PDA

View Full Version : Economics The Republican "budget". What a laffer.


BigRedChief
03-26-2009, 11:16 PM
They just fell into Obamas trap. What a crock of crap. Here it is:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final

Cut taxes by 50% for the wealthiest americans? Thats the best you can do? The nerve of this party. Tax cuts for the rich to save the economy.

The budget is the lamest attempt at propaganda since the AIG name change. LMAO It's not a budget, budgets have #'s assigned to departments and spending plans there are no deficit #'s. No spending #'s on this project or that project. No details on how you will pay for it.

They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something other than an outline of how you are different from the democrats.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 11:20 PM
Yeah, they stepped right into the bear trap. jAZ and I were talking about this in the other thread.

I think the best approach is simply throwing stones and never puting forth a plan of your own. You remain CONSTANTLY on the offensive and all the other side CAN do is be forced to defend itself. Worked with the Pugs in 1994, worked for the Dems in 2006.

On message alone, Obama is killing this.

Let alone the fact that this budget is a nonsensical failure, makes it all the grander.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 11:25 PM
It looks like their proposal, basically an introduction that explains it.

Instead of raising taxes on all Americans in the midst of a recession,
Republicans seek to reduce the tax burden on working families and small
businesses, in order to create jobs and unlock private capital.

You can always count on the Republicans to help the working families of the country.

Direckshun
03-26-2009, 11:38 PM
I do like how they are starting to co-opt Democratic language, though.

Instead of private health insurance, they're starting to tout "Universal Access To Affordable Insurance."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..................

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 11:58 PM
I do like how they are starting to co-opt Democratic language, though.

Instead of private health insurance, they're starting to tout "Universal Access To Affordable Insurance."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..................

Are you really this dense? WHO has EVER oppossed "affordable" insurance?

Both sides have argued that for 20 plus years, dipshit. :rolleyes:

Taco John
03-27-2009, 12:11 AM
They're idiots.

At least if they had gone with Ron Paul's plan, there'd be a debate on the table.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 12:35 AM
Are you really this dense? WHO has EVER oppossed "affordable" insurance?

Both sides have argued that for 20 plus years, dipshit. :rolleyes:

Swing and a miss.

My point wasn't to oppose them on the issue.

My point is that they are beginning to co-opt Democratic language.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 06:26 AM
Yeah, they stepped right into the bear trap. jAZ and I were talking about this in the other thread.

I think the best approach is simply throwing stones and never puting forth a plan of your own. You remain CONSTANTLY on the offensive and all the other side CAN do is be forced to defend itself. Worked with the Pugs in 1994, worked for the Dems in 2006.

Just like the Democrats did on the war in Iraq. Yet, you actually think there's a difference.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 06:31 AM
It looks like their proposal, basically an introduction that explains it.



You can always count on the Republicans to help the working families of the country.

Reducing the tax burden is a workable plan provided there are spending cuts. One, because it's common sense to leave all the people with more of their own money in their pockets. Not to mention it being more moral and in line with your Ten Commandments. Liking coveting others money and stealing from others.

The problem is that there is too much govt, expanding the state even more will depress the country more. Take your pick Jenson, the morality of liberty and stronger growth long term or a 15 year depression. Suppression is still suppression.


Combine this with the mandatory community service for youth that passed in the House and will pass in the Senate and we have 1930's Germany. Yeah! Let's keep expanding the state with collectivism through the back door.

This administration is going Allende. Promising us better than Bush but expanding on him.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 06:44 AM
It looks like there are some pretty good ideas in there to me.

LOL @ they fell into Obama's trap. Love is blind.

***SPRAYER
03-27-2009, 06:47 AM
Swing and a miss.

My point wasn't to oppose them on the issue.

My point is that they are beginning to co-opt Democratic language.

Your point is that you actually think republicans suck and democrats are wonderful, when in reality they both suck. And suck bad.

But since this will never get through to people like you, nothing is going to change and we will inevitably have a military dictatorship to restore order after the who shebang goes up in flames.

BigRedChief
03-27-2009, 07:16 AM
It looks like there are some pretty good ideas in there to me.

LOL @ they fell into Obama's trap. Love is blind.
Yeah, tax cuts for the wealthy in a recession. Everyone get on board!:clap:

Plus its a position paper not a budget. Wait till next wednesday when they have to actually say what they will cut and what their deficit will be.

Obama is going to own the Republicans on this. Wanna bet some hard cash on it?

stevieray
03-27-2009, 07:26 AM
Obama is going to own the Republicans on this. Wanna bet some hard cash on it?

My Dad can beat up your Dad.

:rolleyes:

KILLER_CLOWN
03-27-2009, 07:29 AM
Just like the Democrats did on the war in Iraq. Yet, you actually think there's a difference.

Yup, but you have to understand there are people who follow the party line no matter what.

mlyonsd
03-27-2009, 07:59 AM
Yeah, tax cuts for the wealthy in a recession. Everyone get on board!:clap:



As opposed to raising taxes on every American like Obama wants to do during a recession? WTF, you think that's a good idea?

patteeu
03-27-2009, 08:27 AM
Yeah, tax cuts for the wealthy in a recession. Everyone get on board!:clap:

Plus its a position paper not a budget. Wait till next wednesday when they have to actually say what they will cut and what their deficit will be.

Obama is going to own the Republicans on this. Wanna bet some hard cash on it?

How will Obama own the Republicans? If you mean that Obama is going to get the budget he wants for the most part and the Republicans aren't going to get the one they want, I agree. Is that really a surprise?

What an amazing trap!

mlyonsd
03-27-2009, 08:34 AM
How will Obama own the Republicans? If you mean that Obama is going to get the budget he wants for the most part and the Republicans aren't going to get the one they want, I agree. Is that really a surprise?

What an amazing trap!

One more thing Obama is going to own.....the budget deficit for the next 10 years.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 08:48 AM
One more thing Obama is going to own.....the budget deficit for the next 10 years.

Good point.

BigRedChief
03-27-2009, 08:49 AM
How will Obama own the Republicans? If you mean that Obama is going to get the budget he wants for the most part and the Republicans aren't going to get the one they want, I agree. Is that really a surprise?

What an amazing trap!
You Republicans need some new ideas and fresh blood or your place in the political wilderness will be permanent. Tax cuts for the wealthy...geeezzz :doh!:

patteeu
03-27-2009, 09:05 AM
You Republicans need some new ideas and fresh blood or your place in the political wilderness will be permanent. Tax cuts for the wealthy...geeezzz :doh!:

Tax cuts for tax payers. As opposed to Obama's ridiculous plan to describe handouts to non-taxpayers as tax cuts.

I hope Obama comes up with some new ideas soon or we all might end up in the wilderness permanently. Obama's incompetency is enough to make a guy nostalgic for the Carter administration.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 09:05 AM
You Republicans need some new ideas and fresh blood or your place in the political wilderness will be permanent. Tax cuts for the wealthy...geeezzz :doh!:

Both parties need new ideas. Both parties are just recycling old ideas in various types of big govt or statism. Whether it be a mix of fascism/socialism/ mercantilist or not. They just vary the ratios. Neither are for limited govt which provides liberty to the people. It's all about who has who's hand in who's pockets. Meanwhile, the people get shafted. The "people" includes all of us: woikers, businessmen, houswives and children. Wake up and smell the coffee!

banyon
03-27-2009, 09:10 AM
Both parties need new ideas. Both parties are just recycling old ideas in various types of big govt or statism. Whether it be a mix of fascism/socialism/ mercantilist or not. They just vary the ratios. Neither are for limited govt which provides liberty to the people. It's all about who has who's hand in who's pockets. Meanwhile, the people get shafted. The "people" includes all of us: woikers, businessmen, houswives and children. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Yeah, we need to hurry up and turn to the solution of doing nothing!

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 09:39 AM
Tax cuts for tax payers. As opposed to Obama's ridiculous plan to describe handouts to non-taxpayers as tax cuts.

You don't have any problem with mlyonsd describing his policies as a "tax hike on 100% of all Americans," so I don't really know how much leverage you have when it comes to who's committing language abuse.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 09:54 AM
You don't have any problem with mlyonsd describing his policies as a "tax hike on 100% of all Americans," so I don't really know how much leverage you have when it comes to who's committing language abuse.

How about this to clarify the situation? Obama has proposed fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax to begin with while simultaneously proposing hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

banyon
03-27-2009, 09:55 AM
How about this to clarify the situation? Obama has proposed fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax but pay other taxes to begin with while simultaneously proposing hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

FYP.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 10:05 AM
How about this to clarify the situation? Obama has proposed fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax to begin with while simultaneously proposing hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

Are there significant, geniune tax cuts in Obama's tax plan?

Not payouts or fakes. Genine tax cuts.

Yes or no.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 10:16 AM
Are there significant, geniune tax cuts in Obama's tax plan?

Not payouts or fakes. Genine tax cuts.

Yes or no.

Yes, but a transvestite with a fabulous hairdo and an genuinely attractive, low-cut dress is still a guy with a dick.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 10:26 AM
Yes.

Then what are you complaining about?

patteeu
03-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Then what are you complaining about?

:spock: Are you serious? I'm not as stupid as average guy you meet up with at your Obama rallies. Why would you think that the presence of a few ill-conceived, but genuine, tax cuts could make up for the lack of intelligent tax policy changes and for the abundance of other objectionable features of Obama's economic plans?

To answer your question directly, in this thread I'm complaining about:
fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax, and
hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 10:45 AM
fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax, and
hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

Whatev, partna.

Your two points illustrate your perspective a little too well.

You're massively upset that we may be mislabeling handouts as "tax cuts."

And unless pressed by folks like myself in this thread, you have zero problem with others mislabeling Obama's energy proposals as "tax hikes for 100% of the country."

Your concern in this thread isn't substantial as much as it is cosmetic.

King_Chief_Fan
03-27-2009, 11:05 AM
You Republicans need some new ideas and fresh blood or your place in the political wilderness will be permanent. Tax cuts for the wealthy...geeezzz :doh!:



New ideas like the ones Obama spews?......................
Can you say 'Marxism or socialism'? Obama and his cronies are not trying very hard to hide their agenda. Those scumbags want to take from people who have climbed the financial ladder through hard work and self-sacrifice to achieve financial stability and give it to those who would prefer to 'work' the system by contriving 'accidental fall' lawsuits, abusing the sick-leave policy by calling in sick to drink beer from a 24 oz. wrapped in a brown paper bag, or have illegitimate kids with no dad in sight(hey, can't get aid if the dad is in the picture), etc. There was an article in the business section of the newspaper that gave a new and very alarming statistic. The number of new mortgages that were in arrears after the first or second note being due had skyrocketed. Wonder why? Could it be that leeches had ascertained that they could acquire a mortage on a home that they couldn't afford, immediately not make a note payment, and then expect Obama to bail them out with mortgage guarantees? All of us who go to work on time, don't abuse the system will be paying through the nose to subsidize those who are shiftless. At some point in time, we'll get fed up and just lay on the government's leg until there is a total collapse. I suppose Obama will just print more money to cover the past bad debts. I think it's a safe bet to predict that Barak Obama will go down in history as THE worst president...EVER! Even worse than Jimmy Carter, and that's pretty damn low!

patteeu
03-27-2009, 11:07 AM
Whatev, partna.

Your two points illustrate your perspective a little too well.

You're massively upset that we may be mislabeling handouts as "tax cuts."

And unless pressed by folks like myself in this thread, you have zero problem with others mislabeling Obama's energy proposals as "tax hikes for 100% of the country."

Your concern in this thread isn't substantial as much as it is cosmetic.

The "tax hikes" label isn't a mislabel. Obama tries to hide his tax hikes and his handouts by calling them energy plans and tax cuts whenever possible. Of course, he gets a political benefit from calling tax hikes on high income earners tax hikes so he doesn't bother hiding those.

banyon
03-27-2009, 11:13 AM
New ideas like the ones Obama spews?......................
Can you say 'Marxism or socialism'? Obama and his cronies are not trying very hard to hide their agenda. Those scumbags want to take from people who have climbed the financial ladder through hard work and self-sacrifice to achieve financial stability and give it to those who would prefer to 'work' the system by contriving 'accidental fall' lawsuits, abusing the sick-leave policy by calling in sick to drink beer from a 24 oz. wrapped in a brown paper bag, or have illegitimate kids with no dad in sight(hey, can't get aid if the dad is in the picture), etc. There was an article in the business section of the newspaper that gave a new and very alarming statistic. The number of new mortgages that were in arrears after the first or second note being due had skyrocketed. Wonder why? Could it be that leeches had ascertained that they could acquire a mortage on a home that they couldn't afford, immediately not make a note payment, and then expect Obama to bail them out with mortgage guarantees? All of us who go to work on time, don't abuse the system will be paying through the nose to subsidize those who are shiftless. At some point in time, we'll get fed up and just lay on the government's leg until there is a total collapse. I suppose Obama will just print more money to cover the past bad debts. I think it's a safe bet to predict that Barak Obama will go down in history as THE worst president...EVER! Even worse than Jimmy Carter, and that's pretty damn low!

Yeah, it's all a scheme to steal your money and give it to black hobos! :rolleyes:

I found you a candidate you can get behind.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KIyewCdXMzk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KIyewCdXMzk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dick Bull
03-27-2009, 11:15 AM
New ideas like the ones Obama spews?......................
Can you say 'Marxism or socialism'? Obama and his cronies are not trying very hard to hide their agenda. Those scumbags want to take from people who have climbed the financial ladder through hard work and self-sacrifice to achieve financial stability and give it to those who would prefer to 'work' the system by contriving 'accidental fall' lawsuits, abusing the sick-leave policy by calling in sick to drink beer from a 24 oz. wrapped in a brown paper bag, or have illegitimate kids with no dad in sight(hey, can't get aid if the dad is in the picture), etc. There was an article in the business section of the newspaper that gave a new and very alarming statistic. The number of new mortgages that were in arrears after the first or second note being due had skyrocketed. Wonder why? Could it be that leeches had ascertained that they could acquire a mortage on a home that they couldn't afford, immediately not make a note payment, and then expect Obama to bail them out with mortgage guarantees? All of us who go to work on time, don't abuse the system will be paying through the nose to subsidize those who are shiftless. At some point in time, we'll get fed up and just lay on the government's leg until there is a total collapse. I suppose Obama will just print more money to cover the past bad debts. I think it's a safe bet to predict that Barak Obama will go down in history as THE worst president...EVER! Even worse than Jimmy Carter, and that's pretty damn low!

There is no need to say marxism or socialism it's been the sounding board for the right wing since before the election started. The irony is he isn't hiding his agenda, he's doing what he said he would do which got him elected in the first place. I would venture to say that new mortgages were in arrears due to people being able to get a mortgage and real estate prices dropped. You still have to have decent credit to buy a home, so perhaps they weren't as irresponsible as you claim. Maybe some didn't figure the unemployment rate to climb? Who know? It's silly just to create something out of thin air for nothing more than the purpose of providing evidence to support your claim.


Furthermore, the notion that the people who disagree with what obama is doing are the only ones working hard and paying taxes is quite wrong.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 11:18 AM
The "tax hikes" label isn't a mislabel. Obama tries to hide his tax hikes and his handouts by calling them energy plans and tax cuts whenever possible. Of course, he gets a political benefit from calling tax hikes on high income earners tax hikes so he doesn't bother hiding those.

Ooooooooookay. We'll go through this again.

You complain that Obama's tax cuts are actually handouts. (Even though you've agreed that despite these handouts, there are still significant, genuine tax cuts.) You're just upset that the so-called handouts are being mislabeled as "tax cuts" for a rhetorical advantage.

But when someone on your side of the aisle starts spouting off mislabels like calling Obama's energy plan a "tax hike on 100% of Americans," you have no outward problem with this mangling because, well... it's a rhetorical advantage.

I find it hard to argue with the fact that Obama's energy plan will cost more, and may likely end up punching up energy prices for everyone in the near-to-intermediate term.

But that is significantly different than a genuine "tax hike," which Obama is only performing on a small percentage of wealthy Americans, not 100% of Americans. Just like a bald hand-out to someone who doesn't pay taxes is not in the same league as a genuine "tax cut."

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

KC Dan
03-27-2009, 11:21 AM
I find it hard to argue with the fact that Obama's energy plan will cost more, and may likely end up punching up energy prices for everyone in the near-to-intermediate term.

But that is significantly different than a genuine "tax hike,"
Yes, but it has the same net effect of taking money out of consumers pocket.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 11:29 AM
Yes, but it has the same net effect of taking money out of consumers pocket.

Right, just like tax cuts and handouts have the same net effect of putting money INTO consumers pockets.

So you can't blow your Rhetoric Whistle on one without holding the other to the same standard, as pat is trying to do.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 11:37 AM
Ooooooooookay. We'll go through this again.

You complain that Obama's tax cuts are actually handouts. (Even though you've agreed that despite these handouts, there are still significant, genuine tax cuts.) You're just upset that the so-called handouts are being mislabeled as "tax cuts" for a rhetorical advantage.

I don't like his tax cuts and I like his handouts mislabeled as tax cuts even less.

But when someone on your side of the aisle starts spouting off mislabels like calling Obama's energy plan a "tax hike on 100% of Americans," you have no outward problem with this mangling because, well... it's a rhetorical advantage.

It's not mislabeling when it accurately describes the essence of what's going on. Money siphoned out of an individual's pocket as a result of a government policy is a tax whether it's a direct tax or an indirect tax. Money added to an individual's pocket from the government treasury as a result of government policies is a handout whether it's done through a farming subsidy program, a foodstamp program or the tax code. In fact, I'd probably disagree with some of my fellow conservatives in that I'd call many so-called "targeted tax cuts" handouts. Tax credits for buying a hybrid? Handout. Tax cut for daycare or health insurance? Handout. Deductions for each dependent? Handout.

I find it hard to argue with the fact that Obama's energy plan will cost more, and may likely end up punching up energy prices for everyone in the near-to-intermediate term.

But that is significantly different than a genuine "tax hike," which Obama is only performing on a small percentage of wealthy Americans, not 100% of Americans. Just like a bald hand-out to someone who doesn't pay taxes is not in the same league as a genuine "tax cut."

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think we ought to all be in the business of stripping away the fake language of government on both sides of the ledger.

Obama is apparently only increasing income taxes on a small percentage of high earning Americans, but he's increasing taxes on all of us in hidden ways. Is it more important to you to defend Obama or to shine the light of truth on government policies whether their your guy's policies or someone else's?

patteeu
03-27-2009, 11:44 AM
Right, just like tax cuts and handouts have the same net effect of putting money INTO consumers pockets.

So you can't blow your Rhetoric Whistle on one without holding the other to the same standard, as pat is trying to do.

Not just like. If you don't owe tax to begin with, you can't have a tax cut. Let me know what you tell your employer if he ever tries to give you a 120% pay cut.

That particular problem isn't present when you accurately describe Obama's energy plan as a tax cut on everyone.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 11:46 AM
It's not mislabeling when it accurately describes the essence of what's going on. Money siphoned out of an individual's pocket as a result of a government policy is a tax whether it's a direct tax or an indirect tax. Money added to an individual's pocket from the government treasury as a result of government policies is a handout whether it's done through a farming subsidy program, a foodstamp program or the tax code.

"Accurately describes the essense."

Alright. If this is your standard you're clinging to:

Money being siphoned out of a person's pocket = tax hike.

Money being funneled into a person's pocket = tax cut.

Conversation over. Thanks for the clarification.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 11:47 AM
Not just like. If you don't owe tax to begin with, you can't have a tax cut. Let me know what you tell your employer if he ever tries to give you a 120% pay cut.

That particular problem isn't present when you accurately describe Obama's energy plan as a tax cut on everyone.

I'm just accurately describing the essence, pat.

KC Dan
03-27-2009, 11:52 AM
Right, just like tax cuts and handouts have the same net effect of putting money INTO consumers pockets.

So you can't blow your Rhetoric Whistle on one without holding the other to the same standard, as pat is trying to do.
You are correct

patteeu
03-27-2009, 11:54 AM
"Accurately describes the essense."

Alright. If this is your standard you're clinging to:

Money being siphoned out of a person's pocket = tax hike.

Money being funneled into a person's pocket = tax cut.

Conversation over. Thanks for the clarification.

Let me help you:

Money being siphoned out of a person's pocket = tax

More money being siphoned out of a person's pocket than before = tax hike

Less money being siphoned out of a person's pocket than before = tax cut

Money being funneled into a person's pocket = spending

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 11:58 AM
More money being siphoned out of a person's pocket than before = tax hike

Less money being siphoned out of a person's pocket than before = tax cut

Doesn't really change my point, but appreciated.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 12:08 PM
Doesn't really change my point, but appreciated.

The difference between your point and my point is that you choose definitions that amount to pro-government propaganda and I don't.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 12:09 PM
The difference between your point and my point is that you choose definitions that amount to pro-government propaganda and I don't.

Yours adhere far more closely to conservative propaghanda.

chiefzilla1501
03-27-2009, 12:35 PM
Let me sound off. I'm a moderate and want to see Obama succeed. What really bothers me is that he preached change, but we are seeing nothing new. It's the same old shit wrapped up in a nice suit and a younger body.

Here's the deal... I like a lot of what Obama's doing. I like how he's stressing a focus on innovation and I agree with his decision to get toxic assets off the books. What I hate is that I believe he's getting the same free pass to do whatever the hell he wants that Bush was granted after 9/11. Over time, Bush was granted almost limitless power backed by a Republican Congress. History has shown time and time and time and time again that partisan politics sucks. The best political eras of recent times have come when a President is challenged by a powerful opposition party. Clinton was a complete disaster until we elected a Republican Congress that forced him to become more centrist. When you don't have that balance of power, it's up to the President to proactively reach across the aisle. I sensed that Obama would do that. He has clearly not. He is pushing not just big government, but ginormous government. He is talking about a treasury secretary with enormous control to run our businesses, and almost unchecked power to bail out whomever he wants and to give the finger to whomever he wants. That much power to a select few people is unbelievably dangerous.

The answer is in-between. No doubt Obama needs to push strong reform and he needs to choose battles that he unflinchingly supports--if he's not strong on some issues, he will not get the immediate action he needs. But he has to show some effort to reach across the aisle. He has shown absolutely none and is using anti-Bush hatred as a means to push his radical socialist agenda. Here's a perfect case-in-point... Obama's plan is not bulletproof. Under his watch, AIG has already been a monumental, multi-billion dollar ****-up so far. Rather than use that as reason to be more careful, all they have done is fix the AIG error and plow forward with similar agendas that will probably make similar mistakes. We can't afford another AIG bailout screw-up.

Look, the US obviously needs radical steps and government will need to be more proactive than usual to get there. But many historians would argue that many of FDR's policies during the new deal created bigger government where it didn't need to be implemented--most people believe that the markets would have eventually corrected themselves and could have gotten out of the Great Depression with a fraction of the big government programs put in place that would later handcuff our economy. I just hope he takes a step back and reaches more toward the middle. Big government is more necessary than usual, but we can get out of this recession without taking it to the extreme.

jAZ
03-27-2009, 12:37 PM
What really bothers me is that he preached change, but we are seeing nothing new. It's the same old shit wrapped up in a nice suit and a younger body.

You can't possibly be paying attention.

chiefzilla1501
03-27-2009, 12:56 PM
They just fell into Obamas trap. What a crock of crap. Here it is:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final

Cut taxes by 50% for the wealthiest americans? Thats the best you can do? The nerve of this party. Tax cuts for the rich to save the economy.

The budget is the lamest attempt at propaganda since the AIG name change. LMAO It's not a budget, budgets have #'s assigned to departments and spending plans there are no deficit #'s. No spending #'s on this project or that project. No details on how you will pay for it.

They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something other than an outline of how you are different from the democrats.

I think you are misquoting on the top part. I hate tax cuts in general, but I think there has been a negative stigma on "tax cuts for the wealthy." It's not just about taxing incomes, it's also about taxing investments. Taxing an investor more money on long-term capital gains is ludicrous. In this economy, we should be encouraging long-term investment, not discouraging it. We want investors to put money into the market and keep it there.

The other thing to realize is that if Obama is talking about $3.6 Trillion in budgetary spending, do any of us truly believe that he can cut the budget at the same time? I don't. I think we'll fall short of growth projections and I think we'll find that we need to spend even more above the proposed budget and in the long-term, the middle class is going to foot the bill. Either that or we'll attempt to squeeze more out of the productive sector at the expense of jobs.

Obama's on the right track in terms of encouraging investors to again become confident in the market, but if he continues to squeeze those most likely to invest, then he discourages investment at the same time. Yet another example of where conservative policy and liberal policy need to reach toward the middle instead of bullheadedly pushing their own agendas.

chiefzilla1501
03-27-2009, 01:04 PM
You can't possibly be paying attention.

Change was supposed to mean a President who was willing to reach across the aisle and push for a more centrist policy, which I believe is the reason Clinton was such a big success. While Obama's done a real good job on some issues, he is bullheadedly committed to a radically leftist proposal and as a moderate, I am not cool with that. And both republicans and conservative democrats are extremely concerned too.

I HAVE been paying attention. The problem is that the media and public are willing to forgive and forget. That was the mistake we made during the early years of the Bush administration too. We need to trust our President, but we can't pretend that his policy isn't extremely socialistic and we can't pretend that the AIG bailout has been anything short of a falling house of dominoes.

BigRedChief
03-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Change was supposed to mean a President who was willing to reach across the aisle and push for a more centrist policy, which I believe is the reason Clinton was such a big success.
uhhh with the stimulus package they gave the Republicans a lot of things they wanted in the bill but still didn't vote for it. The President went to the Republicans on capital hill. He has Republicans in his cabinet. It is the Republicans that are not being centrist and willing to compromise. Thats just not my opinion but most poll show Americans blaming Republicans at a 2 to 1 rate over dems. This is not tax and spend liberalism of old. We don't need tax cuts for the rich to get us out of this economic ditch. Those are the same policies that put us in that ditch in the first place.

KC Dan
03-27-2009, 01:52 PM
uhhh with the stimulus package they gave the Republicans a lot of things they wanted in the bill but still didn't vote for it. The President went to the Republicans on capital hill. He has Republicans in his cabinet. It is the Republicans that are not being centrist and willing to compromise. Thats just not my opinion but most poll show Americans blaming Republicans at a 2 to 1 rate over dems. This is not tax and spend liberalism of old. We don't need tax cuts for the rich to get us out of this economic ditch. Those are the same policies that put us in that ditch in the first place.
Agreed, this is SPEND, SPEND, and SPEND some more. When our politicians on both sides of the aisle decide to get spending under control, we will make the headway & investments that this economy and country need.

patteeu
03-27-2009, 02:51 PM
uhhh with the stimulus package they gave the Republicans a lot of things they wanted in the bill but still didn't vote for it. The President went to the Republicans on capital hill. He has Republicans in his cabinet. It is the Republicans that are not being centrist and willing to compromise. Thats just not my opinion but most poll show Americans blaming Republicans at a 2 to 1 rate over dems. This is not tax and spend liberalism of old. We don't need tax cuts for the rich to get us out of this economic ditch. Those are the same policies that put us in that ditch in the first place.

You're crazy with Obama love. This is worse than tax and spend liberalism of old.

Chief Henry
03-27-2009, 02:57 PM
How about this to clarify the situation? Obama has proposed fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax to begin with while simultaneously proposing hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.


No one would be that stupid to fall for that....would they ?

Chief Henry
03-27-2009, 02:59 PM
Furthermore, the notion that the people who disagree with what obama is doing are the only ones working hard and paying taxes is quite wrong.

Reminds me of this one...

Did you know that Obama wants to tax aspirin at 40% ?

Its white and it works :D

banyon
03-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Reminds me of this one...

Did you know that Obama wants to tax aspirn at 40% ?

Its white and it works :D

Wow, that must've been a knee slapper at the knuckle dragger convention.

:shake:

Chief Henry
03-27-2009, 03:16 PM
Wow, that must've been a knee slapper at the knuckle dragger convention.

:shake:

I did get the spelling correct the 2nd time :)

But the joke was funny...NO ?

ChiefaRoo
03-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Yes, but a transvestite with a fabulous hairdo and an genuinely attractive, low-cut dress is still a guy with a dick.

LMAO Goddamm P!

Calcountry
03-27-2009, 03:30 PM
Yeah, they stepped right into the bear trap. jAZ and I were talking about this in the other thread.

I think the best approach is simply throwing stones and never puting forth a plan of your own. You remain CONSTANTLY on the offensive and all the other side CAN do is be forced to defend itself. Worked with the Pugs in 1994, worked for the Dems in 2006.

On message alone, Obama is killing this.

Let alone the fact that this budget is a nonsensical failure, makes it all the grander.Yeah, that strategy works great. Every time the body count goes up, you make a big deal about it, go to the well of the Senate and proclaim the "war is lost". Irrespective of whether or not it is good for the troops or the country, it is good strategy for your party.

So how are we unpatriotic because we "criticise this, or any administration"? His economics are Marxist. If you are for a Marxist country, then I fully understand the joy and the love you have for this guy.

If you don't know what Marxism is, let me clue you in, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he is black, or from Kenya, or Hawaii, or anything else. It is what he believes in, it is what he is about, and it is the change that he believes we need.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 04:52 PM
hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.[/list]

And the Newspeak to make them not sound like what they are: more confiscatory police powers for the back door socialism that we're getting.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 04:54 PM
Yours adhere far more closely to conservative propaghanda.

That stems more from what our country was founded on than your olde world authoritarian form of govt like we're serfs living on the land of the manor and need protection from making it in the world.

mlyonsd
03-27-2009, 07:24 PM
You don't have any problem with mlyonsd describing his policies as a "tax hike on 100% of all Americans," so I don't really know how much leverage you have when it comes to who's committing language abuse.

Is that directed at me or pat? Cause my statement is fact.

banyon
03-27-2009, 07:36 PM
That stems more from what our country was founded on than your olde world authoritarian form of govt like we're serfs living on the land of the manor and need protection from making it in the world.

People were never so serf-like in our country than when corporate wealth ruled the day with no rules like you prefer in the 19th century.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 10:24 PM
Is that directed at me or pat?

I'm quoting pat, I'm calling out pat, and I'm talking to pat.

The statement was directed at pat.

Direckshun
03-27-2009, 10:25 PM
Yeah, that strategy works great. Every time the body count goes up, you make a big deal about it, go to the well of the Senate and proclaim the "war is lost". Irrespective of whether or not it is good for the troops or the country, it is good strategy for your party.

So how are we unpatriotic because we "criticise this, or any administration"? His economics are Marxist. If you are for a Marxist country, then I fully understand the joy and the love you have for this guy.

If you don't know what Marxism is, let me clue you in, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he is black, or from Kenya, or Hawaii, or anything else. It is what he believes in, it is what he is about, and it is the change that he believes we need.

You are adorable.

chiefzilla1501
03-27-2009, 11:10 PM
uhhh with the stimulus package they gave the Republicans a lot of things they wanted in the bill but still didn't vote for it. The President went to the Republicans on capital hill. He has Republicans in his cabinet. It is the Republicans that are not being centrist and willing to compromise. Thats just not my opinion but most poll show Americans blaming Republicans at a 2 to 1 rate over dems. This is not tax and spend liberalism of old. We don't need tax cuts for the rich to get us out of this economic ditch. Those are the same policies that put us in that ditch in the first place.

Of course they do. Because many Americans have no idea what the **** they're talking about. I am a W Bush hater. But it's irresponsible to pretend that the economy is in the tank because of tax cuts for the rich. The economy is in the tank because both parties, republican and democrat, fell asleep at the wheel as financial institutions collapsed in front of their very eyes. The housing market collapsed because institutions were handing out subprime mortgages to homeowners who couldn't possibly keep up with the payments once they ballooned. The financial market busted because they recently learned how to dole out extremely risky credit default swaps, not realizing how risky they were.

Upper-class tax cuts didn't bust the housing and credit markets. Lack of regulation of financial institutions as they took on an insane amount of risk is the main reason the economy collapsed. And that is the fault of both parties. This is exactly what I'm talking about. We have to stop scapegoating. I agree that Republicans are more responsible for the mess, but not nearly to the extent that most of the public will have you believe. Most of this mess is the fault of both sides of the aisle. And it doesn't help to fix one problem by moving from one extreme to the next. And honestly, if we're talking about the automotive industry, one of the leading cause was not on "feeding the rich", but instead on the unions that were overpaying the working class, many of whom were getting paid to essentially do nothing. I believe it was calculated that the average American car costed an extra $2,000 to make than a foreign car, largely because of these employee entitlements.

And no, a small stimulus package that is largely based on liberal principles that republicans happen to agree with is NOT reaching across the aisle in lieu of his gargantuan economic proposal that is extremely liberal in theory.

patteeu
03-28-2009, 06:41 AM
I'm quoting pat, I'm calling out pat, and I'm talking to pat.

The statement was directed at pat.

In that case, my statement suggesting that mlyonsd's statement was fact, is fact.

RINGLEADER
03-28-2009, 09:12 AM
Obama seems to believe that lower taxes caused the current problem. He's said as much. He also seems to believe that higher taxes on the people that produce most of the wealth in this country won't have a contracting effect.

The Republicans can introduce any idea they want -- the fact is the Dems control everything and they'll finally get their chance to prove that the kinds of policies that Obama advocates can work. If they succeed it won't matter what the Republicans propose. If they fail the bigger contrast the Republicans offer up the better.

It's not about how their plan looks or sounds in March of 2009. It's what kind of contrast they provide for November 2010 and November 2012.

stevieray
03-28-2009, 09:14 AM
You are adorable.


know how I know you're gay?

banyon
03-28-2009, 10:39 AM
Obama seems to believe that lower taxes caused the current problem. He's said as much. He also seems to believe that higher taxes on the people that produce most of the wealth in this country won't have a contracting effect.

The Republicans can introduce any idea they want -- the fact is the Dems control everything and they'll finally get their chance to prove that the kinds of policies that Obama advocates can work. If they succeed it won't matter what the Republicans propose. If they fail the bigger contrast the Republicans offer up the better.

It's not about how their plan looks or sounds in March of 2009. It's what kind of contrast they provide for November 2010 and November 2012.

When did he "say as much"?

mlyonsd
03-28-2009, 11:24 AM
Now would be the time for Republicans to introduce permformance based pay for Congress.

It doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere but it would be fun to watch Pelosi and Reid stammer and stutter in front of the cameras on something new.

BigRedChief
03-28-2009, 12:25 PM
Now would be the time for Republicans to introduce permformance based pay for Congress.

It doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere but it would be fun to watch Pelosi and Reid stammer and stutter in front of the cameras on something new.
Stammer and stutter in front of cameras is a Republican thing. Until the party of no gets some new ideas the centrist and independants will want nothing to do with your party's agenda.

chiefzilla1501
03-28-2009, 12:55 PM
Obama seems to believe that lower taxes caused the current problem. He's said as much. He also seems to believe that higher taxes on the people that produce most of the wealth in this country won't have a contracting effect.

The Republicans can introduce any idea they want -- the fact is the Dems control everything and they'll finally get their chance to prove that the kinds of policies that Obama advocates can work. If they succeed it won't matter what the Republicans propose. If they fail the bigger contrast the Republicans offer up the better.

It's not about how their plan looks or sounds in March of 2009. It's what kind of contrast they provide for November 2010 and November 2012.

And that's exactly the problem. When things are bad to an extreme level, then the problems will usually correct themselves through free market forces. Most historians would argue that we could have gotten out of the Great Depression under Hoover without FDR's massive spending increases. In just the same way, is Bush to blame for the internet bubble burst? Or Clinton to credit for the internet boom? No. It's about being in the right place at the right time.

The problem is that people don't pay attention to what causes problems and what fixes them. They just assume that the person in office during the problem probably caused it and the person in office when the problem is resolved probably fixed it. Here's the deal: Obama can accelerate the rebuild through massive government spending that will drive up our deficit for 10 years, or he can wait a few years of economic turmoil and let the market correct itself. I'm not cool with either option. Again, it's a matter of meeting in the middle. He needs to accelerate the rebuild just enough that it doesn't lead to drastic debt in the long-term. And to do that, he needs to reach toward the middle.

KC native
03-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Most historians would argue that we could have gotten out of the Great Depression under Hoover without FDR's massive spending increases.

Really, how about you post work that supports that?

chiefzilla1501
03-28-2009, 01:24 PM
Stammer and stutter in front of cameras is a Republican thing. Until the party of no gets some new ideas the centrist and independants will want nothing to do with your party's agenda.

That's why politics are so stupid. This country always runs better when a President is opposed by a strong opposition party. It scares me that the Democrats have so much power and that the Republicans have virtually no say in the direction of this country. It rarely ever works out well when one party becomes too powerful in this modern generation.

chiefzilla1501
03-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Really, how about you post work that supports that?

You don't have to look far. But here's a really good piece from the Wall Street Journal written by two esteemed economists:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

Actually, a lot of people will suggest that FDR's policies actually led to further economic depression and that it was really WWII that got us out of the depression. Like Obama, FDR had a lot of really good ideas about regulation and stabilizing the financial system, and I'm glad Obama is focusing on that and in increasing confidence in our markets. But also like Obama, FDR's deal went too far and the main issue was that it created an artificial market where prices were high and wages were way too high and production was constrained, rather than letting free markets to their job.

A similar situation is unraveling here. Obama has a lot of really good ideas, but he has some bad ones too. And nobody is listening to what the opposition has to say and that's frustrating.

mlyonsd
03-28-2009, 02:14 PM
Stammer and stutter in front of cameras is a Republican thing. Until the party of no gets some new ideas the centrist and independants will want nothing to do with your party's agenda.

You keep talking without saying anything.

stevieray
03-28-2009, 03:12 PM
You keep talking without saying anything.

on the contrary I think it said quite a bit....that if we can keep discriminating and lableing, we'll keep sitting around pointing fingers claiming how glad we are that we aren't them, while everything crashes down around us.

KC native
03-28-2009, 05:40 PM
You don't have to look far. But here's a really good piece from the Wall Street Journal written by two esteemed economists:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

Actually, a lot of people will suggest that FDR's policies actually led to further economic depression and that it was really WWII that got us out of the depression. Like Obama, FDR had a lot of really good ideas about regulation and stabilizing the financial system, and I'm glad Obama is focusing on that and in increasing confidence in our markets. But also like Obama, FDR's deal went too far and the main issue was that it created an artificial market where prices were high and wages were way too high and production was constrained, rather than letting free markets to their job.

A similar situation is unraveling here. Obama has a lot of really good ideas, but he has some bad ones too. And nobody is listening to what the opposition has to say and that's frustrating.

...this is so easy to debunk. First off, they're comparing 1929 which was the peak of the boom. That's a perfect example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. Also, it's historically inaccurate because FDR didn't even come to office until 1933. So, unless you can prove that FDR invented a time machine and implemented his policies in 1929, his policies are in no way responsible for the decline from 29-32. I really like how they completely ignore Hoovers disasterous tariffs as well since those are widely credited as making the recession get worse.

banyon
03-28-2009, 05:43 PM
...this is so easy to debunk. First off, they're comparing 1929 which was the peak of the boom. That's a perfect example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. Also, it's historically inaccurate because FDR didn't even come to office until 1933. So, unless you can prove that FDR invented a time machine and implemented his policies in 1929, his policies are in no way responsible for the decline from 29-32. I really like how they completely ignore Hoovers disasterous tariffs as well since those are widely credited as making the recession get worse.

Ironically, 80 years from now after people forget, there will probably be some bushy tailed right winger trying to say that Obama's policies caused this recession.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2009, 05:46 PM
The problem is both parties. They're only about winning elections so they pander and posture. And I mean both parties. There are Rs up in Congress who are simply grandstanding for appearances. And this is the same way the Ds got back into power by playing on an unpopular war but doing nothing about it once they got more congressional power. Neither party has a leg to stand on anymore. There are pieces of each party that help but that's about it.

King_Chief_Fan
03-28-2009, 05:56 PM
There is no need to say marxism or socialism it's been the sounding board for the right wing since before the election started. The irony is he isn't hiding his agenda, he's doing what he said he would do which got him elected in the first place. I would venture to say that new mortgages were in arrears due to people being able to get a mortgage and real estate prices dropped. You still have to have decent credit to buy a home, so perhaps they weren't as irresponsible as you claim. Maybe some didn't figure the unemployment rate to climb? Who know? It's silly just to create something out of thin air for nothing more than the purpose of providing evidence to support your claim.


Furthermore, the notion that the people who disagree with what obama is doing are the only ones working hard and paying taxes is quite wrong.

what is your definition of socialism and marxism?

chiefzilla1501
03-29-2009, 08:40 AM
...this is so easy to debunk. First off, they're comparing 1929 which was the peak of the boom. That's a perfect example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. Also, it's historically inaccurate because FDR didn't even come to office until 1933. So, unless you can prove that FDR invented a time machine and implemented his policies in 1929, his policies are in no way responsible for the decline from 29-32. I really like how they completely ignore Hoovers disasterous tariffs as well since those are widely credited as making the recession get worse.

KC native, like I said, while the New Deal did some great things in regulating markets (i.e. creating the FDIC, SEC, and social security), it also violated basic principles of economics who, by the way, are largely liberal. The New Deal only created government jobs and a bunch of them came from WWII, which many credit as being the real reason the country got out of the depression. But what FDR did was essentially lousy for the business environment. I would argue that Detroit would be in a far better position today if FDR didn't empower unions to be as powerful as they are and today are creating an enormous cost on the Big Three. And ask any economist what they think of the high minimum wage he forced--it's noted to be a job destroyer, not a creator. FDR's policies essentially discouraged production and discouraged new job creation in the markets. What they did do is increase confidence in the markets and create regulation where there formally were none, but for actually getting the country out of the depression by creating jobs, that was largely due to WWII and free market forces.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2009, 08:43 AM
what is your definition of socialism and marxism?

Boiled down to a simplicity that has the essentials:

control of the major means of production, which is you and me as well as businesses ( that includes banks)

Just various ways to control can be used direct and indirect, wealth transfre in a welfare state and what kind of taxation is used for it etc. It's a control ideology.

banyon
03-29-2009, 09:52 AM
Boiled down to a simplicity that has the essentials:

control of the major means of production, which is you and me as well as businesses ( that includes banks)

Just various ways to control can be used direct and indirect, wealth transfre in a welfare state and what kind of taxation is used for it etc. It's a control ideology.

Leave it to you to create a definition so open ended and vague that it could describe any society with a government whatsoever.

KC native
03-29-2009, 11:21 AM
KC native, like I said, while the New Deal did some great things in regulating markets (i.e. creating the FDIC, SEC, and social security), it also violated basic principles of economics who, by the way, are largely liberal. The New Deal only created government jobs and a bunch of them came from WWII, which many credit as being the real reason the country got out of the depression. But what FDR did was essentially lousy for the business environment. I would argue that Detroit would be in a far better position today if FDR didn't empower unions to be as powerful as they are and today are creating an enormous cost on the Big Three. And ask any economist what they think of the high minimum wage he forced--it's noted to be a job destroyer, not a creator. FDR's policies essentially discouraged production and discouraged new job creation in the markets. What they did do is increase confidence in the markets and create regulation where there formally were none, but for actually getting the country out of the depression by creating jobs, that was largely due to WWII and free market forces.

No, you are wrong. You are taking a small minorities view and extrapolating it to a much larger audience about your views of the Great Depression.

Also, you're wrong on minimum wages. Card and Kreuger's work showed it's not a job destroyer. It may not be as much of a boon as some claim but it definitely isn't a job destroyer like you claim.

This is from wiki (and isn't very good because it's biased to the job destroyer side) but it highlights Card and Kreuger's study on minimum wage. Also, note that the criticisim is coming from failed economic schools of thought (ie the Chicago school).


Card and Krueger

In 1992, the minimum wage in New Jersey increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour (an 18.8% increase) while the adjacent state of Pennsylvania remained at $4.25. David Card and Alan Krueger gathered information on fast food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania in an attempt to see what effect this increase had on employment within New Jersey. Basic economic theory would have implied that relative employment should have decreased in New Jersey. Card and Krueger surveyed employers before the April 1992 New Jersey increase, and again in November-December 1992, asking managers for data on the full-time equivalent staff level of their restaurants both times.[46] Based on the employers' responses, the authors concluded that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment in the New Jersey restaurants.[47]

Card and Krueger expanded on this initial article in their 1995 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1). They argued the negative employment effects of minimum wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent. For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In addition to their own findings, they reanalyzed earlier studies with updated data, generally finding that the older results of a negative employment effect did not hold up in the larger datasets.

Critics, however, argue that their research was flawed.[48] Subsequent attempts to verify the claims requested payroll cards from employers to verify employment, and found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment. On the other hand, an assessment of data collected and analyzed by David Neumark and William Wascher did not initially contradict the Card/Krueger results,[49] but in a later edited version they found that the same general sample set did increase unemployment. The 18.8% wage hike resulted in "[statistically] insignificant—although almost always negative" employment effects.[50]

Another possible explanation for why the current minimum wage laws may not affect unemployment in the United States is that the minimum wage is set close to the equilibrium point for low and unskilled workers. Thus in the absence of the minimum wage law unskilled workers would be paid approximately the same amount. However, an increase above this equilibrium point could likely bring about increased unemployment for the low and unskilled workers.[citation needed]

[edit] Reaction to Card and Krueger

Some leading economists such as Greg Mankiw do not accept the Card/Krueger results,[51] while others, like Nobel laureates Paul Krugman[52] and Joseph Stiglitz do accept them,[53][54] In 1995, the Republican Staff of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress published a study critical of Card and Krueger's work. They note that it conflicts with other studies done on minimum wage laws within the United States over the past 50 years.[55] According to the JEC analysis, minimum wage laws have been shown to cause large amounts of unemployment, especially among low-income, unskilled, black, and teenaged populations, as well as cause a host of other mal-effects, such as higher turnover, less training, and fewer fringe benefits.

According to economists Donald Deere (Texas A&M), Kevin Murphy (University of Chicago), and Finis Weltch (Texas A&M), Card and Krueger's conclusions are contradicted by "common sense and past research". They conclude that:[56]
“ Each of the four studies examines a different piece of the minimum wage/employment relationship. Three of them consider a single state, and two of them look at only a handful of firms in one industry. From these isolated findings Card and Krueger paint a big picture wherein increased minimum wages do not decrease, and may increase, employment. Our view is that there is something wrong with this picture. Artificial increases in the price of unskilled laborers inevitably lead to their reduced employment; the conventional wisdom remains intact. ”

Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan famously responded to the study in the Wall Street Journal:

...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.[57]

Alan Krueger responded in The Washington Post:[58]

More was at stake here than the minimum wage -- the methodology of public policy analysis was also at issue. Some economists, such as James Buchanan, have simply rejected the notion that their view of economic theory possibly could be proved wrong by data.

Paul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in.

patteeu
03-29-2009, 12:30 PM
No, you are wrong. You are taking a small minorities view and extrapolating it to a much larger audience about your views of the Great Depression.

Also, you're wrong on minimum wages. Card and Kreuger's work showed it's not a job destroyer. It may not be as much of a boon as some claim but it definitely isn't a job destroyer like you claim.

This is from wiki (and isn't very good because it's biased to the job destroyer side) but it highlights Card and Kreuger's study on minimum wage. Also, note that the criticisim is coming from failed economic schools of thought (ie the Chicago school).

It sounds to me like you've cherry-picked some minority views of your own here. Or alternatively that you've extrapolated from a narrowly defined study with serious limitations to an unsupported, more general conclusion.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2009, 01:01 PM
This is from wiki (and isn't very good because it's biased to the job destroyer side) but it highlights Card and Kreuger's study on minimum wage. Also, note that the criticisim is coming from failed economic schools of thought (ie the Chicago school).


LMAO at a Keynesian saying this. That study is also posted on a openly Communist site that I caught linked via the WalMart hate hoopla. The bibliography on it was out of Princeton and cited Krueger. These are the "experts" and schools of thought that led to our current crises and who want to do more of the same. It's our leading elite schools that are leading us into these messes. They're all taught Keynesianism. That's the failed economic school of thought. Even Adam Smith had numerous studies and observations about how businesses operated without govt intervention in his time, something many were aware of. Except someone like Hamilton.


Haven't you ever heard of the: seen versus the unseen. It's very valid!

It goes like this: an employer can add a job for someone to sweep the floor which doesn't take much skill. But a HS student might like that job after school. Now if a min wage is moved to $8 or $10 per hour, when the job is worth $5, he may just have someone already in the company take on another task instead of adding another employee. There's no statistic for that decision. It's not seen but is not an uncommon judgement. Seems to me that there's been complaining by employees having to take on extra work to save hiring more employees. How do you measure tha? The only way would be to survey all businesses and ask what some of their judgements and decisions were. You can't measure something by if it happened when it didn't happen. Common sense, please.

Besides that the minimum wage is so low hardly anyone pays it. Babysitters get $8 an hour here.

You currency debauchers are wrong. Not to mention that it violates freedom of contract something our SC always upheld until the FDR era.

KC native
03-29-2009, 01:10 PM
It sounds to me like you've cherry-picked some minority views of your own here. Or alternatively that you've extrapolated from a narrowly defined study with serious limitations to an unsupported, more general conclusion.

Feel free to cite any specifics that you disagree with. I'm done doing homework for you patty. I've noticed how you tend to stay away from any of my posts that have real numbers and are based in the real world.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2009, 01:13 PM
LMAO

KC native
03-29-2009, 01:18 PM
LMAO at a Keynesian saying this. That study is also posted on a openly Communist site that I caught linked via the WalMart hate hoopla. The bibliography on it was out of Princeton and cited Krueger. These are the "experts" and schools of thought that led to our current crises and who want to do more of the same. It's our leading elite schools that are leading us into these messes. They're all taught Keynesianism. That's the failed economic school of thought. Even Adam Smith had numerous studies and observations about how businesses operated without govt intervention in his time, something many were aware of. Except someone like Hamilton.


Haven't you ever heard of the: seen versus the unseen. It's very valid!

It goes like this: an employer can add a job for someone to sweep the floor which doesn't take much skill. But a HS student might like that job after school. Now if a min wage is moved to $8 or $10 per hour, when the job is worth $5, he may just have someone already in the company take on another task instead of adding another employee. There's no statistic for that decision. It's not seen but is not an uncommon judgement. Seems to me that there's been complaining by employees having to take on extra work to save hiring more employees. How do you measure tha? The only way would be to survey all businesses and ask what some of their judgements and decisions were. You can't measure something by if it happened when it didn't happen. Common sense, please.

Besides that the minimum wage is so low hardly anyone pays it. Babysitters get $8 an hour here.

You currency debauchers are wrong. Not to mention that it violates freedom of contract something our SC always upheld until the FDR era.

Who gives a shit as to where it's posted? It's a peer reviewed academic piece.

Seen vs Unseen? You say it's valid but impossible to measure? Awesome. Simply awesome. Is this how you prove the gold supply is elastic? ROFL

You really like to talk out of your ass when it comes to economics. The Chicago School isn't Keynesian nor is supply side (despite how it's been implemented).

I also really like how you mischaracterize Keynes views on inflation and debauching currency. Keynes was an advocate of using government spending to smooth out recessions not stop them. He was not an advocate of using government spending while an economy is growing. He said that it's easy for government officials to abuse his theories so great care must be taken when they are implemented (I guess you would have to actually read his work to know that though).

BucEyedPea
03-29-2009, 01:25 PM
LMAO

I thot I heard a puddy noise!

banyon
03-29-2009, 01:35 PM
LMAO

I thot I heard a puddy noise!

Yeah, how dare he provide information contrary to your worldview or challenge your specious claims! :rolleyes:

chiefzilla1501
03-29-2009, 01:49 PM
Feel free to cite any specifics that you disagree with. I'm done doing homework for you patty. I've noticed how you tend to stay away from any of my posts that have real numbers and are based in the real world.

Well, KC native, I think like many things, it's hard to pin down a "right" or "wrong" answer. There are many economists that agree that minimum wage as a whole is a bad thing. The oversimplified answer is here: http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Wage_labour.svg/380px-Wage_labour.svg.png
But it illustrates the point that the minimum wage and especially wage-fixing by Unions disrupts the fundamentals of supply and demand. The free market believes more in a wage auction system, which arguably is more appropriate for job creation. So if Company A offers you $30,000 and you think that's unjust, then look for Company B or Company C to pay you more. If they won't pay you more, then you probably aren't worth more than that. That's a flawed system, but there's a lot of sense in it too.

Let's look a little more illustratively at what that means. If you are a company that has $100,000 to invest in workers, let's assume that this entitled you to 200 workers each getting paid $50,000 each. Let's say, for exaggerated purposes, that you raise the minimum wage to $100,000 per worker. Suddenly, you can only pay 100 workers to do the same exact work (cut that in half). In many cases, unions protect those jobs. And now, a company like GM has to pay that same $100,000 plus an additional $100,000 to workers who should have been fired, a good chunk of which goes to crappy workers who do lousy work because they know they can't get fired, and that $100,000 that could have either been returned to shareholders or been invested in future projects (for example, GM could have instead invested that $100,000 on helping to build new plants or investing in innovative cars (i.e. hybrids).

And so, when you look at the Big Three, it is costing them roughly $2,000 PER CAR to produce the same car as a foreign automaker. A lot of that is because they are forced to overpay their workers. A lot of that is because the money used to overpay for workers was NOT spent on investing in innovation in the auto industry. And a lot of that is because they are entitling crappy workers to jobs that they can't be fired from. And a lot of this stems from the empowerment provided to Unions during the depression as well as creating wage floors for workers.

Pres. Clinton did a tremendous job in opening America up to the global economy, which I thought was a brilliant move. But how can America compete in a global economy where other countries are producing the same goods for far cheaper? And we wonder why so many of our jobs are being shipped overseas.

patteeu
03-29-2009, 03:17 PM
Feel free to cite any specifics that you disagree with. I'm done doing homework for you patty. I've noticed how you tend to stay away from any of my posts that have real numbers and are based in the real world.

I think that if you concentrate more on your own homework, I'll find less to criticize in your posts.

Your own source points out that there is significant criticism of Card and Krueger's work. Your uncritical acceptance of their work amounts to cherry picking.

Again, according to your own source, Card and Krueger evaluated a very limited data set surrounding a minimum wage increase in New Jersey in 1992. To extrapolate from that one specific instance and draw a more general conclusion that minimum wage laws are not job destroyers, even if you assume that their analysis is not flawed, is a leap of logic that can't be supported. Maybe they aren't job destroyers in the fast food industry but they are in other industries. Maybe they aren't job destroyers at the ~$5 lel but they would be at the $7 level. The best you can say is that Card and Krueger showed that under some circumstances, minimum wage increases create rather than destroy jobs and that's only if you assume that their analysis wasn't flawed to begin with as some have claimed.

KC native
03-29-2009, 03:51 PM
I think that if you concentrate more on your own homework, I'll find less to criticize in your posts.

Your own source points out that there is significant criticism of Card and Krueger's work. Your uncritical acceptance of their work amounts to cherry picking.

Again, according to your own source, Card and Krueger evaluated a very limited data set surrounding a minimum wage increase in New Jersey in 1992. To extrapolate from that one specific instance and draw a more general conclusion that minimum wage laws are not job destroyers, even if you assume that their analysis is not flawed, is a leap of logic that can't be supported. Maybe they aren't job destroyers in the fast food industry but they are in other industries. Maybe they aren't job destroyers at the ~$5 lel but they would be at the $7 level. The best you can say is that Card and Krueger showed that under some circumstances, minimum wage increases create rather than destroy jobs and that's only if you assume that their analysis wasn't flawed to begin with as some have claimed.

So you're going to ignore all the flaws with the other studies and the fact that I said, "It may not be the boon that some claim to be but it isn't the job destroyer that some claim."

So, how about you cite some specifics that you disagree with instead of reading the wiki (in which I stated was biased to the destroyer side)? I've read these studies as a student and there are short comings with all of them however for you or anyone else to claim that minimum wage is a job destroyer is wrong.

patteeu
03-29-2009, 04:11 PM
So you're going to ignore all the flaws with the other studies and the fact that I said, "It may not be the boon that some claim to be but it isn't the job destroyer that some claim."

So, how about you cite some specifics that you disagree with instead of reading the wiki (in which I stated was biased to the destroyer side)? I've read these studies as a student and there are short comings with all of them however for you or anyone else to claim that minimum wage is a job destroyer is wrong.

I'm not ignoring flaws, I criticized you for ignoring them. Chiefzilla1501 didn't make a general claim that minimum wage laws are always job destroyers, he criticized specific minimum wage laws established during the New Deal. Card and Kreuger's study didn't have anything to do with the impact of those minimum wage laws. I don't know whether chiefzilla1501's claim wrt the New Deal is right or wrong, I'm just saying that your attempt to refute it isn't on point.

KC native
03-29-2009, 04:13 PM
Well, KC native, I think like many things, it's hard to pin down a "right" or "wrong" answer. There are many economists that agree that minimum wage as a whole is a bad thing. The oversimplified answer is here: http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Wage_labour.svg/380px-Wage_labour.svg.png
But it illustrates the point that the minimum wage and especially wage-fixing by Unions disrupts the fundamentals of supply and demand. The free market believes more in a wage auction system, which arguably is more appropriate for job creation. So if Company A offers you $30,000 and you think that's unjust, then look for Company B or Company C to pay you more. If they won't pay you more, then you probably aren't worth more than that. That's a flawed system, but there's a lot of sense in it too.

So what's to prevent those employers to collude and agree not to pay any more than what they want to pay? Does that not throw off supply and demand? I see no problem giving workers the collective bargaining agreements that corporations enjoy. In theory a minimum wage isn't necessary however when you get to the real world and have to account for the fact that all actors in this equation aren't "rational" persons and greed it's readily apparent that something is needed to prevent exploitation.

Let's look a little more illustratively at what that means. If you are a company that has $100,000 to invest in workers, let's assume that this entitled you to 200 workers each getting paid $50,000 each. Let's say, for exaggerated purposes, that you raise the minimum wage to $100,000 per worker. Suddenly, you can only pay 100 workers to do the same exact work (cut that in half). In many cases, unions protect those jobs. And now, a company like GM has to pay that same $100,000 plus an additional $100,000 to workers who should have been fired, a good chunk of which goes to crappy workers who do lousy work because they know they can't get fired, and that $100,000 that could have either been returned to shareholders or been invested in future projects (for example, GM could have instead invested that $100,000 on helping to build new plants or investing in innovative cars (i.e. hybrids).

And so, when you look at the Big Three, it is costing them roughly $2,000 PER CAR to produce the same car as a foreign automaker. A lot of that is because they are forced to overpay their workers. A lot of that is because the money used to overpay for workers was NOT spent on investing in innovation in the auto industry. And a lot of that is because they are entitling crappy workers to jobs that they can't be fired from. And a lot of this stems from the empowerment provided to Unions during the depression as well as creating wage floors for workers.

Pres. Clinton did a tremendous job in opening America up to the global economy, which I thought was a brilliant move. But how can America compete in a global economy where other countries are producing the same goods for far cheaper? And we wonder why so many of our jobs are being shipped overseas.

Ok, this is where you go off the tracks. I really dislike hypotheticals like this because you can construct it to say what ever you want. The reason GM pays more to manufacture a car is primarily due to their obligations to provide retirees with health care for the rest of their life. When you look at the inflation in medical costs over the last 10-20 years you can see how that would throw planning for funding of those obligations off. The fact that GM produced crappy cars was not due to their obligations but the failure of management to produce a product that was durable and that people wanted. You can't fault assembly line workers for the failures of the managers and executives. Also, when you strip out the health care obligations (which the foreign auto makers don't have to worry about since they have socialized health care) then the pay of US autoworkers is very competitive with that of foreign companies.

Also, I'm not a globalization opponent however you have to be honest about it as well. The drive for globalization has been a race to the bottom for wages. It is not done on the basis of comparative advantage but rather a manufactured comparative advantage. This manufactured comparative advantage is driven by countries that will keep their currency artificially low (like china), allow their workers to be exploited from artificially low wages (again see china), and a general disdain for worker's rights (for the third time see china).

KC native
03-29-2009, 04:14 PM
I'm not ignoring flaws, I criticized you for ignoring them. Chiefzilla1501 didn't make a general claim that minimum wage laws are always job destroyers, he criticized specific minimum wage laws established during the New Deal. Card and Kreuger's study didn't have anything to do with the impact of those minimum wage laws. I don't know whether chiefzilla1501's claim wrt the New Deal is right or wrong, I'm just saying that your attempt to refute it isn't on point.

Ah, so again you ignore context when you are the biggest crybaby about context?

chiefzilla1501
03-29-2009, 09:26 PM
So what's to prevent those employers to collude and agree not to pay any more than what they want to pay? Does that not throw off supply and demand? I see no problem giving workers the collective bargaining agreements that corporations enjoy. In theory a minimum wage isn't necessary however when you get to the real world and have to account for the fact that all actors in this equation aren't "rational" persons and greed it's readily apparent that something is needed to prevent exploitation.



Ok, this is where you go off the tracks. I really dislike hypotheticals like this because you can construct it to say what ever you want. The reason GM pays more to manufacture a car is primarily due to their obligations to provide retirees with health care for the rest of their life. When you look at the inflation in medical costs over the last 10-20 years you can see how that would throw planning for funding of those obligations off. The fact that GM produced crappy cars was not due to their obligations but the failure of management to produce a product that was durable and that people wanted. You can't fault assembly line workers for the failures of the managers and executives. Also, when you strip out the health care obligations (which the foreign auto makers don't have to worry about since they have socialized health care) then the pay of US autoworkers is very competitive with that of foreign companies.

Also, I'm not a globalization opponent however you have to be honest about it as well. The drive for globalization has been a race to the bottom for wages. It is not done on the basis of comparative advantage but rather a manufactured comparative advantage. This manufactured comparative advantage is driven by countries that will keep their currency artificially low (like china), allow their workers to be exploited from artificially low wages (again see china), and a general disdain for worker's rights (for the third time see china).

Well, the minimum wage argument is a slippery argument, though I still believe it violates basic economic principles of supply and demand. But that's just my opinion.

But as for your second part about GM, again consider why employees are being doled out these enormous entitlements. These were all cookies negotiated in by the UAW over time. And if GM dared to reduce these cookies, the UAW would throw a shit-fit and would strike. So while your argument focuses on pure wages, I consider these entitlements and cookies to be "wages." And yes, soaring medical benefits threw a wrench in the system, but it was not the only entitlement. It is not a secret that when you factor in salary and these cookies, the average worker at GM is entitled to a lot more than foreign manufacturers. And when labor costs go up, you have a hell of a lot less money to invest in improving efficiency by building plants, you are a lot more limited in your ability to motivate workers (how do you motivate a worker who can't get fired?), and you have a hell of a lot less money on investing in efficiency.

But the argument isn't about how Detroit's most productive pair up against Toyota's or Honda's. The problem is that Detroit is forced by the Union to pay a ton of unproductive workers to sit around and play with their balls all day long. There are stories of auto workers who put in a few hours and are literally paid to play games the rest of the day, while only being asked to meet a very low, minimal quota. These workers are a huge drain on the companies and the UAW is fighting tooth and nail to protect these people.

And these empowered unions and the idea of wage fixing was largely the result of the New Deal. It's not just about China, the US is lagging a ton of different countries. What's their excuse for lagging Japan? It's because Japan has a relentless approach to managing their workers from the top-down--even assembly line workers in Toyota's plants are empowered to change the company's innovation and operations. Detroit can't do that as long as the Union continues to protect those that continue to drain their company of resources.

BigRedChief
03-29-2009, 09:44 PM
Well, the minimum wage argument is a slippery argument, though I still believe it violates basic economic principles of supply and demand. But that's just my opinion.
wellll how do you feel about the Republicans pushing through a bill that says if you work in I.T. and make more than $28.56 an hour the company doesn't have to pay you overtime at the standard 1.5 rate over 40 hours a week.
Thats right, the free market republicans told individual Americans in a very narrow field of business that you can only make this much money and thats it, no more. Why?

chiefzilla1501
03-29-2009, 10:40 PM
wellll how do you feel about the Republicans pushing through a bill that says if you work in I.T. and make more than $28.56 an hour the company doesn't have to pay you overtime at the standard 1.5 rate over 40 hours a week.
Thats right, the free market republicans told individual Americans in a very narrow field of business that you can only make this much money and thats it, no more. Why?

BRC, I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat. I think both parties have good ideas but a lot of them are stubbornly stupid in order to cling to an extreme opinion. I'm sure you could cherry-pick a small bit of liberal policy that was equally as stupid. But to be more specific to your point, I generally believe that there is a limit to how much government should butt into wage decisions, whether it's Republican or Democratic policy (unless there is signs of abuse, whether from purposely keeping lower wages down or increasing executive compensation).

On the whole, I believe this economic recovery needs more socialized policy than usual (and that is more of a democrat position). But it's a huge mistake to assume liberals are right about everything and conservatives are wrong about everything. That's why I despise politics. Conservatives are so busy fighting the white house that they are being a party of "no", liberals are so busy defending the president that they're willing to shrug off big mistakes we've already made with AIG. We should be building this thing together, but instead we're fighting the same old bullshit partisan political battles and I hate it.

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 06:47 AM
But it's a huge mistake to assume liberals are right about everything and conservatives are wrong about everything. That's why I despise politics. Conservatives are so busy fighting the white house that they are being a party of "no", liberals are so busy defending the president that they're willing to shrug off big mistakes we've already made with AIG. We should be building this thing together, but instead we're fighting the same old bullshit partisan political battles and I hate it.
I agree that some Dems(espescially Piolsi and her faction) feel that they have been out of power and marginalized by the Bush administration for too long and they see it as payback. That is wrong.

But the Republicans have no one to blame but themselfs for other Dems not reining in the Pelosi faction. Do they really think massive tax cuts for the wealthy is the way out of the recession? Until they get better ideas they are on their own.

But in a year or two I do see the Republicans and Democrats working together. They have to deal with the 3rd rail that is completely out of control. No politican/party is going to touch Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and immigration reform without the other being just as responsible for the legislation to provide political cover.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 08:00 AM
Ah, so again you ignore context when you are the biggest crybaby about context?

I didn't ignore context, but I've noticed that you say this everytime I leave you speechless on the actual topic. To put it simply, you misapplied the results of the Card and Krueger study. Even if we accept those results as flawless (which, as I pointed out before is a dubious assumption to begin with), they don't give us any insight at all into chiefzilla1501's claim. Context doesn't save you.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 08:08 AM
wellll how do you feel about the Republicans pushing through a bill that says if you work in I.T. and make more than $28.56 an hour the company doesn't have to pay you overtime at the standard 1.5 rate over 40 hours a week.
Thats right, the free market republicans told individual Americans in a very narrow field of business that you can only make this much money and thats it, no more. Why?

Do you know what this law was called or do you have a link to it? It sounds like such a strange law that I'd like to find out what the thinking behind it was.

As for whether it's right or wrong, I'd say that as you describe it above it doesn't sound all that bad. If the bill says that firms CAN'T pay overtime for this narrow class of workers instead of that they don't have to pay it, I'd say that the bill doesn't go far enough (meaning that that should probably be the rule for all workers, not just IT workers). But again, I'd like to see some more information about it before I take a final position.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 08:10 AM
I agree that some Dems(espescially Piolsi and her faction) feel that they have been out of power and marginalized by the Bush administration for too long and they see it as payback. That is wrong.

But the Republicans have no one to blame but themselfs for other Dems not reining in the Pelosi faction. Do they really think massive tax cuts for the wealthy is the way out of the recession? Until they get better ideas they are on their own.

But in a year or two I do see the Republicans and Democrats working together. They have to deal with the 3rd rail that is completely out of control. No politican/party is going to touch Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and immigration reform without the other being just as responsible for the legislation to provide political cover.

:LOL: Even the part of the problem that comes from democrat "factions" is the fault of Republicans. That's hilarious.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 08:20 AM
:LOL: Even the part of the problem that comes from democrat "factions" is the fault of Republicans. That's hilarious.

Pat, ya' gotta admit the failure of the R congress created dissatisfaction which allows for the opposition to get in. For every action there is an equal reaction. Just a law.

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 09:29 AM
Do you know what this law was called or do you have a link to it? It sounds like such a strange law that I'd like to find out what the thinking behind it was.

As for whether it's right or wrong, I'd say that as you describe it above it doesn't sound all that bad. If the bill says that firms CAN'T pay overtime for this narrow class of workers instead of that they don't have to pay it, I'd say that the bill doesn't go far enough (meaning that that should probably be the rule for all workers, not just IT workers). But again, I'd like to see some more information about it before I take a final position.

They have sent me a link to the tax code when I asked about it and it was done in 2003-2004 or so. From a lawyers website with class action suits against its use.

How The Law Works

The federal and state overtime laws: The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state laws provide that all employees should get overtime unless they fall within certain narrow exemptions. (Click here to learn why the FLSA was passed.) The FLSA and many state laws provide that nonexempt employees must be paid time-and-a-half for each hour over 40 worked in a week. California law is even more protective. It provides the same protection (1.5x the hourly rate for hours over 40), plus it provides for time-and-a-half for hours over 8 in a day, double time for hours over 12 in a day, an unpaid 30-minute meal break for every 5 hours worked in a day, and a paid 10-minute rest break for every 4 hours worked in a day.

What are the exemptions: Under the FLSA and state laws, there are several exemptions: administrative, computer professional, learned professional, and executive. If the employer can prove that an employee satisfies the definition of one of these exemptions, the employer does not have to pay the employee overtime, or provide him or her breaks. The most common exemptions companies use for IT workers are the administrative exemption and the computer professional exemption, described below:

The administrative exemption: This is one of the most common exemptions. To fit within this exemption, the employee must exercise independent judgment and discretion regarding matters of substantial importance to the employer. This means two things. First, the employee's work must be creative and free-ranging – not routine, repetitive, unambiguous, governed by established procedures, or closely supervised. Second, the employee's work must also involve running the company's business – not simply playing a support function.

The computer professional exemption: This exemption is for computer programmers (coders) and architects. However, just because an employee has a certain title, it does not mean he or she is properly classified as exempt. For example, companies include words like "engineer," "specialist," or "architect" in a job title, but that does not mean that the employee necessarily performs computer professional work. The important question is what the employee does, not what he or she is called.

Who makes the exempt/nonexempt decision: Companies are free to classify their employees as hourly nonexempt (i.e., eligible for overtime pay and these other protections) or salaried exempt (i.e., not covered by the FLSA or equivalent state laws). Understandably, companies have an incentive to err on the side of classifying employees exempt, so that they can require the employees to work more than 40 hours each week without paying them more. So, classifying employees as exempt allows the company to get more out of its employees for less.

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 09:37 AM
A Comparison of the Different Standards

The following chart sets out the different standards applicable to high technology professionals, other employees of high technology companies, in comparison to the generally applicable standards:

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-LEFT: 5.4pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-border-alt: solid black .75pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double" vAlign=top width=132>

REGULAR EMPLOYEES

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>

HIGH TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
OTHER EMPLOYEES OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay overtime after:


8 hours per day OR 40 hours per week

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No overtime pay. (But no excessive hours)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay overtime
after:


12 hours per day OR


80 hours per 2 weeks

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay statutory holiday pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No statutory holiday pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay statutory
holiday pay.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give 24 hours' notice of any change in shift.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No notice required.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give 24 hours'
notice of any change in shift.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give a 30 minute meal break after 5 hours of work.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No meal break.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give a 30 minute
meal break after
5 hours of work.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Split shifts must be completed within 12 hours.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No limit on split shifts.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Split shifts must be
completed within
12 hours.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay a minimum daily pay of 4 hours.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No minimum daily pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay a
minimum daily pay
of 4 hours.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give 32 hours free from work each week.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No work-free period.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give 32 hours
free from work
each week.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-LEFT: 5.4pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-border-alt: solid black .75pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double" vAlign=top width=132>

REGULAR EMPLOYEES

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>

HIGH TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2.25pt double; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
OTHER EMPLOYEES OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay overtime after:


8 hours per day OR 40 hours per week

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No overtime pay. (But no excessive hours)

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay overtime
after:


12 hours per day OR


80 hours per 2 weeks

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay statutory holiday pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No statutory holiday pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay statutory
holiday pay.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give 24 hours' notice of any change in shift.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No notice required.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give 24 hours'
notice of any change in shift.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give a 30 minute meal break after 5 hours of work.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No meal break.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give a 30 minute
meal break after
5 hours of work.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Split shifts must be completed within 12 hours.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No limit on split shifts.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Split shifts must be
completed within
12 hours.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must pay a minimum daily pay of 4 hours.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No minimum daily pay.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must pay a
minimum daily pay
of 4 hours.

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: black 0.75pt solid; WIDTH: 99pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=132>
Must give 32 hours free from work each week.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 1.5in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=144>
No work-free period.

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 0.75pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 116.95pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 0.75pt solid; mso-border-left-alt: solid black .75pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt" vAlign=top width=156>
Must give 32 hours
free from work
each week.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 09:41 AM
Here ya go. Specfically targeted at I.T. workers.

Fact Sheet #17O: Technologists and Technicians and the Part 541 Exemptions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17o_technicians.pdf

patteeu
03-30-2009, 10:10 AM
Thanks BRC. When I first heard of this a few weeks ago, I got the impression that a law had been passed that prohibited companies from paying IT professionals bonus overtime pay (e.g. time and a half). That sounded absurd and wrong. Your description in this thread is more accurate (you said companies don't have to pay bonus rates for overtime) and conflicts with the previous characterization so that's why I asked for more information.

Now that I see what we're talking about, I find it less objectionable. First of all, IT professionals aren't the only workers who fall into these exemptions. Second, the FLSA standards appear to be aimed primarily at protecting low skill workers who perform repetitive tasks that don't require a great deal of creative, individual thought. Theoretically, at least, the reason these people need this protection is because they can be easily replaced and the company won't miss a beat so the company has a lot more leverage against these highly replaceable employees. IT professionals whose jobs require independent creativity and less common skills are harder to exploit and more critical to ongoing company success (because they can't be so easily replaced without setback).

I'm not sure we should have a FLSA law to begin with, but if we're going to have it, it has to be balanced against the needs of business. IT guys on whom a company is heavily reliant have leverage that drives their compensation up relative to the low skilled employees who the FLSA protects (e.g. chicken plucker on the poultry processing line at Tyson). The downside of being that important to your company's success is that you lose some of the protection of the FLSA.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Here ya go. Specfically targeted at I.T. workers.

It doesn't specifically target IT workers. IT workers are added to the list of types of workers who fall into the exempt category. The group of exempt workers goes well beyond IT.

chiefzilla1501
03-30-2009, 11:00 AM
I agree that some Dems(espescially Piolsi and her faction) feel that they have been out of power and marginalized by the Bush administration for too long and they see it as payback. That is wrong.

But the Republicans have no one to blame but themselfs for other Dems not reining in the Pelosi faction. Do they really think massive tax cuts for the wealthy is the way out of the recession? Until they get better ideas they are on their own.

But in a year or two I do see the Republicans and Democrats working together. They have to deal with the 3rd rail that is completely out of control. No politican/party is going to touch Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and immigration reform without the other being just as responsible for the legislation to provide political cover.

Unfortunately, that's just the cycle. Nothing will change until a Republican Congress is opposing a democratic President, much like Clinton didn't get much accomplished until he had an opposition party. It sucks, but that's just the way it works.

But to your point about Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, a lot of that is really exaggerated. There's some merit to it. A lot of the wealthy in this country are also pumping a lot of money in the economy. Many of these people are small business owners who invest in creating jobs and many of them pump a lot of money into the economy through bank and stock investments and real estate. Obama has mentioned that he'd like to increase the long-term capital gains tax, which would likely hit these guys really hard in the pocket book, but at what cost? We shouldn't be discouraging these people to invest in the economy. The theory isn't so much that the wealthy deserve tax cuts, it's moreso that they're more likely to use tax cuts to invest back into business whereas those on the lower-end receive benefits but don't put a lot of that back into the economy. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. And I can understand the frustration. These "wealthy" people work their asses off to make the income they make and I would be pissed too if the government demanded 5% more out of my paycheck to spend it as they please. They're already paying 35% in federal income taxes. I'm sure their first question is, rather than take my hard-earned money, how about just not spending it at all?

I sound like a broken record, but the answer is in-between. The government should be more careful about spending, rather than trying to squeeze the wealthy of more of their hard-earned money. But that doesn't mean massive tax cuts for everybody and the conservative philosophy of deficit spending. I believe in very cautious socialization, which is pretty much middle ground.

By the way, on immigration, I'm reserving hope that this is an issue where we'll see middle ground and I have a feeling we will. It sounds like Obama (and McCain) both largely support amnesty that would force illegal immigrants to pay a fine in order to gain citizenship. It would be a terrific way to make some quick, short-term revenue that this country badly needs.

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Thanks BRC. When I first heard of this a few weeks ago, I got the impression that a law had been passed that prohibited companies from paying IT professionals bonus overtime pay (e.g. time and a half). That sounded absurd and wrong. Your description in this thread is more accurate (you said companies don't have to pay bonus rates for overtime) and conflicts with the previous characterization so that's why I asked for more information.
It does prohibit companies from paying 1.5 hours of pay rate after 40 hours a week. It's not a choice.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 12:33 PM
It does prohibit companies from paying 1.5 hours of pay rate after 40 hours a week. It's not a choice.

I don't see anything in the material that you linked/posted or anything in the limited research I did into the FLSA that prohibits it. Where does this come from?

BigRedChief
03-30-2009, 12:36 PM
I don't see anything in the material that you linked/posted or anything in the limited research I did into the FLSA that prohibits it. Where does this come from?
It's the law. All of I.T. is using it in the U.S. There are multiple lawsuits challenging the law. Just ask any I.T. guy you know. I'm through debating that it exsists with you. Google it yourself.

patteeu
03-30-2009, 12:49 PM
It's the law. All of I.T. is using it in the U.S. There are multiple lawsuits challenging the law. Just ask any I.T. guy you know. I'm through debating that it exsists with you. Google it yourself.

We aren't debating whether or not it exists, we're debating what it actually is and as far as I can tell, you're wrong.

"All of IT is using it" isn't the same as "the government forced them to do it". It's an exemption from the mandatory rules not a mandatory rule itself.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 04:34 PM
Unfortunately, that's just the cycle. Nothing will change until a Republican Congress is opposing a democratic President, much like Clinton didn't get much accomplished until he had an opposition party. It sucks, but that's just the way it works.

I don't think it sucks. I like it and think it's the best any govt can do.
I wouldn't mind things being more like the 90's were than how they are now.

chiefzilla1501
03-30-2009, 04:54 PM
I don't think it sucks. I like it and think it's the best any govt can do.
I wouldn't mind things being more like the 90's were than how they are now.

I think the political system makes it close to impossible for a president to be centrist. They have to kiss ass to their party to win the primary and they have kiss ass to win support from the congress when they take office.

The system sucks when you end up with a president with the same party in the majority in congress. I don't know how it can be improved, but a nice start (for me) would be a strong, independently moderate third party. But that will probably never happen.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 04:58 PM
I think the political system makes it close to impossible for a president to be centrist. They have to kiss ass to their party to win the primary and they have kiss ass to win support from the congress when they take office.
The meaning of centrist changes. It's relative. But I disagree, opposition parties are a check and balance. It's one party rule that's dangerous. Even when there are two parties but they act like one party.

The system sucks when you end up with a president with the same party in the majority in congress. I don't know how it can be improved, but a nice start (for me) would be a strong, independently moderate third party. But that will probably never happen.

I agree with this. Except for the third party being a moderate. I think it will take a radical, like our Founders to restore the balance back to what was the center at one time. Simply because of how the dialectic works. The center has shifted and is pretty far left and our Constitution is in shreds. That is if you value freedom.

Gary
03-30-2009, 10:35 PM
:spock:Why would you think that the presence of a few ill-conceived, but genuine, tax cuts could make up for the lack of intelligent tax policy changes and for the abundance of other objectionable features of Obama's economic plans?

To answer your question directly, in this thread I'm complaining about:
fake income tax cuts which are really handouts to people who don't pay any income tax, and
hidden tax increases on 100% of all Americans which are disguised as such things as an alternative energy policy.

I'm curious to get your opinion (and everyone else for that matter) as to the last time any american saw an "intelligent tax policy". I'm not throwing stones from one side of the fence to the other. I'm genuinely interested to hear what everyone on here thinks about this.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 06:43 AM
I'm curious to get your opinion (and everyone else for that matter) as to the last time any american saw an "intelligent tax policy". I'm not throwing stones from one side of the fence to the other. I'm genuinely interested to hear what everyone on here thinks about this.

Never if we're talking about intelligence in the sense of what is good for the economy, because politics is at odds with intelligence when it comes to tax policy. The Bush tax cuts on investment were intelligent, but he had to sugar coat them with tax cuts for families and tax cuts for over-consumers which brought the overall intelligence of his tax policy way down, IMO. Reagan's tax reform throughout the 80's was reasonably intelligent in that it brought marginal rates way down and eliminated a lot of anti-economic tax benefits, but he also removed a lot of people from the tax rolls altogether and expanded the EIC in order to buy those positives.

OTOH, if we're talking about political intelligence, the tax code is very intelligent because it does a great job of masking the realities of tax liability (i.e. how much do you really pay both in an absolute sense and relative to other taxpayers) while at the same time providing plenty of opportunities for politicians to generate campaign contributions in return for tax favors. In this sense, I'd call it devious intelligence.

BigRedChief
04-01-2009, 12:42 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/gop.budget/index.html
Republicans re-released their budget today.

Massive, and we are talking massively massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Some are already saying its a $4 Trillion tax cut for the wealthy over 10 years.

Business tax rate drops from 38% to 25% and they get to keep their loopholes and deductions.

Capital gains tax dropped to 15%

End of the estate tax

Spending Freeze except for defense and veteran care.

Undoing all of Obama's programs

Medicare deregulation, block grants to states and a voucher program, then you are on your own.

And it projects $500 billion deficts forever.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 12:43 PM
Yeah, we need to hurry up and turn to the solution of doing nothing!

Sometimes that's just the right answer. I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of it.

BigRedChief
04-01-2009, 12:54 PM
Sometimes that's just the right answer. I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of it.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and business's, deregulation of medicare and a voucher program in this recession has to be one of the all time bad ideas. Hoover would be proud.

chiefzilla1501
04-01-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/gop.budget/index.html
Republicans re-released their budget today.

Massive, and we are talking massively massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Some are already saying its a $4 Trillion tax cut for the wealthy over 10 years.

Business tax rate drops from 38% to 25% and they get to keep their loopholes and deductions.

Capital gains tax dropped to 15%

End of the estate tax

Spending Freeze except for defense and veteran care.

Undoing all of Obama's programs

Medicare deregulation, block grants to states and a voucher program, then you are on your own.

And it projects $500 billion deficts forever.

I'm still confused about what you are considering "tax cuts for the wealthy."

Because a lot of the taxes you bring up above are taxes on investments, not taxes on the wealthy. Think about this. When you sell a house or a stock you've held for 2+ years, you get taxed. In a market where we are trying desperately to improve the stock market by getting people to put money into stocks and in a market where we are desperately trying to sell open houses on the market, you're going to discourage investment by raising taxes on these investors? Worse, you will see a massive sell-off of assets by investors trying to unload their assets before the tax hike kicks in--that's just what this country needs: a mass group of investors pulling their money OUT of the market. Tell me why you're so opposed to capital gains tax cuts? I can understand the argument in that it cuts off a revenue stream, but there's a strong argument to be made that it will also stimulate investment which this country badly needs.

As for business tax, I didn't understand your opposition here too. We tax businesses more than most countries do. Why do you think so much business gets sent overseas? When you tax businesses less, they make more profit and that does one of three things: it either frees up more money to create more jobs; 2) it creates more money to invest back into the company (so if a company buys more machines, the machine-maker makes more money and thus creates more jobs); 3) it allows the company to return more money to the shareholders who can take that profit and invest it back into the economy. Yes, we need to get these businesses to invest smarter and to regulate executive compensation, but it's not like we are handing this money directly to rich people. We are handing this "savings" onto businesses who have the power to create jobs. And by the way, a lot of those businesses getting taxed are small businesses that are one of the biggest vehicles for job creation in this country. And a lot of those businesses are getting squeezed for margins right now. You squeeze them too tight and they'll lose their business and the jobs that go along with that business.

The system doesn't work that perfectly, of course. There will obviously be some who will attempt to game the system. But don't make the mistake of saying these are tax cuts for the wealthy. These are tax cuts for "investors." Yes, a business won't always spend that money wisely, but do you really trust businesses less than the government? Call me biased, but I would much rather my tax money go to businesses than to government spending, which is usually misused.

I don't like the Republican focus on deficit spending and I especially disagree with their theory on cutting income taxes, but I have no problem with taxes that will stimulate investment and the business environment.

BigRedChief
04-01-2009, 01:34 PM
I'm still confused about what you are considering "tax cuts for the wealthy."
It sounds fair. Across the board tax cuts. We all pay the same rate. But when you look at the results what do you see?

Cutting the top tax rate to 25% is a massive give away to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

BigRedChief
04-01-2009, 01:38 PM
As for business tax, I didn't understand your opposition here too. We tax businesses more than most countries do. Why do you think so much business gets sent overseas? When you tax businesses less, they make more profit and that does one of three things: it either frees up more money to create more jobs; 2) it creates more money to invest back into the company (so if a company buys more machines, the machine-maker makes more money and thus creates more jobs); 3) it allows the company to return more money to the shareholders who can take that profit and invest it back into the economy. Yes, we need to get these businesses to invest smarter and to regulate executive compensation, but it's not like we are handing this money directly to rich people. We are handing this "savings" onto businesses who have the power to create jobs. And by the way, a lot of those businesses getting taxed are small businesses that are one of the biggest vehicles for job creation in this country. And a lot of those businesses are getting squeezed for margins right now. You squeeze them too tight and they'll lose their business and the jobs that go along with that business.

How many business's relocate elsewhere because of taxes? It's usually labor costs, not taxes.

How many business's in America are paying 38%? None. Why? because of the tax dedutuctions and loopholes. You let them keep their tax loopholes and deductions then throw in another huge tax break and we are not going to be collecting any taxes from business that enjoy the benefits of our society. And whos going to pick up that tab? the middle class again.

We have tried tax cuts for the wealthy and business's. We have tried deregulation of business. How did that turn out for us?

patteeu
04-01-2009, 03:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/gop.budget/index.html
Republicans re-released their budget today.

Massive, and we are talking massively massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Some are already saying its a $4 Trillion tax cut for the wealthy over 10 years.

Business tax rate drops from 38% to 25% and they get to keep their loopholes and deductions.

Capital gains tax dropped to 15%

End of the estate tax

Spending Freeze except for defense and veteran care.

Undoing all of Obama's programs

Medicare deregulation, block grants to states and a voucher program, then you are on your own.

And it projects $500 billion deficts forever.

It takes a healthy amount of shamelessness to complain about deficit projections under the Republican proposal when the Obama proposal is far worse on that very point. According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102261.html?hpid=topnews), Obama's proposal requires almost 30% more borrowing, i.e. deficit spending, over the next 5 years than the Republican alternative.

And that's despite the fact that Obama's plan is based on short term spending to make the economy seem to improve over the short run (just in time for the next rounds of elections) instead of an employer-friendly recovery plan like that of the Republicans which is intended to spur economic growth over the long haul.

patteeu
04-01-2009, 03:50 PM
I don't like the Republican focus on deficit spending and I especially disagree with their theory on cutting income taxes, but I have no problem with taxes that will stimulate investment and the business environment.

If you don't like the Republican focus on deficit spending you must really hate the democrat worship of it.

Republican deficit spending ($3.1 trillion deficits over the next 5 years) < democrat deficit spending ($4 trillion deficits over the next 5 years)

BigRedChief
04-02-2009, 06:30 AM
If you don't like the Republican focus on deficit spending you must really hate the democrat worship of it.

Republican deficit spending ($3.1 trillion deficits over the next 5 years) < democrat deficit spending ($4 trillion deficits over the next 5 years)
A $4 trillion tax cut that has 90% of that tax cut going to the top 10% wealthiest americans is going to go over like a rock.

patteeu
04-02-2009, 06:37 AM
A $4 trillion tax cut that has 90% of that tax cut going to the top 10% wealthiest americans is going to go over like a rock.

You're talking about politics. I'm talking about the economic well-being of our country. Everyone has priorities.

chiefzilla1501
04-02-2009, 06:58 AM
How many business's relocate elsewhere because of taxes? It's usually labor costs, not taxes.

How many business's in America are paying 38%? None. Why? because of the tax dedutuctions and loopholes. You let them keep their tax loopholes and deductions then throw in another huge tax break and we are not going to be collecting any taxes from business that enjoy the benefits of our society. And whos going to pick up that tab? the middle class again.

We have tried tax cuts for the wealthy and business's. We have tried deregulation of business. How did that turn out for us?

The problem is that you're suggesting that "taxes for the wealthy" brought this economy down. That couldn't be further from the truth. What brought this country down was the complete destruction of the financial system because lenders were doling up extremely high-risk investments (the devaluation of homes because of subprime mortgages, the lack of trust in the financial system because of extremely flawed, extremely risky credit default swaps). The home prices destroyed a ton of portfolios that were backed by mortgage-backed securities and the credit default swaps? Well, think of it this way... AIG was profitable across most of the company except for that one division. That says a lot.

You're trying to blame the economic collapse on a factor that played a very small role if any on the demise. That's like saying Tony Gonzalez was the only reason the Chiefs went 2-14 last season (and that had nothing to do with Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards, Damion McIntosh, Tamba Hali, etc...) I completely agree with you that deregulation took this country down in that we sat back and allowed these lenders to take on way more risk than they should have and, yes, we didn't pay very much attention to the guys on top making an obscene amount of money.

As for your point about business tax, pay attention to where a lot of companies are incorporated. It's not the USA. It's usually offshore accounts like Bermuda. And that has nothing to do with labor costs. That has everything to do with tax rate. So when you get upset that the USA doesn't collect taxes from the wealthy, you should ask yourself why our high tax rates are driving so much investment offshore.

patteeu
04-02-2009, 07:05 AM
The problem is that you're suggesting that "taxes for the wealthy" brought this economy down. That couldn't be further from the truth. What brought this country down was the complete destruction of the financial system because lenders were doling up extremely high-risk investments (the devaluation of homes because of subprime mortgages, the lack of trust in the financial system because of extremely flawed, extremely risky credit default swaps). The home prices destroyed a ton of portfolios that were backed by mortgage-backed securities and the credit default swaps? Well, think of it this way... AIG was profitable across most of the company except for that one division. That says a lot.

You're trying to blame the economic collapse on a factor that played a very small role if any on the demise. That's like saying Tony Gonzalez was the only reason the Chiefs went 2-14 last season (and that had nothing to do with Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards, Damion McIntosh, Tamba Hali, etc...) I completely agree with you that deregulation took this country down in that we sat back and allowed these lenders to take on way more risk than they should have and, yes, we didn't pay very much attention to the guys on top making an obscene amount of money.

As for your point about business tax, pay attention to where a lot of companies are incorporated. It's not the USA. It's usually offshore accounts like Bermuda. And that has nothing to do with labor costs. That has everything to do with tax rate. So when you get upset that the USA doesn't collect taxes from the wealthy, you should ask yourself why our high tax rates are driving so much investment offshore.

"The wealthy" are BigRedChiefs' version of "the Jews". He's not alone in that. It's a concerning streak that runs through a lot of Obama supporters.

Swanman
04-02-2009, 07:26 AM
You're talking about politics. I'm talking about the economic well-being of our country. Everyone has priorities.

We recently tried the trickle-down policy of reducing taxes on the wealthy and large companies with the hopes that they would create wealth down the line. They didn't, they just concentrated more wealth at the top and the economy became like a poker game where 3 players out of 1,000 hold 99% of the chips. Time and time again, that has proven to be very bad for our economy.

Now we try something else, and if that involves raising some taxes that were recently lowered, then so be it. The ultra-wealthy jags had their run with the ball and they fumbled. Now another team gets to run with it for a little while. I don't know if the new plan will succeed or fail, I just want something different tried because what we were doing was not working.

patteeu
04-02-2009, 07:53 AM
We recently tried the trickle-down policy of reducing taxes on the wealthy and large companies with the hopes that they would create wealth down the line. They didn't, they just concentrated more wealth at the top and the economy became like a poker game where 3 players out of 1,000 hold 99% of the chips. Time and time again, that has proven to be very bad for our economy.

Now we try something else, and if that involves raising some taxes that were recently lowered, then so be it. The ultra-wealthy jags had their run with the ball and they fumbled. Now another team gets to run with it for a little while. I don't know if the new plan will succeed or fail, I just want something different tried because what we were doing was not working.

You're making the wrong comparison. The comparison shouldn't be between where Americans are today versus where they were at some point in the past. It should be where they are today versus where they would have been today if an alternative policy had been pursued. International competition as a result of globalization is creating downward pressure on income for the lower/middle classes. Encouraging production and savings in the US helps to counter that pressure. Going back to the old ways of encouraging American consumption to drive not just the American economy, but the entire global economy is a losing proposition and will result in even worse results for the lower/middle classes. I'm OK with trying something else, but that something else should be an even greater emphasis on encouraging production and savings and an end to the reliance on domestic consumption.

BigRedChief
04-02-2009, 08:00 AM
I'm OK with trying something else, but that something else should be an even greater emphasis on encouraging production and savings and an end to the reliance on domestic consumption.
I think that Obama has been really clear on that. The bubble and bust cycle has to end. Relying on doemstic consumption is not sustainable. Thats why he sees the sustainable and renewable energy field as a great oppertunity for us to start manufacturing soemthing again. Creates jobs, takes people off the government dime, ends or lessens foreigh oil imports. Just imagine what our economy could do if we spent that money here in the U.S. instead of exporting billions to people who for the most part hate us.

Now, you may disagree with his plan but he is saying that his plan will do what you are saying is the right thing to do.

patteeu
04-02-2009, 08:06 AM
I think that Obama has been really clear on that. The bubble and bust cycle has to end. Relying on doemstic consumption is not sustainable. Thats why he sees the sustainable and renewable energy field as a great oppertunity for us to start manufacturing soemthing again. Creates jobs, takes people off the government dime, ends or lessens foreigh oil imports. Just imagine what our economy could do if we spent that money here in the U.S. instead of exporting billions to people who for the most part hate us.

Now, you may disagree with his plan but he is saying that his plan will do what you are saying is the right thing to do.

His tax proposals are at odds with what he says on that subject. His tax code encourages spending at the expense of savings. Saying one thing and doing another is common among politicians. When it comes to evaluating Obama's domestic policy, the green energy fairytale takes a back seat to the hard cold truth of his tax code IMO.

mlyonsd
04-02-2009, 08:14 AM
His tax proposals are at odds with what he says on that subject. His tax code encourages spending at the expense of savings. Saying one thing and doing another is common among politicians. When it comes to evaluating Obama's domestic policy, the green energy fairytale takes a back seat to the hard cold truth of his tax code IMO.

But it sounds so much more appealing when Obama tells us about it instead of you. ;)

BucEyedPea
04-02-2009, 08:44 AM
I think that Obama has been really clear on that. The bubble and bust cycle has to end.

The bubble and burst cycle is caused by Fed monetary policy.

Relying on doemstic consumption is not sustainable.
If it isn't then the prices will send a signal by soaring. Necessity is the mother of invention....at that point alternatives will develop faster.

Thats why he sees the sustainable and renewable energy field as a great oppertunity for us to start manufacturing soemthing again. Creates jobs, takes people off the government dime, ends or lessens foreigh oil imports. Just imagine what our economy could do if we spent that money here in the U.S. instead of exporting billions to people who for the most part hate us.

Now, you may disagree with his plan but he is saying that his plan will do what you are saying is the right thing to do.

Govt created jobs are usually socio-political engineering and crowd out private jobs. Do too much of this, the private sector doesn't get back on it's feet. Exactly the goal of the socialist left. Then the govt takes it all over...incrementally of course so as not to alarm.

banyon
04-02-2009, 10:41 AM
The bubble and burst cycle is caused by Fed monetary policy.

A cursory review of US History would show that we've had bubbles and bursts for a couple of centuries now, most of them well before there was any such thing as the Federal Reserve or Federal monetary policy.

In fact, when there's been no central bank, things have usually been MUCH worse and were usually called "panics" for a reason.

KC native
04-02-2009, 10:47 AM
A cursory review of US History would show that we've had bubbles and bursts for a couple of centuries now, most of them well before there was any such thing as the Federal Reserve or Federal monetary policy.

In fact, when there's been no central bank, things have usually been MUCH worse and were usually called "panics" for a reason.

Yea, it's called the business cycle and no one in the history of this planet has been able to reverse it but that usually gets lost on people that use anecdotal instead of empirical data to justify their economic stances.

googlegoogle
04-03-2009, 12:26 AM
Corporations(businesses) are finding less and less reason to stay in this country.

Most of the idiots here don't even know that most of their communities or cities have tax credits for businesses that move to their area. Their local socialist govs really don't want the word out on that.

Yeah, we should have government own and spend our money. That worked well in England,France and everyone's friend Russia.

BucEyedPea
04-03-2009, 07:14 AM
Corporations(businesses) are finding less and less reason to stay in this country.

Even Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are ahead of the US now in economic freedom. Of course Hong Kong has been the freest for a longer period of time. Their economy is the freest in the world, despite a "lack of natural resources, the economy's institutional strengths have allowed it to achieve high levels of prosperity reinforced by vibrant entrepreneurial activity. The small island is one of the world's leading financial centers, and regulation of banking and financial services is transparent and efficient. Income and corporate tax rates are very competitive, and overall taxation is relatively small as a percentage of GDP. Business regulation is straightforward, and the labor market is flexible. Property rights are well protected by an independent and corruption-free judiciary."


http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong


I LOVE Hong Kong!