who think wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt makes them look "worldly" and "intellectual"
:lol Tweeting "down with the bourgeoisie!" while they order their $10 trenta iced latte at Starbucks
:lol Failing miserably and bankrupting every country that tries it
:lol The Sharts of political systems
:lol Also the Spurs of political systems - nobody wants a repeat after they tried it the first time

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol Socialists
:lol Fighting and dying for their foodstamps in the past
:lol Now the #1 ideology of choice for privileged white college kids who think wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt makes them look "worldly" and "intellectual"
:lol Tweeting "down with the bourgeoisie!" while they order their $10 trenta iced latte at Starbucks
:lol Failing miserably and bankrupting every country that tries it
:lol The Sharts of political systems
:lol Also the Spurs of political systems - nobody wants a repeat after they tried it the first time

Libertarians :lol
Middle class white kids whose mothers cut the crust off their sandwiches and play Lacrosse :lol
Socialism has Castro, Gorbachev, Mandela, Einstein, Libertarians have Senile Paul and his half-assed son :lol
Pretending they're pro LGBT and pro choice but as soon as the bible lovers come calling they hate abortions again :lol
The Canucks of the political system :lol
Irrelevant :lol:lol
'Libertarian Socialism' :lmao
Individualism :lol
Hate the state and government but still happily take their medicaid :lol
Nobody cares outside the USA :lol
Pointless :lol

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Libertarianism literally founded one of the freest and most prosperous nations on Earth
:lol Socialism = the bankrupt EU
:lol Citing a dictator like Fidel Castro as proof of socialism being any good
:lol Being pro-infanticide
:lol Being "anti-corporate" from the welfare line
:lol Occupy Wall Street, a.k.a. Faggots in Tents

[m>s]

Lmao lmao this guy is actually a communist

[ElNono]

Funnily enough, if the fast track authorization passes, it will likely be with majority Republican votes...

I don't like anything of what's known of that trade agreement, tbh, probably the secret parts are even worse...

[TDMVPDPOY]

ive been to vn many times

trust me whats the difference between shit made there or made in ur country? same shit product
u goto vietnam into high end stores for that same product sold overseas? these mofos have the nerve to charge the same price....only fake ass shit u buy at stall markets..

[z0sa]

Socialists have fought revolutions

Marxist-Leninists also committed mass murders (during the Russian Civil War, and after) in the name of ideology that makes the Nazis look like soccer moms in comparison. Well, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I'm relatively speaking.

In fact, a convincing amount of evidence possibly suggests the Nazis took at least some cue from the Red Terror in their own rise to power.

[HI-FI]

:lol Libertarianism literally founded one of the freest and most prosperous nations on Earth
:lol Socialism = the bankrupt EU
:lol Citing a dictator like Fidel Castro as proof of socialism being any good
:lol Being pro-infanticide
:lol Being "anti-corporate" from the welfare line
:lol Occupy Wall Street, a.k.a. Faggots in Tents

[boutons_deux]

Libertarianism! :lol

unLiberal/no financial regs produced both long-lasting, financial depressions, 1930s, 2000s.

Thanks, Libertarian frauds! :lol

And the risk of repeat, and depth, is WORSE now that it was in 2008.

[cantthinkofanything]

Libertarianism! :lol

unLiberal/no financial regs produced both long-lasting, financial depressions \, 1930s, 2000s.

Thanks, Libertarian frauds! :lol

And the risk of repeat, and depth, is WORSE now that it was in 2008.

It's just BigShoe partnering up with BigGovern. Everyone knows that a good shoe is easily made with household items and can be put together for under $5. And now even quicker with a 3D printer. But I suspect that VRWC will never allow those blueprints to become public.

[boutons_deux]

"BigShoe partnering up with BigGovern"

BigCorp and BigCapital pushed hard for "globalization" (whatever the fuck that meant to the person on the street, they knew they could lie about what it meant if anybody asked) in the 1980s, again exactly when the VRWC got Useful Idiot St Ronnie and his nasty gang into power.

the 99% have been fucked harder and deeper ever since. If Nike had to pay import duties on "their" sweatshop shoes imported from Asia, maybe those shoes would be Made In USA.

[boutons_deux]

search "profit margins on (running, athletic) shoes" at retail. I expect Nike, etc make even more % FOB.

[m>s]

^ shit the fuck up you communist agitator

[Ignignokt]

Sounds like trickle down, which you guys swear by. What's the problem?

Supreme Slurper of the Liberal Narrative detected

are you seriously going to say shit like that when the liberals believe in the same shit only on the demand side. It's called Keynesianism, but based on your posting experience i dont expect you to know any better.

[cantthinkofanything]

search "profit margins on (running, athletic) shoes" at retail. I expect Nike, etc make even more % FOB.

I'm not going to search anything. That just puts more $ into the pocket of BigSearch and BigTech. I know that the profit margins that BigShoe makes are insane and it's troublesome that BigFinan sits there and thumbs it's nose at the 99%.

[baseline bum]

:lol Libertarianism literally founded one of the freest and most prosperous nations on Earth


:lol slavery

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Slurper of the Liberal Narrative detected

are you seriously going to say shit like that when the liberals believe in the same shit only on the demand side. It's called Keynesianism, but based on your posting experience i dont expect you to know any better.

trickle down/supply side lies have been proven to be bullshit

Keynesian economics have also been proven to be "same shit"? where? when? :lol

[Ignignokt]

trickle down/supply side lies have been proven to be bullshit

Keynesian economics have also been proven to be "same shit"? where? when? :lol

proven? are you asking for clinical trials you idiot?

Trickle down passes tax breaks to the the wealthy so that it can stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Keynesianism passes tax breaks and or credit and money to the industrialist so that it can stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Neither redistribute resources to the poor.

GTFO moron, you're outclassed here.

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol Libertarianism literally founded one of the freest and most prosperous nations on Earth
:lol Socialism = the bankrupt EU
:lol Citing a dictator like Fidel Castro as proof of socialism being any good
:lol Being pro-infanticide
:lol Being "anti-corporate" from the welfare line
:lol Occupy Wall Street, a.k.a. Faggots in Tents

Yoo Ess Ayy :lmao
'Infanticide', :lol
So if some 300lb Mexican rapes someone they should be forced to keep the baby? :lol
Proving Libertarian's are just Conservative frauds by hating against Liberals/socialists :lol
Conservatives causing the USA to implode financially before Liberals bailed them out in the 30s. :lol

[Blizzardwizard]

Marxist-Leninists also committed mass murders (during the Russian Civil War, and after) in the name of ideology that makes the Nazis look like soccer moms in comparison. Well, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I'm relatively speaking.

In fact, a convincing amount of evidence possibly suggests the Nazis took at least some cue from the Red Terror in their own rise to power.

Socialists aren't Marxist-Lennists, difference being Marxists would fight wars, kill millions and then have a 'what now?' approach afterwards. Socialism is more refined.

[Ignignokt]

Yoo Ess Ayy :lmao
'Infanticide', :lol
So if some 300lb Mexican rapes someone they should be forced to keep the baby? :lol
Proving Libertarian's are just Conservative frauds by hating against Liberals/socialists :lol
Conservatives causing the USA to implode financially before Liberals bailed them out in the 30s. :lol

The libertarian party was the first party to call for legalization of gay marriage.

[Blizzardwizard]

trickle down/supply side lies have been proven to be bullshit

Keynesian economics have also been proven to be "same shit"? where? when? :lol

Trickle down :lol

Biggest lie of the 21st century :lol

Just an excuse used by the wealthy 1% to keep the Proletariats away :lol

[Ignignokt]

Socialists aren't Marxist-Lennists, difference being Marxists would fight wars, kill millions and then have a 'what now?' approach afterwards. Socialism is more refined.

Nope, Socialist are by definition Marxist that are pushing society towards utopia in which there will be no heirarchies and a worker's paradise.

The socialism you have in Europe is just fascist economic policy where you have some important industries managed by govt and then you have a massive Gibs me det welfare system mixed in with hardcore crony capitalism.

You wont achieve utopia, you will just allow the EU to open the floodgates for immigration and have Omar cuck your wife. That's what you're progressing for.

[Ignignokt]

Trickle down :lol

Biggest lie of the 21st century :lol

Just an excuse used by the wealthy 1% to keep the Proletariats away :lol

How's it different from Keynesianism?

[ElNono]

Under Keynes government is in charge of pumping money into the economy. Under 'trickle down', private entities are.

The thing is, with trickle down, there's really no obligation to do so, and with the advent of short-term paper swaps and capital gains, there's really little incentive to invest long term into the economy.

Then again, under Keynes, government is supposed to eventually stop pumping money and apply fiscal restraint once the economy is active and growing again. But this last step rarely if ever happens.

[Blizzardwizard]

Nope, Socialist are by definition Marxist that are pushing society towards utopia in which there will be no heirarchies and a worker's paradise.

The socialism you have in Europe is just fascist economic policy where you have some important industries managed by govt and then you have a massive Gibs me det welfare system mixed in with hardcore crony capitalism.

You wont achieve utopia, you will just allow the EU to open the floodgates for immigration and have Omar cuck your wife. That's what you're progressing for.

Typical American "I have no idea what socialism is so let's make them Marxist and Communist". 'Utopia'? :lol

They couldn't be further apart, but let's not let facts get in the way of your Neo-Liberal agenda.

[Ignignokt]

Typical American "I have no idea what socialism is so let's make them Marxist and Communist". 'Utopia'? :lol

They couldn't be further apart, but let's not let facts get in the way of your Neo-Liberal agenda.

Typical EuroTrash, thinks a welfare state = socialism.

[Ignignokt]

Under Keynes government is in charge of pumping money into the economy. Under 'trickle down', private entities are.

The thing is, with trickle down, there's really no obligation to do so, and with the advent of short-term paper swaps and capital gains, there's really little incentive to invest long term into the economy.

Then again, under Keynes, government is supposed to eventually stop pumping money and apply fiscal restraint once the economy is active and growing again. But this last step rarely if ever happens.

Your first point is way off. Private entities don't store their fiat money in a mattress or vault. They store them in banks who keep their deposits and invest in the economy to produce profit. So the money even if sitting in a bank is off being spent on investing.

[Blizzardwizard]

Typical EuroTrash, thinks a welfare state = socialism.

You keep pushing that, champ :lol

[Ignignokt]

You keep pushing that, champ :lol

Do the workers own the means of production in Europe? yes or no?

[Blizzardwizard]

Do the workers own the means of production in Europe? yes or no?

No, they don't, I wish they did to some extent at least. Modern day socialism doesn't require workers owning the means of production.

What is this, a pop quiz?

[Ignignokt]

No, they don't, I wish they did to some extent at least. Modern day socialism doesn't require workers owning the means of production.

What is this, a pop quiz?

So it's a welfare state?

[Blizzardwizard]

So it's a welfare state?

No, it is not. You can't just jump from workers owning the meaning of production to welfare state, from Marxism to social democracy like they're neighboring states. There's far more differences between them than your simple 'Marxism, Communism, Socialism, they're all the same' approach.

[boutons_deux]

Do the workers own the means of production in Europe? yes or no?

fuck no

[boutons_deux]

So it's a welfare state?

America is WITHOUT ARGUMENT a Corporate/Capitialist Welfare state.

[boutons_deux]

Trickle down passes tax breaks to the the wealthy so that it can stimulate the economy and create jobs. Holy shit! :lol

The KEY Keynesian macro-economic tool is counter-cyclical govt spending, while conservatives ONLY tool is austerity (euphemism for destroy govt). Guess which one works? :lol

[ElNono]

Your first point is way off. Private entities don't store their fiat money in a mattress or vault. They store them in banks who keep their deposits and invest in the economy to produce profit. So the money even if sitting in a bank is off being spent on investing.

Except they have no fiduciary duty to improve the economy, they only have fiduciary duty to make money for their clients. The reason trickle down doesn't work is largely because things like investments and the market are focused on short-term gains, not long-term investment. That's why you don't see trickle down creating long-term economic benefits like jobs. They create short-term capital gains.

The trickle down theory wasn't wrong when the market used to be a long-term investment vehicle. When companies would look for long-term funding, it made sense. In the current sub-millisecond trading reality, however, you're just handing short-term investment money that does very little for the overall economy. Companies figured out a long time ago that the most important thing for Wall Street is the balance sheet next quarter. That's how you end up with companies largely hoarding money instead of actually investing it on the economy.

[Ignignokt]

Except they have no fiduciary duty to improve the economy, they only have fiduciary duty to make money for their clients. The reason trickle down doesn't work is largely because things like investments and the market are focused on short-term gains, not long-term investment. That's why you don't see trickle down creating long-term economic benefits like jobs. They create short-term capital gains.

The trickle down theory wasn't wrong when the market used to be a long-term investment vehicle. When companies would look for long-term funding, it made sense. In the current sub-millisecond trading reality, however, you're just handing short-term investment money that does very little for the overall economy. Companies figured out a long time ago that the most important thing for Wall Street is the balance sheet next quarter. That's how you end up with companies largely hoarding money instead of actually investing it on the economy.

1. Keynes proposed 3 ways to stimulate the economy; Stimulus spending, War, and Tax cuts. Supply side is the third aspect of Keynesian theory. JFK was for cutting taxes to stimulate growth.

2.You are being delusional if you think govt giving money to corporations through a stimulus bill compared to recieving money through financial investments is any different. In the end, the corporations that recieve the monies are the final arbiters and their fiduciary duty is to the CLIENT. the investors. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

[Ignignokt]

Trickle down passes tax breaks to the the wealthy so that it can stimulate the economy and create jobs. Holy shit! :lol

The KEY Keynesian macro-economic tool is counter-cyclical govt spending, while conservatives ONLY tool is austerity (euphemism for destroy govt). Guess which one works? :lol

Both give money to the rich and both rely on it affecting the job market. Capitalist industrialist getting a break vs Rich people getting a break, it all gets spent whether it goes to hiring Taiquesha to a diversity and sensitivity post at XM print, or going straight to Biff's money market acct.

Don't be naive.

[Ignignokt]

America is WITHOUT ARGUMENT a Corporate/Capitialist Welfare state.

all of them are. Even China. You can't have Gib me Det with out Romney paying for Shaiquesha's 5 bastard children. The welfare state relies on the Capitalist and Marginalist thriving. Deal with it.

[boutons_deux]

Both give money to the rich and both rely on it affecting the job market. .

The (bankers') FED QE was saving the BANKRUPT financial sector, er, casino, giving $Ts to the banks, which didn't trickle down, got played in the casino, no jobs created, and still doesn't (try to get mortgage with minimum 20% down and good credit, etc, etc)

The Bush/Obama stimulus, aka Keynesian counter-cyclical govt spending, was spending money on infrastructure, job creation, etc, etc. NOT pumping $Ts into the financial sector. The stimulus saved and created Ms of jobs, but it was $2T - $3T too small, so we have had a long tail to the financial crisis, longer than need be, but YOUR Repugs were intent on keeping the financial pain maximized on people to try to unseat Obama, to deny Obama ANY success in helping the country emerge from the Banksters Great Depression. Fuck all Repugs and fuck all you Repug voters.

[Ignignokt]

The (bankers') FED QE was saving the BANKRUPT financial sector, er, casino, giving $Ts to the banks, which didn't trickle down, got played in the casino, no jobs created, and still doesn't (try to get mortgage with minimum 20% down and good credit, etc, etc)

The Bush/Obama stimulus, aka Keynesian counter-cyclical govt spending, was spending money on infrastructure, job creation, etc, etc. NOT pumping $Ts into the financial sector. The stimulus saved and created Ms of jobs, but it was $2T - $3T too small, so we have had a long tail to the financial crisis, longer than need be, but YOUR Repugs were intent on keeping the financial pain maximized on people to try to unseat Obama, to deny Obama ANY success in helping the country emerge from the Banksters Great Depression. Fuck all Repugs and fuck all you Repug voters.


Outside of this monopoly board game view of macro economics, infrastructure spending is nice and all, we already do that through pork barrell spending, and it still ends up in the hands of top hat mustache whiskered gents with big money bags like the ones in your childish liberal dreams.

[ElNono]

1. Keynes proposed 3 ways to stimulate the economy; Stimulus spending, War, and Tax cuts. Supply side is the third aspect of Keynesian theory. JFK was for cutting taxes to stimulate growth.

2.You are being delusional if you think govt giving money to corporations through a stimulus bill compared to recieving money through financial investments is any different. In the end, the corporations that recieve the monies are the final arbiters and their fiduciary duty is to the CLIENT. the investors. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

They're both a solution to the same problem: the lack of money movement in the economy. They both try to address it by pumping money, disposable income, and hoping the money starts moving again.

The difference is that government can direct specifically where those funds are to be used (ie: infrastructure projects, science projects, etc), and thus have a direct impact on jobs, disposable income and the overall economy. Plus government doesn't have an intrinsic goal of making money. Sure, in the micro they pick winners and losers, and the winners certainly make money, but the overall goal is in the macro. The criticism with it is that government allocation of funds is inefficient and crony, and that government is slow to retract from the market once the economy is moving again.

Trickle down was essentially the same thing, addressing the inefficiencies and the picking of winners and losers. It just stopped working because companies stopped caring about the country's economy, and prioritized their bottom line instead. It intrinsically trusts the beneficiaries of actually reinvesting the extra money in Main Street, but Wall Street is more profitable, incurs less risk, and there's really nothing preventing companies from hoarding the cash. So unless you actually make Wall Street a less desirable investment than Main street, this is not a workable solution anymore.

They're both interventionist solutions to deal with a very specific problem. You can get away with monetarism and moving the interest rate levers while the economy is working fine, but once that doesn't cut it, you're going to need government intervention in one way or the other.

This whole thing is certainly more complicated than two dogmas, and encompasses the investment markets (especially derivatives), the economic realities (deflation, inflation), etc.

[Ignignokt]

They're both a solution to the same problem: the lack of money movement in the economy. They both try to address it by pumping money, disposable income, and hoping the money starts moving again.

The difference is that government can direct specifically where those funds are to be used (ie: infrastructure projects, science projects, etc), and thus have a direct impact on jobs, disposable income and the overall economy. Plus government doesn't have an intrinsic goal of making money. Sure, in the micro they pick winners and losers, and the winners certainly make money, but the overall goal is in the macro. The criticism with it is that government allocation of funds is inefficient and crony, and that government is slow to retract from the market once the economy is moving again.

Trickle down was essentially the same thing, addressing the inefficiencies and the picking of winners and losers. It just stopped working because companies stopped caring about the country's economy, and prioritized their bottom line instead. It intrinsically trusts the beneficiaries of actually reinvesting the extra money in Main Street, but Wall Street is more profitable, incurs less risk, and there's really nothing preventing companies from hoarding the cash. So unless you actually make Wall Street a less desirable investment than Main street, this is not a workable solution anymore.

They're both interventionist solutions to deal with a very specific problem. You can get away with monetarism and moving the interest rate levers while the economy is working fine, but once that doesn't cut it, you're going to need government intervention in one way or the other.

This whole thing is certainly more complicated than two dogmas, and encompasses the investment markets (especially derivatives), the economic realities (deflation, inflation), etc.

That's the most economically ignorant statement ever. You need to make money to have reserves to pay people for those jobs that will last for more than a quarter. You're senslessly beating around making no point. What's the point if the govt gives you money to hire people if it's not going to be profitable in the long run, they will just terminate those temp jobs when the money dries up.

[z0sa]

Socialists aren't Marxist-Lennists, difference being Marxists would fight wars, kill millions and then have a 'what now?' approach afterwards. Socialism is more refined.

Ok, name a more important revolution fought by "socialists" that didn't end exactly like you are saying. It's not like the PRC has had a bloodless transition from dynasty to republic to communist regime.

To cut through the BS on my end, I see socialism as a pipe dream - greatest story ever told on paper, yet completely inert as a realistic endeavor. A mixed economy has been and will always be much more effective means of generating wealth for the producing classes.

[ElNono]

That's the most economically ignorant statement ever. You need to make money to have reserves to pay people for those jobs that will last for more than a quarter. You're senslessly beating around making no point. What's the point if the govt gives you money to hire people if it's not going to be profitable in the long run, they will just terminate those temp jobs when the money dries up.

There's nothing ignorant about it. No solution is a silver bullet, otherwise, well, there would be no debate.

What direct government investment does is it makes companies take on risks they wouldn't take with their own money. Those 'temp' people spend money on other local businesses, which gives those other businesses opportunity to invest, expand, export, etc. Plus it's an investment that's directed towards the country's economy. Some will pan out, some will not.

You can give tax breaks to companies, but you can't ensure they'll be hiring Americans, or investing that money on the local economy. Which is another external issue that's part of the overall problem.

Not to mention that taxes is perhaps the major redistribution tool for the government, and between tax breaks and companies parking trillions in tax-heavens, that tool becomes less and less useful, and now you have to make it up with more deficit spending.

Maybe on a "pure" free market trickle down would work again, but this isn't a "pure" free market, and none of the actual players that matter want it to be.

The points are:
- It's clear that under the current market conditions, trickle down doesn't work.
- Keynesian stimulus might work, but it's inefficient, and thus it's impact limited.
- An actual real solution involves reforming a lot of areas of economic activity, from investments to tax loopholes, going through tariffs, outsourcing and trade agreements.

[Spurminator]

Supreme Slurper of the Liberal Narrative detected

are you seriously going to say shit like that when the liberals believe in the same shit only on the demand side. It's called Keynesianism, but based on your posting experience i dont expect you to know any better.

:lol

I simply ask WC his specific philosophical problem with the trade agreement and this guy uses it as an opportunity to show off all the stuff he learned browsing Wikipedia for an hour.

The subsequent input from El Nono has been good reading though.

[Ignignokt]

There's nothing ignorant about it. No solution is a silver bullet, otherwise, well, there would be no debate.

What direct government investment does is it makes companies take on risks they wouldn't take with their own money. Those 'temp' people spend money on other local businesses, which gives those other businesses opportunity to invest, expand, export, etc. Plus it's an investment that's directed towards the country's economy. Some will pan out, some will not.

You can give tax breaks to companies, but you can't ensure they'll be hiring Americans, or investing that money on the local economy. Which is another external issue that's part of the overall problem.

Not to mention that taxes is perhaps the major redistribution tool for the government, and between tax breaks and companies parking trillions in tax-heavens, that tool becomes less and less useful, and now you have to make it up with more deficit spending.

Maybe on a "pure" free market trickle down would work again, but this isn't a "pure" free market, and none of the actual players that matter want it to be.

The points are:
- It's clear that under the current market conditions, trickle down doesn't work.
- Keynesian stimulus might work, but it's inefficient, and thus it's impact limited.
- An actual real solution involves reforming a lot of areas of economic activity, from investments to tax loopholes, going through tariffs, outsourcing and trade agreements.

Wrong, when clinton cut capital gains tax in the 90's that was credited with a soaring economy.

[Ignignokt]

:lol

I simply ask WC his specific philosophical problem with the trade agreement and this guy uses it as an opportunity to show off all the stuff he learned browsing Wikipedia for an hour.

The subsequent input from El Nono has been good reading though.

Wikipedia would be a step up from the Cuckington Post tho.

[boutons_deux]

"When clinton cut capital gains tax in the 90's that was credited with a soaring economy."

aka, the dot com bubble. Internet was the stimulus attracting investment, not decreased capital gains. Capital w/o the Clinton cut would have inflated the dot com bubble anyway.

[Ignignokt]

"When clinton cut capital gains tax in the 90's that was credited with a soaring economy."

aka, the dot com bubble. Internet was the stimulus attracting investment, not decreased capital gains. Capital w/o the Clinton cut would have inflated the dot com bubble anyway.




Actually, that may not be so. The more you inflate money supply, the more risk people are willing to take.

[Spurminator]

Wikipedia would be a step up from the Cuckington Post tho.

Several steps, tbh.

[ElNono]

Wrong, when clinton cut capital gains tax in the 90's that was credited with a soaring economy.

But it wasn't. It was a bubble that soon burst, followed by a recession in the early 2000s, and it was one more mistake of the effusiveness of the 90's which included getting rid of the Glass–Steagall Act, etc.

I do take your point, though, because I think that's a major reason why we won't see market reform: such incentives made everybody and their mother jump into the market, and it turned the market from a long-term economic gear for the nation into a short-term speculative market looking for the quick buck. Now there's too much money tied up in there to muck with it.

[Ignignokt]

But it wasn't. It was a bubble that soon burst, followed by a recession in the early 2000s, and it was one more mistake of the effusiveness of the 90's which included getting rid of the Glass–Steagall Act, etc.

I do take your point, though, because I think that's a major reason why we won't see market reform: such incentives made everybody and their mother jump into the market, and it turned the market from a long-term economic gear for the nation into a short-term speculative market looking for the quick buck. Now there's too much money tied up in there to muck with it.

Nono, give me some informed analysis, not some pundit talk geared towards the lowest common denominator.

1. Keynesian policies produce bubbles too, look at Nazi Germany in which Keynes commended hitler and chastised FDR for not going the full route like the Weimarcht.

2. We've been doing keynesianism for more than half a century with a little bit of monetarism, in all fairness, we do a mix of the two. Both contribute to stratification of the classes.

3. Glass Steagall didn't cause the recession, anyone parroting that has no clue.

[ElNono]

Nono, give me some informed analysis, not some pundit talk geared towards the lowest common denominator.

1. Keynesian policies produce bubbles too, look at Nazi Germany in which Keynes commended hitler and chastised FDR for not going the full route like the Weimarcht.

2. We've been doing keynesianism for more than half a century with a little bit of monetarism, in all fairness, we do a mix of the two. Both contribute to stratification of the classes.

3. Glass Steagall didn't cause the recession, anyone parroting that has no clue.

I think we need to split theory vs actually applying the theory to an economic context. Both theories are sound to address severe deflation, the cases where monetarism can't really cut it anymore because interests rates simply get to zero and the levers just don't work anymore. One does it from the private sector, the other does it from government. They do, theoretically anyways, try to address the problem at hand. Accelerate the velocity of money.

We actually moved heavily into monetarism in the 90's and really only brought back a heavy Keynesian hand after '08, when the shit hit the fan.

But the problem isn't with the theories, it's with the context. When you actually apply the theory to an economic context, they largely fail to solve the problem, and the reason is the context (the current reality) is what's flawed. The context include things like market regulations that allow banks to gamble with depositors money at will (something that Glass Steagall prevented), the "too big to fail", the technological gaming of the market (ie: flash crash), the free for all outsourcing, the focus on dividends over actual products, the lack of competitiveness on areas like manufacturing, due to, among other things, the Chinese heavy manipulation of their currency, trade agreements that entice shipping jobs overseas, etc. You also have other areas that are really not fixable, but simply an evolution of the economy, like automation.

So, bubbles, stratification, those aren't things that either theory try to tackle. They're a byproduct of the rules of the game, the context.

That's why I said that in a free market utopia, they would probably work, and I would even advance that trickle down is probably the better option. But in the current economic context, they largely don't work, and that's because we won't touch the rules of the game. And if you have enough money, you'll always get a better shot at writing those rules, so in that sense, I certainly agree with the sentiment that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Clipper Nation]

Do the workers own the means of production in Europe? yes or no?Of course they don't... you can't buy the means of production with foodstamps :lol

[Ignignokt]

Of course they don't... you can't buy the means of production with foodstamps :lol

Omar kent buy it with det subsidized halal meat

[Winehole23]

it's like you're offended that the government visibly spends our taxes or something. why so angry, gtown?

[Ignignokt]

it's like you're offended that the government visibly spends our taxes or something. why so angry, gtown?

It's like you're offended govt allows people to keep the money they earned. why so angry, winehole?

[Spurminator]

Define "earned."

[Blizzardwizard]

Of course they don't... you can't buy the means of production with foodstamps :lol

But Conservative individualist anti-government types in 'Murica can buy their 'freedom' with all their money that they ship offshore to prevent paying tax.

"I earned all this dang money, why should I have to contribute by paying taxes". :cry

'Murica :cry

[Clipper Nation]

But Conservative individualist anti-government types in 'Murica can buy their 'freedom' with all their money that they ship offshore to prevent paying tax.

"I earned all this dang money, why should I have to contribute by paying taxes". :cry

'Murica :cry
:cry "Why can't the state forcibly coerce productive members of society into giving up every cent they've earned to subsidize lazy welfare queens like me?" :cry

[Blizzardwizard]

:cry "Why can't the state forcibly coerce productive members of society into giving up every cent they've earned to subsidize lazy welfare queens like me?" :cry

'Productive members of society' :lol

You mean the middle class white people who drive around in their custom BMW bought by daddy flipping off all the hobos in the street. :lol

Also known as 'Libertarians' :lol

[RandomGuy]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150506152659-trade-new-balance-nike-maps-large-169.png



http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/obama-trade-deal-tpp-nike-new-balance/

So, is their point to send even more jobs overseas, and put USA workers out of jobs?

Buy New Balance.

Made in USA!

The percentage of shoes sold in the US that are made in the US is somewhere south of 1%.

The types of jobs left at Nike are high-paying, hard to export types.

The jobs are gone, deal with it. That is the way free markets work.

LOL WC wants socialism, and doesn't understand capitalism.

[RandomGuy]

'Productive members of society' :lol

You mean the middle class white people who drive around in their custom BMW bought by daddy flipping off all the hobos in the street. :lol

Also known as 'Libertarians' :lol

Pretty much.

The irrational nature of Libertarianism. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165295)

[Wild Cobra]

The percentage of shoes sold in the US that are made in the US is somewhere south of 1%.

The types of jobs left at Nike are high-paying, hard to export types.

The jobs are gone, deal with it. That is the way free markets work.

LOL WC wants socialism, and doesn't understand capitalism.
No, I want adequate tariffs on imports that we can manufacture here. One of congress' power is to regulate commerce. They abuse that power for their rich friends instead of protecting this nation.

[RandomGuy]

No, I want adequate tariffs on imports that we can manufacture here. One of congress' power is to regulate commerce. They abuse that power for their rich friends instead of protecting this nation.


Tariffs = socialism

tariffs pick winners (people whose jobs are to make shoes) over the losers (everybody who buys shoes)

You want the government to pick winners and losers.

[RandomGuy]

ne of congress' power is to regulate commerce. They abuse that power for their rich friends instead of protecting this nation.

That much, I can agree with.

Do you think that we should repeal the estate tax?

[Wild Cobra]

You want the government to pick winners and losers.
I wouldn't call it that when we are picking our own sovereign interests as a nation, over another.


That much, I can agree with.

Do you think that we should repeal the estate tax?
I'm mixed on that. I don't think any of the property assets should be taxed, and if we tax it, then only cash holdings.

If a family business has a net worth of $500,000, and becomes part of an estate, then it does more damage than good when the people inheriting it have to sell it to pay taxes.

[boutons_deux]

more damage than good when the people inheriting it have to sell it to pay taxes.

what damage? :lol

income from your parents is still income

$5M tax free "gift" from parents isn't enough?

search how the FF were dead set against primogeniture, not that concern would bother the wealthy conservative "originalists/strict constructionists" of today.

[Clipper Nation]

'Productive members of society' :lol

You mean the middle class white people who drive around in their custom BMW bought by daddy flipping off all the hobos in the street. :lol

Also known as 'Libertarians' :lol
I mean the people who work for a living, not beg for handouts like socialists :lol

[boutons_deux]

"beg for handouts like socialists"

1000s of US corps BUY politicians to protect and/or increase their "handouts"

[Winehole23]

It's like you're offended govt allows people to keep the money they earned. why so angry, winehole?not at all. I'm ok with the progressive tax system we've got, only, redistribution to the top has been outta control for about 15 years. Obama certainly hasn't reversed the trend.

[Winehole23]

Define "earned."don't hold your breath: gtown doesn't come down from Mt. Olympus to discuss base details. he's more a dealer in crass abstractions like one individual standing for the whole society and his tax refund creating all future wealth.

[Nbadan]

don't hold your breath: gtown doesn't come down from Mt. Olympus to discuss base details. he's more a dealer in crass abstractions like one individual standing for the whole society and his tax refund creating all future wealth.

More than likely Gtown is also benefiting from the same system he pretends to hate.....probably on medicare and is certainly collecting social security

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't know anything about that and neither would you, I suspect.

[Winehole23]

That's based on age and nothing more.

[Winehole23]

do you know gtown personally, Dan?

[Th'Pusher]

not at all. I'm ok with the progressive tax system we've got, only, redistribution to the top has been outta control for about 15 years. Obama certainly hasn't reversed the trend.

Not really accurate. Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/

[Winehole23]

was talking about income, not taxes. your point is well taken, but it doesn't mean much in terms of the broader trend.

[Winehole23]

viz., accumulation at the tippity-top

[Nbadan]

do you know gtown personally, Dan?

No, but I suspect that gtown is in Medicare/SS age...

[Winehole23]

going by the stated age on his profile page, that might be a fair suspicion.

it might not. I don't know.

[Winehole23]

maybe gtown will clear it up for us. cheers to him if he doesn't.

he's not into light chatting, lately. mostly goes straight to cuck, but he was always a little that way.

it's as if not being vitriolic and scathing and mean would be like, wounding to his self-respect or something like that. it's generally not done.

[Ignignokt]

More than likely Gtown is also benefiting from the same system he pretends to hate.....probably on medicare and is certainly collecting social security

Sure in my early thirties. Nice narrative Nbadanowitz.

[Ignignokt]

don't hold your breath: gtown doesn't come down from Mt. Olympus to discuss base details. he's more a dealer in crass abstractions like one individual standing for the whole society and his tax refund creating all future wealth.

I just there's no reason to reappropriate wealth and goods from the earners to the parasitical class that hasn't earned it. A flat tax is the best solution. Sure we can have social safety nets, i'm against them, but its not the worse thing.

[Ignignokt]

You want the government to pick winners and losers.

That by definition is Keynesianism. When you get to pick who gets bailed out and who gets left out.

[Ignignokt]

Define "earned."

I don't have to. If something was given as a gift, no matter how or if it was blood related, it still something that was earned because the giver found it in his interest and found value to give to that person.

I don't subscribe to a marxist view that value is tied to physical labor, the LTV has been discredited by mainstream "science" in the field of economics, something liberals leave to the realm of "muh feels" and "participation awards feel goods attempts" aka "muh intenshuns wer gud".

[RandomGuy]

That by definition is Keynesianism. When you get to pick who gets bailed out and who gets left out.

You pretty much have to, if you want a government at all.

Kind of my point, thank you.

[Ignignokt]

But Conservative individualist anti-government types in 'Murica can buy their 'freedom' with all their money that they ship offshore to prevent paying tax.

"I earned all this dang money, why should I have to contribute by paying taxes". :cry

'Murica :cry

Lol, liberals and conservatives all try to skirt taxes. If you did a crosscheck of who has assets in offshore accts, it's even split. No one wants to pay taxes yet everyone wants to signal their piety about how their peers need to pay their fair share. It's ridiculous, all govt should charge you for is the operations it takes to keep order and maybe infrastucture in which it spends like a drunken sailor, but the tax rate goes beyond that, and i don't have a problem with people not wanting to contribute to simps and parasites who believe a good society should just "gibs me det".

Generally you will deflect your shit character flaw and wormy persona by throwing in red herrings about how big monopoly men with whiskered moustaches and top hats are running off like bandits in their money banks. But that's just "muh feels" being turned into a pathetic narrative. The fact is that the top 5 percentile of income earners are carrying the load in contributions from taxes.

rich people avoid taxes to keep the money they earn.

poor people make more stupid decisions like popping out kids they can't support in order to get "gibs me dets" .

I could care less about your liberal tears. Go sit at your cafe in your scarf and thong and bitch about imperialism somewhere else.

[Ignignokt]

You pretty much have to, if you want a government at all.

Kind of my point, thank you.

Which proves my point that liberals love corporate welfare as much as shit head republicans.

Kind of my point, thank you.

[Blizzardwizard]

Lol, liberals and conservatives all try to skirt taxes. If you did a crosscheck of who has assets in offshore accts, it's even split. No one wants to pay taxes yet everyone wants to signal their piety about how their peers need to pay their fair share. It's ridiculous, all govt should charge you for is the operations it takes to keep order and maybe infrastucture in which it spends like a drunken sailor, but the tax rate goes beyond that, and i don't have a problem with people not wanting to contribute to simps and parasites who believe a good society should just "gibs me det".

Generally you will deflect your shit character flaw and wormy persona by throwing in red herrings about how big monopoly men with whiskered moustaches and top hats are running off like bandits in their money banks. But that's just "muh feels" being turned into a pathetic narrative. The fact is that the top 5 percentile of income earners are carrying the load in contributions from taxes.

rich people avoid taxes to keep the money they earn.

poor people make more stupid decisions like popping out kids they can't support in order to get "gibs me dets" .

I could care less about your liberal tears. Go sit at your cafe in your scarf and thong and bitch about imperialism somewhere else.

Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroes :cry All poor people are sons of the devil and all make bad life choices, let's make them pay twice as much tax :cry"

I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.

[Ignignokt]

Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroes :cry All poor people are sons of the devil and all make bad life choices, let's make them pay twice as much tax :cry"

I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.

I don't see many conservatives cry tbh, I do see however liberals having anal prolapses and tearing up when they failed to defeat Scott Walker and the Koch Machine.

[Ignignokt]

Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroes :cry All poor people are sons of the devil and all make bad life choices, let's make them pay twice as much tax :cry"

I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.

It's rather simple if you really think about it. Do the rich in even these mixed economies get rich from ripping you off? Did Steve Jobs force you to buy his product at gunpoint for a shit load of money?

If the economy is nothing but rich people ripping off others and exploiting them, does that mean you no longer purchase new items, you get everything second hand?

[Clipper Nation]

Hey Blizzardwizard, why does your idol George Soros have so many unpaid taxes?

[Winehole23]

I just there's no reason to reappropriate wealth and goods from the earners to the parasitical class that hasn't earned it.who, investors and large inheritances?


A flat tax is the best solution. Sure we can have social safety nets, i'm against them, but its not the worse thing.very magnanimous. why is a flat tax the best solution?

[RandomGuy]

Which proves my point that liberals love corporate welfare as much as shit head republicans.

Kind of my point, thank you.

Nice try, but not quite.

There is a big difference between acknowledging the reality of complex economies and wanting something kept to a minimum and "loving" it.

Any other strawmen arguments you want to put up?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs are not blindly obstructing TPP as they have EVERYTHING Obama has supported since 2009.

When Repugs are FOR something, you know Human-Americans, the 99% are gonna get screwed, and the 1%/BigCorp will get even more wealthy.

TPP/TTIP is gonna screw Human-Americans and the 99% (or at very least, the 95%)

[Wild Cobra]

why is a flat tax the best solution?

Because it doesn't penalize achievers. It treats varying classes more equal.

[Blizzardwizard]

Repugs are not blindly obstructing TPP as they have EVERYTHING Obama has supported since 2009.

When Repugs are FOR something, you know Human-Americans, the 99% are gonna get screwed, and the 1%/BigCorp will get even more wealthy.

TPP/TTIP is gonna screw Human-Americans and the 99% (or at very least, the 95%)

TTIP is the leech that sucks the money from the 99% and piles it all at the feet of the 1%. But as long as the 1% are happy, the repugs will keep smiling.

[boutons_deux]

Elizabeth Warren’s Trade Deal Fears Confirmed: Canada Uses NAFTA to Challenge Volcker Rule (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/elizabeth-warrens-trade-deal-fears-confirmed-canada-uses-nafta-to-challenge-volcker-rule.html)

In her attacks on Obama’s pending trade deals, Elizabeth Warren has argued that could undermine US financial regulations like Dodd Frank. The Administration has taken to trying to dismiss Warren as not knowing what she was talking about. More skillful defenders of the traitorous trade deals took the tact of saying that Warren could in theory be right, but the odds of her fears playing out were so remote as to not be worth worrying about.

In a long, careful article in the Nation yesterday, George Zornick explains (http://www.thenation.com/blog/207041/could-fast-track-ultimately-destroy-dodd-frank-yes) even with the limited information that we have now about the contents of proposed treaties like the TPP and its ugly European step-sister, the TTIP, Warren’s worries are valid. For instance:

Like with TPP, we don’t know all the details of TTIP yet, but advocates have many fears. One is that the Federal Reserve’s plan to impose separate liquidity requirements on foreign banks might be scotched…

And it’s not just Dodd-Frank: the leaked EU proposal for TTIP has a provision that new regulations first be “analyzed” to determine if they have an unacceptable impact on trade.

Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) worries that this could “impose a presumption that regulations must be judged on the basis of their trade impact rather than their effectiveness as public interest policies promoting financial stability.”


Keep in mind that by design, a substantial portion of Dodd Frank implementation was kicked down the road to allow lobbyists to have a second go at weakening it, with studies required before rules would be written. Significant portions of rulemaking have yet to be completed and would appear to be subject to the TTIP analysis requirement, giving the banking industry yet another change to gut legislation.

But an example of Warren’s concerns came out of left field yesterday, as reported by the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/canadas-finance-minister-says-volcker-rule-violates-nafta-1431541914):

A U.S. rule that prohibits banks from taking risky bets with their own money violates the North American Free-Trade Agreement because it bans U.S. banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian government debt, Canada’s finance minister said Wednesday…

Canadian concerns about the Volcker rule’s treatment of sovereign debt aren’t new. In 2012, Canada joined European countries and Japan in raising concerns about the law’s reach..

Mr. [Joe] Oliver noted that the Volcker rule reflects concerns about the credit standing of some foreign securities. That concern doesn’t apply to Canada, he said, because Canada’s credit rating is better than the U.S. government and U.S. municipalities…

“I believe—with strong legal basis—that this rule violates the terms of the Nafta agreement,” Mr. Oliver told a securities industry audience in New York that included the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman. “I hope the United States administration sees that changing the Volcker rule is in its own best interests and that of its biggest trading partner.”


Pretending that the only risk of holding foreign securities is credit risk is disingenuous. Foreign bond investors are also subject to currency and interest rate risks. Needless to say, the Treasury Department disagreed firmly with Oliver’s view.

One has to wonder, given that Canada has been unhappy about how the Volcker Rule applied to Canadian government debt since 2012, why the Nafta argument was hauled out at this juncture. Has the negotiation of the TPP led Canada to look at trade treaties more seriously as a way to get its way?

Regardless, the fact that Canada thinks it has a strong case for having its bonds exempted from the Volcker Rule looks to be a harbinger of the creative ways these pending, toxic trade deals could be deployed, given their far more sweeping provisions.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/elizabeth-warrens-trade-deal-fears-confirmed-canada-uses-nafta-to-challenge-volcker-rule.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[Spurminator]

Because it doesn't penalize achievers. It treats varying classes more equal.

The idea that a higher tax rate on income over a certain amount is a "penalty" is ludicrous. It's not a punishment. Everyone IS taxed equally. It's the income tiers that are taxed at an escalating rate.

Someone who makes $1 million has to work a lot less hard to make an additional $50K in a year than someone without that initial $1 million earned. It's not at all unfair to expect the first person to pay a higher rate on that $50K than someone who only makes $50K total in a year.

[Wild Cobra]

The idea that a higher tax rate on income over a certain amount is a "penalty" is ludicrous. It's not a punishment. Everyone IS taxed equally. It's the income tiers that are taxed at an escalating rate.

Someone who makes $1 million has to work a lot less hard to make an additional $50K in a year than someone without that initial $1 million earned. It's not at all unfair to expect the first person to pay a higher rate on that $50K than someone who only makes $50K total in a year.
We disagree. For one, it reduces the incentive to even try to make that next $50k.

Where do you stop? 90%? Do you think a business owner who makes a percentage of his profits, will try to hard to make his company another $1,000,000 and add jobs if after his profits, they are $50,000 and he only keeps $5,000 of it? No incentive for him to try, for what to him is chump change.

[Th'Pusher]

We disagree. For one, it reduces the incentive to even try to make that next $50k.

Where do you stop? 90%? Do you think a business owner who makes a percentage of his profits, will try to hard to make his company another $1,000,000 and add jobs if after his profits, they are $50,000 and he only keeps $5,000 of it? No incentive for him to try, for what to him is chump change.

Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no idea how the American economy works. Your numbers are so ridicululusly laughable and wildly inaccurate that I want to sodomize you for being such a moron.

[Wild Cobra]

Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no idea how the American economy works. Your numbers are so ridicululusly laughable and wildly inaccurate that I want to sodomize you for being such a moron.

Sometimes it takes an extreme example to make a point.

So, at what point do you draw the line, that nullifies my point?

Oh... I didn't think you for a faggot... Thanks for clarify that to all of us. Sorry, my women wouldn't like me screwing around with a guy.

[ElNono]

We disagree. For one, it reduces the incentive to even try to make that next $50k.

Where do you stop? 90%? Do you think a business owner who makes a percentage of his profits, will try to hard to make his company another $1,000,000 and add jobs if after his profits, they are $50,000 and he only keeps $5,000 of it? No incentive for him to try, for what to him is chump change.

Except taxes in general are the lowest they've been in years, and we've had this progressive tax system for decades on end. Heck, taxes were even more onerous back when the country GDP was growing immensely.

In other words, the idea that this tax system somehow reduces any incentive to grow the economy is only in your head and is demonstrably false.

You can certainly build a principled argument about the virtues of a flat tax. You could start by mentioning how complex the current system is and how a flat tax would dramatically reduce such complexity.

But that requires giving the topic some thought, and it's pretty clear that you have not done such a thing.

[Spurminator]

We disagree. For one, it reduces the incentive to even try to make that next $50k.

Why? Because you might only get to keep $33K of it? That's laughable. More money is more money.


Where do you stop? 90%?

I didn't realize our only options were flat tax or 90%.

[Nbadan]

Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no idea how the American economy works. Your numbers are so ridicululusly laughable and wildly inaccurate that I want to sodomize you for being such a moron.

:lol

[angrydude]

Taxes are nothing but armed robbery. The robbers then give the money to their friends and claim to be helping the economy. The money is almost always wasted because in practice it's distributed according to how close someone is to power, not price signals. That's why when the government picks winner and losers the "winners" so often go out of business once the government gravy train runs out.

Then poor naive people say that the government couldn't exist without doing this.