Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Brutal Campaign Ad(s)

  1. #21
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,955
    Like
    257
    Liked 207 Times in 116 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Badsmerf View Post
    Positive for who? That certainly doesn't help me, or the 99% of other Americans. I have felt less and less sorry for these people and their taxes. Remember, if they have REPORTED income that high, their actual income is most likely much much higher. Why give them breaks when they have so many already? Its crazy. The money is getting more and more lopsided every year. That isn't how this country was supposed to work.
    You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly.

  2. #22
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly.
    While we are skewed too far one way, it is true that you can restrain economics by over-regulation and taxation. Once again we come back to the stupidity of going too far either way.

  3. #23
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,081
    Like
    4,536
    Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Badsmerf View Post
    Positive for who? That certainly doesn't help me, or the 99% of other Americans. I have felt less and less sorry for these people and their taxes. Remember, if they have REPORTED income that high, their actual income is most likely much much higher. Why give them breaks when they have so many already? Its crazy. The money is getting more and more lopsided every year. That isn't how this country was supposed to work.
    Positive for the high earners, and I was being tongue in cheek. I agree with you my friend.

  4. #24
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,081
    Like
    4,536
    Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly.
    In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

    Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.

  5. #25
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,955
    Like
    257
    Liked 207 Times in 116 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

    Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.
    Right. While I'm sure you're happy to have the money to do with as you see fit (charity); the notion that lower taxes on hire earners will create more jobs is just silly.

  6. #26
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,955
    Like
    257
    Liked 207 Times in 116 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    While we are skewed too far one way, it is true that you can restrain economics by over-regulation and taxation. Once again we come back to the stupidity of going too far either way.
    Oh right. But we are well beyond the pale of tax breaks and deregulating being good for the economy. The Bush years are evidence of this. Look if the private sector isn't spending their money, and they aren't creating jobs--it's left to no other entity other than government (as messy as it might be at it) to create liquidity and jobs. It's not as if there aren't any number of public works jobs that need to get done and that would actually help private enterprise.

  7. #27
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    Oh right. But we are well beyond the pale of tax breaks and deregulating being good for the economy. The Bush years are evidence of this. Look if the private sector isn't spending their money, and they aren't creating jobs--it's left to no other entity other than government (as messy as it might be at it) to create liquidity and jobs. It's not as if there aren't any number of public works jobs that need to get done and that would actually help private enterprise.
    The government cannot and will not jump start the economy. It's simply too large a task for such bureaucracy to handle. Large number of public tasks do need to be completed, in fact they were "shovel ready", how'd that turn out? There is one major advantage to leaning on the private sector - they almost always prioritize the need to make money which does lead to economic revitalization. The government's motives aren't always to make money as evidenced by the above example.

    The problem isn't that we need more tax breaks, it's that the tax breaks need to be better oriented to job creation rather than blanket tax breaks as glunn said. We also need to put the banking industry back in the business of lending money as their primary vehicle of profit rather than the current mega-bank model. (Glass-Steagall Act again)

  8. #28
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,081
    Like
    4,536
    Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    The government cannot and will not jump start the economy. It's simply too large a task for such bureaucracy to handle. Large number of public tasks do need to be completed, in fact they were "shovel ready", how'd that turn out? There is one major advantage to leaning on the private sector - they almost always prioritize the need to make money which does lead to economic revitalization. The government's motives aren't always to make money as evidenced by the above example.

    The problem isn't that we need more tax breaks, it's that the tax breaks need to be better oriented to job creation rather than blanket tax breaks as glunn said. We also need to put the banking industry back in the business of lending money as their primary vehicle of profit rather than the current mega-bank model. (Glass-Steagall Act again)
    I agree with your second point, but as to your first point, I would like to hear your views as to the following questions. Why not give temporary government jobs to the millions of unemployed people who are collecting unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.? Since they are being supported anyway, why not put them to work repairing infrastructure, clearing brush to prevent wildfires and other useful jobs until they can get private sector jobs? In California, we have big wildfires every few years and the politicians always pretend to be surprised by the billions of dollars of damages. I am angry that we don't have unemployed people (who the government is paying anyway) out there clearing the damn brush so that the wildfires can be minimized. And the same applies to potholes, graffiti and a lot of other problems that these people could be fixing. I would be happy to even pay them extra to do some useful work instead of just collecting benefits. Do you agree that this makes sense?

  9. #29
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    I agree with your second point, but as to your first point, I would like to hear your views as to the following questions. Why not give temporary government jobs to the millions of unemployed people who are collecting unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.? Since they are being supported anyway, why not put them to work repairing infrastructure, clearing brush to prevent wildfires and other useful jobs until they can get private sector jobs? In California, we have big wildfires every few years and the politicians always pretend to be surprised by the billions of dollars of damages. I am angry that we don't have unemployed people (who the government is paying anyway) out there clearing the damn brush so that the wildfires can be minimized. And the same applies to potholes, graffiti and a lot of other problems that these people could be fixing. I would be happy to even pay them extra to do some useful work instead of just collecting benefits. Do you agree that this makes sense?
    I'm not opposed to it, because it is a better use of the funds. The problem is that people may be content to keep those jobs rather than seeking out full employment. The left-wing dependency state that has been built in this country is built on solutions like this that aren't thought through all the way. It could work and I would welcome it as temporary solution along with more temporary benefits. I've always thought unemployment should come with some form of skill building/education after a certain period of time as well. Whatever it takes so that it's not so exploitable.

  10. #30
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,606
    Like
    21
    Liked 82 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Lev, I think you might be hyperventilating a little. Nobody is claiming government be the answer (we both know psuedo is a little left, but he's playing nice). To me the answer is a mix. I also don't think "welfare" itself is the problem. The big 3 no politician will touch (except Paul) is Medicaid, Medicare and the defense budget. Each one needs to reformed and until that happens this country will continue to go into further debt. I'll list my solutions, since I would be an awesome president (and I'd still talk on BYT... er... Twins Daily).

    Medicade- Require drug testing and enrollment in community building activities (i.e. removing brush with I.D. checks and everything). This will require the people getting money from tax payers to actually do something in return.

    Medicare- Raise the age eligible. People are living too long on Medicare. The mortality age has risen and medical technology has allowed older people to rack up huge costs. I'm not going to talk about social security....

    Defense budget- Audit that bitch. We are paying way too much money and politicians just don't give a ****. Why? At this point its just out of control.

  11. #31
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Badsmerf View Post
    Lev, I think you might be hyperventilating a little. Nobody is claiming government be the answer (we both know psuedo is a little left, but he's playing nice). To me the answer is a mix. I also don't think "welfare" itself is the problem. The big 3 no politician will touch (except Paul) is Medicaid, Medicare and the defense budget. Each one needs to reformed and until that happens this country will continue to go into further debt. I'll list my solutions, since I would be an awesome president (and I'd still talk on BYT... er... Twins Daily).
    Agree with much of this - I've limited my responses mostly to Psuedo because he's a little more left than I think he realizes. Especially in terms of legislation/government structure. Though I appreciate his more moderate stance on many other things. While I agree that the main issues are the "entitlement" spending programs, the welfare approach to social problems is dragging down the country in really profound ways. From student loans, to child care and medical benefits, to tax breaks - there are so many ways that people can (and do) manipulate the system to do less and get more - that we're screwed unless we fix this. As I used to say on (Hmmm...elysian fields is taken....Avalon work?) it makes more sense in many ways to be in the lower class than it does in the middle class in this country. You work less and have roughly the same standard of living. That's a huge problem. I can't overstate how enormous that problem is to setting things right.

    I generally like your points below though.

  12. #32
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,606
    Like
    21
    Liked 82 Times in 49 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Completely agree. I think a lot of these problems can be solved at the state level with proper legislation.

  13. #33
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,955
    Like
    257
    Liked 207 Times in 116 Posts
    In cases of both Medicare and Defense budgets, the government is essentially overpaying private business (healthcare providers and bomb makers) to provide public services. There's a huge lobby that no doubt pays everyone off to keep the status quo. Having all that government money artificially inflates both the costs of bombs and health, because they can essentially charge what they want. I'm not sure how you get private enterprise to avoid screwing the government, without more bureaucracy and regulation (more government). As Smerf says audits, but I think that's another layer that could be easily manipulated too.

    Look, my stance on government run institutions is this: I can live with inefficiency because there's no incentive for the government to screw its employees or to inhibit its service to make more and more money. (A government institution would never have an idea like planned obsolescence or patenting biological seeds or withholding technology for the iphone 2020) I know that its a bit rosy, but generally i think there's some truth there.

  14. #34
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    Look, my stance on government run institutions is this: I can live with inefficiency because there's no incentive for the government to screw its employees or to inhibit its service to make more and more money.
    Government has plenty of incentives to screw people over. They're just better at covering it up and have the legal authority to do so. Insider trading is a good example.

    Government power is best limited. That doesn't mean you have to let corporations run the world - there is a middle ground.

  15. #35
    Banned Double-A
    Posts
    147
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

    Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.
    Nobodys expecting a 33% increase based on a tax cut, but I would imagine if you see a clear way to profit more you would be willing to expand. Tax rate is a factor, it's part of those supply and demand curves and business models we see in economic classes. Sometimes a small change is the difference between the hire someone and don't hire one side of the curve, or more importantly the shut down and stay in business side of the curve. If profits would still be low even with zero tax then sure your never going to hire that 4th person, but you also might not have to cut back.

  16. #36
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,743
    Like
    58
    Liked 105 Times in 51 Posts


    Not an ad, but hilarious nonetheless.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  17. #37
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,858
    Like
    12
    Liked 72 Times in 43 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Not an ad, but hilarious nonetheless.
    That's awesome.
    Papers...business papers.

  18. #38
    Twins News Team All-Star PseudoSABR's Avatar
    Posts
    1,955
    Like
    257
    Liked 207 Times in 116 Posts
    I forgotten how awful that song was beyond it's chorus. The you didn't build it line is a gaffe by Obama. Whether or not his point is good one.

  19. #39
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,863
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    I forgotten how awful that song was beyond it's chorus. The you didn't build it line is a gaffe by Obama. Whether or not his point is good one.
    I've been appalled by the left's attempts to defend that. I understand what his point is - government provides some of the security needed to have an economy, but the way he phrased it was arrogant and completely idiotic. Completely indefensible.

  20. #40
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,081
    Like
    4,536
    Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    I've been appalled by the left's attempts to defend that. I understand what his point is - government provides some of the security needed to have an economy, but the way he phrased it was arrogant and completely idiotic. Completely indefensible.
    The government provides the educations of the workers, and much of the infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) to move goods. Obama may have been somewhat awkward in how he phrased it, but the government (via taxpayers) creates fertile ground that has allowed lots of folk opportunities to get rich that would not exist in some other countries. So what appalls me is when people who predict that the economy will be harmed if the maximum income tax rate goes from 35% to 38.5%. These people don't seem to remember that from 1936 until 1981, the maximum rate was always 70% or higher.

    Our debt is no longer rated AAA and we cannot continue to suffer deficits like we have been sustaining. The only way to fix this without totally screwing the middle class and starving the lower class would be compromise -- the liberals would agree to cut entitlements and the conservatives would agree to increase taxes on people who can afford to pay more. For decades, such compromises were made. But today there are members of Congress who have signed pledges never to raise any taxes for any reason. This has made it impossible to get a compromise any more.

    In my opinion, they are all to blame. The liberals like programs that help poor people, but they don't do the hard work of making sure that the money is spent efficiently and they don't mind running up deficits that will choke our grandchildren. And the conservatives have no problem wasting trillions of dollars on wars and war equipment, and they also don't mind running up deficits that will choke our grandchildren.

    We live in an age where the special interests are running the show. Even though we are heading for a crash that is certain to be devastating, we cannot turn the ship because there are too many hands on the steering wheel.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.