Congress Declares War

[Demetious]

Correct, that is the problem with the "incentives" proposed by the Obama administration.

But there is more serious concern with "incentives" that I need to reiterate. Incentives are a form of subsidy to the business. So they constitute a form of "welfare". If a business cannot compete: so sad too bad, out of business.

Also be aware that if an incentive is provided, someone has to pay for it through additional taxes. (The balanced budget is now a joke) So exactly how does it benefit the widget manufacturer to be given an incentive when the consumer buying his product has less money because he is taxed more to pay for the incentive?

Steve R,
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you took me for the wrong side here, I am a conservative. I was making the case of why I was glad the Offshore Bill died. You are also spot on when you talk about incentives becoming welfare. I think if a business gives incentives to promote, great! They also should not get these back in the form of a tax break because now all Americans paid for it. I don't agree with tax breaks because they only become manipulated by all. I haven't found the Fair Tax to be out of touch. I think this would eliminate the IRS, make taxes 100% legit, and make companies accountable for their own bills, not tax payers. I am all for capitalism but many people know too many ways to screw taxpayers over.

 

[Steve R.]

Steve R,
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you took me for the wrong side here, I am a conservative. I was making the case of why I was glad the Offshore Bill died. You are also spot on when you talk about incentives becoming welfare. I think if a business gives incentives to promote, great! They also should not get these back in the form of a tax break because now all Americans paid for it. I don't agree with tax breaks because they only become manipulated by all. I haven't found the Fair Tax to be out of touch. I think this would eliminate the IRS, make taxes 100% legit, and make companies accountable for their own bills, not tax payers. I am all for capitalism but many people know too many ways to screw taxpayers over.

My apologies. We seem to live in a Mad Hatter's world word where words have only relativistic meaning. Since many people, in the US, seem to have the false belief that "incentives" are free money, my fingers have a spontaneous uncontrollable allergic reaction to the use of that word.

 

[the_net_2.0]

since we're all talking about irresponsibly in this thread, has anyone seen Wall Street 2?

That's a great movie if you want to see a dramatized version of the backstabbing that goes on in NYC. my favorite quote from Gordon from the movie..."It isn't about the money, it's about the game being human beings". Man I love that quote!

 

[Adam Caramon]

Actually not as illogical as you make out.

My statement was that it is illogical to think that if you go from 2 serious political parties to 5 serious political parties, that somehow the 2 original political parties benefited.

Since you disagreed with me, I was assuming your post would explain why, but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).

Could you explain, specifically, how it would be beneficial to the 2 political parties in a 2 party system that suddenly became a 5 party system? How would that put those 2 parties at an advantage?

Thanks.

 

[the_net_2.0]

but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).

Adam,

you had also misread my post. I agree that 5 is worse than 2, and that is what I was saying. Compromise takes time, and the more compromise that has to be done the more time is wasted getting to the end resolution. The 'independents' that are popping up in the USA specifically are completely shutting down the government wheels and pretty soon they're not going to turn AT ALL.

I'm old enough to know not to beat my head against the wall, but I don't have an alternative solution to simply "getting things done". The best thing that could happen to this country is if there was an overthrow of the government by the people.

The current administration is just so blind that they couldn't even know what to do if a tank busted down the door to the oval office. It's almost like Obama and the gang are walking around the earth and 'smiling' away without acknowledging that any work needs to be done. The ignorance is just so overwhelming it's gross.

But on the flip side of what I just said, if these independent people were not creating arguments and shouting, we may just get to a dictatorship faster than normal. I hope to God that doesn't happen, because if it does I think we just might find out who the individual is that is described in the bible has bearing the number '666'.

 

[Rabbie]

My statement was that it is illogical to think that if you go from 2 serious political parties to 5 serious political parties, that somehow the 2 original political parties benefited.

Since you disagreed with me, I was assuming your post would explain why, but you seem to be just talking about how people have to compromise (which I would think would have to occur even more often when there's 5 v 2, for example).

Could you explain, specifically, how it would be beneficial to the 2 political parties in a 2 party system that suddenly became a 5 party system? How would that put those 2 parties at an advantage?

Thanks.

Using Great Britain as an example where there is a two party system with now three parties of a reasonable size. The coalition has clearly benefitted the Conservative Party because they can now have a majority government in coalition rather than a minority government. This has meant that the mainstream of the party can implement its policies and not be at the mercy of the more extreme elements in the party.

As nearly everyone I know does not agree 100% with any party I can see nothing wrong with compromise. Especially if you want a government that is representative of the electorate.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Well, Rabbie, I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough about Great Britain politics to disagree with you, but that seems quite odd to me. And I suppose it all depends on what you consider a benefit to the party.

Right now in USA we have the Democrats and Republicans, essentially liberals and conservatives. There's a movement called the Tea Party, which is for all intents and purposes an extreme wing of the Republican party.

If the Tea Party were to become a viable 3rd party, thus we'd have Democrat v Republican v Tea Party, I would think that it would increase the likelihood that a Democrat would be elected, but I guess we can wait a little while and see how these Tea Party candidates fair in general elections.

 

[the_net_2.0]

instead of 'democrat v republican v tea party', why not 'noone v noone'?

putting a 'versus' in there implies that they're fighting their war and we the little people don't even exist. Which in essence, is basically true.

 

[Rabbie]

Thanks for your reply Adam. The benefit to a party as I see it is that by doing a deal with another party to their left they can reduce the influence of their right wing and of course vice versa. However what to me is really important is not how it benefits a party but how it benefits the ordinary people.

 

[Friday]

Demetious, the reason that business' raise their prices, and pass those raises onto their customers, is that the leaders of those companies have decided they deserve x dollars. If they don't get x dollars, they will cut workers, slash benefits, and raise prices. If there is nothing that the customers can do about this, then we truly are servants of the corporations.

Adam, I couldn't agree more. I said this so many times...what would happen if you could convince ALL the consumers in the United States to not buy gasoline for three days? Or a new car, or a tv. This country runs off buying. The consumers have a lot more control than they realize. The smart politicians know this, and keep the consumers fighting each other over religious beliefs, social reforms, etc...divide and conquer.

 

[ChipperT]

Adam, I couldn't agree more. I said this so many times...what would happen if you could convince ALL the consumers in the United States to not buy gasoline for three days? Or a new car, or a tv. This country runs off buying. The consumers have a lot more control than they realize. The smart politicians know this, and keep the consumers fighting each other over religious beliefs, social reforms, etc...divide and conquer.

Actually it would do little to refrain from buying something for three days if it was eventually purchased. The economy would quickly recover when the purchases were finally made. Now, if you could convince Americans not to drive at all for three days, THAT would make a significant difference.

 

[Vassago]

Actually it would do little to refrain from buying something for three days if it was eventually purchased. The economy would quickly recover when the purchases were finally made. Now, if you could convince Americans not to drive at all for three days, THAT would make a significant difference.

Exactly! I kept arguing with people who wanted to do those stupid "Don't buy gas for a day!" rallies when the gas prices were higher. If you'll eventually buy it, then one day is not going to hurt anyone! You'd actually have to refrain from driving or using any form of transportation that uses gasoline for that one day, which is VERY far fetched.

The same goes for any other purchase. If you'll eventually buy it, then holding out will not have any impact for that one day, or even a week. How many people want to go without gasoline powered transportation for a month? If you live in a city like mine, it'd be impossible.

 

[Steve R.]

This country runs off buying.

Correct. In fact some economists are even acknowledging that our economic recovery is stagnating because people are not buying. Giving business the so-called stimulus money is a wasted effort, as are tax credits, since many businesses have minimal interest in expanding production do to the lack of buying.

The consumers have a lot more control than they realize.

While conceptually true, the reality is that the consumer has virtually no power since there is no "unifying voice". Not only that, but consumer protection in the US seems to have become a toothless tiger.

Just to keep this interesting, I will even hypothesize that the current Obama administrations efforts to manage the US economy through stimulus packages and tax incentives is equivalent to the planned economy of the old USSR. I bet there are some old Russians having a last laugh over our current economic situation and the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Vassago]

Bush started the stimulus packages and the bank/auto relief efforts. I love how everyone blames the Obama administration.

 

[Steve R.]

Bush started the stimulus packages and the bank/auto relief efforts.

Valid point, it just that Bush Jr. -the wannabe- is so so forgettable. Actually, I would like to nominate Regan (actually Nancy, our first female President) as the "first" for implementing "Voodoo Economics" aptly popularized by Bush Senior.

 

[Vassago]

Let us not also forget that Clinton took away the tax cuts to control the deficit and balance the books while he was in office, much to unpopular opinion, yet the economy was flourishing at the end of his stay in office and national debt was, all things considered, low. If a good plan was made on where the money would go, I would not be opposed to the end of stimulus packages. I'm just afraid this two party system we have today is too split. The extremists on both ends are doing more damage to this country than good. They would rather attack each other than propose a compromise with each other. I urge everyone to vote outside the GOP and Liberal ideas in upcoming elections. Other parties pop up all the time, that are not controlled by corporations. At the very least, go independent.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have been in the midst of a big project so missed out on the start of this one.

A question was asked in passing about shipping jobs overseas. The reason comes in two parts (a) technology and (b) globalization of trade.

Jobs go overseas when their industry brushes up against an industry in another country where the cost of living is cheaper by enough to offset the cost of doing business remotely. Let's focus on Help Desks. The odds are that if you call AT&T or HP, you will not get a USA representative because phone calls and network links cost less than the difference in salaries of US workers vs. foreign workers. It will stay like that for a long time until the playing field levels.

One of my cousins used to work for U.S. Steel in the Birmingham Alabama area. He lost his job because it was cheaper to send scrap metal to Japan and have it recycled there and then shipped back into the USA than it was to just process it in the USA. That is because they had the technology of recycling and shipping and the cheap labor that is most often the biggest cost driver in any complex product or service.

Using incentives and tax breaks etc. does no good because if you tried it, you would probably be hit with penalties by the World Trade Organization. That would be a form of protectionism.

Another comment about government and 2 parties or 5 ... as a matter of fact, the whole structure of the US Government originally was designed to force compromises on the theory that the haggling and squabbling were good. It prevented rash action. Where that fell down is that eventually folks learned how to "play" the system. The number of parties isn't the problem. The coalitions they form isn't the problem. The problem is that circumstances now can arise where the checks and balances can be bypassed when the House, Senate, and White House are in the same party. If you really wanted to do some good for federal legislation, pass term-limits bills for the US House and Senate. Give them 12 years and kick them out on their kiesters. That would break up the power concentration held by folks like the late Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia or the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.