PDA

View Full Version : Economics Taxpayers leaving high tax states


***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 10:41 AM
Obama Hasn’t Noticed People Leaving California and New York?

Taxes, fees, too much regulation, and a “hostile business environment” are reasons cited by people leaving California and New York.

Much of the media covering this story has a liberal bias so ground truth is difficult to find.

But here is a snip from the Orange County (CA) Register last April:

Attendees heard from more than a dozen businesspeople who complained of high workman’s compensation insurance, “predatory” regulators, an unfriendly business climate, a “never ending paper trail of business forms,” exorbitant utility expenses, fees, taxes, quality of life and overpriced overhead.

Randy York said he moved his polyurethane manufacturing business from Huntington Beach to Reno, Nev. in 1987 because he was tired of being “hammered” with regulatory fees from the fire department, the health department, the state Environmental Protection Agency, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

He said it got to the point where he was paying $2,000 or $3,000 a quarter on fees – for company of 20 employees.

“They were killing us with fees,” he said. “Fees, fees, fees.”

See:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ca
lifornia-business-fees-2375002-nevada-company



http://johnltdo5455.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/obama-hasnt-noticed-people-leaving-california-and-new-york/

:clap:

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 10:42 AM
Ayup! There were tax revolts during the Depression too.
Also, more people will barter to survive too.
Not to mention how our black market, underground capitalism, has grown over time. The IRS is aware of this. Maybe that's why Obama is increasing the payroll of the IRS to crack down on us. Tyranny and fascism are here folks.

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 10:44 AM
Ayup! There were tax revolts during the Depression too.
Also, more people will barter to survive too.
Not to mention how our black market, underground capitalism, has grown over time. The IRS is aware of this. Maybe that's why Obama is increasing the payroll of the IRS to crack down on us. Tyranny and fascism are here folks.

I might just stop paying taxes altogether. Why not? Let them come after me (assuming my name among MILLIONS is pulled out of the hat).

Like Jim Morrison said "they got the guns but we got the numbers"

Heh heh.

F U IRS!

talastan
05-21-2009, 10:49 AM
I might just stop paying taxes altogether. Why not? Let them come after me (assuming my name among MILLIONS is pulled out of the hat).

Like Jim Morrison said "they got the guns but we got the numbers"

Heh heh.

F U IRS!

Can I claim the Geitner or Rangel Rule? :shrug:

talastan
05-21-2009, 10:53 AM
Again Missouri needs to adopt the Fair Tax so we can capitalize on these companies looking for a new place to do business!! :thumb:

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:55 AM
ROFL You are fucking stupid. OH NOES THEY TALKED TO A LITTLE OVER A DOZEN BUSINESS OWNERS WHO LEFT. OH NOES, PEOPLE ARE LEAVING IN DROVES. ROFL

talastan
05-21-2009, 11:01 AM
ROFL You are ****ing stupid. OH NOES THEY TALKED TO A LITTLE OVER A DOZEN BUSINESS OWNERS WHO LEFT. OH NOES, PEOPLE ARE LEAVING IN DROVES. ROFL

Nope not people leaving in droves, but millions of dollars a year in potential tax revenue from these businesses are going out the door. Again, you tax people too much and they'll find a way around it, or leave. Thereby increased taxes won't necessarily increase tax revenue.

SBK
05-21-2009, 11:01 AM
Can I claim the Geitner or Rangel Rule? :shrug:

If someone pushed hard enough, it'd be interesting how that would stand in court. Gov't officials can pay without fees, but regular folks have to pay fees??

HolyHandgernade
05-21-2009, 11:04 AM
Freeways are still full when I go to work.

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:05 AM
Nope not people leaving in droves, but millions of dollars a year in potential tax revenue from these businesses are going out the door. Again, you tax people too much and they'll find a way around it, or leave. Thereby increased taxes won't necessarily increase tax revenue.

Obama will handle that though. ;) With more controls.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:06 AM
Freeways are still full when I go to work.

-HH
Question is will they crumble from lack of revenue later? Oh I forgot, Obama's "Make-Work" will handle that.
Looks like that hydrogen highway you guys had won't go further.

wild1
05-21-2009, 11:12 AM
ask NYC if taxes are driving anyone out

NY CHIEF
05-21-2009, 11:16 AM
Tom Gollosiano(sp)? said last week he is leaving New York for Florida.........said it will save him 14,000 PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SBK
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Tom Gollosiano(sp)? said last week he is leaving New York for Florida.........said it will save him 14,000 PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really think he's the only one? I can tell you he's the only one dumb enough to brag about it. Audits for life for that guy....

Would you leave NY to save that much money every day?

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
ask NYC if taxes are driving anyone out

Couldn't have anything to do with the thousands of financial jobs lost could it? You are aware that their economy is dependent on the financial sector right?

Chief Henry
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Tom Gollosiano(sp)? said last week he is leaving New York for Florida.........said it will save him 14,000 PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable !

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:19 AM
Tom Gollosiano(sp)? said last week he is leaving New York for Florida.........said it will save him 14,000 PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NeoCon Crist will get him later.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:35 AM
Everyone's moving to Mississippi!!!

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 11:49 AM
ROFL You are ****ing stupid. OH NOES THEY TALKED TO A LITTLE OVER A DOZEN BUSINESS OWNERS WHO LEFT. OH NOES, PEOPLE ARE LEAVING IN DROVES. ROFLDude, this has been going on for over a decade. It began back under the GRAYT Davis, and continued to this day under Swastikanegger, or, is it Swarzenkennedy? Take your pick. KahleeFORkneeyah has been going down the tubes for a long time now. Only now, are the dumb asses in the state house realizing that the goose that lays the eggs has swum up the river.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Dude, this has been going on for over a decade. It began back under the GRAYT Davis, and continued to this day under Swastikanegger, or, is it Swarzenkennedy? Take your pick. KahleeFORkneeyah has been going down the tubes for a long time now. Only now, are the dumb asses in the state house realizing that the goose that lays the eggs has swum up the river.

...and the policies that made it that way are being forced on the nation as a whole now too.

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Freeways are still full when I go to work.

-HHWait until the unemployment checks and credit cards run out.

HolyHandgernade
05-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Question is will they crumble from lack of revenue later? Oh I forgot, Obama's "Make-Work" will handle that.
Looks like that hydrogen highway you guys had won't go further.

People have been predicting the "fall of California" for years. Its not the Midwest, there's lots of reasons people want to live in California. Yes, there are periods where people leave more than they come in, but those periods are rather short and usually surpassed by people later moving into the state. There are some industries out here that simply are not going to move that bring in huge revenues. If California goes in the tank, whether you like it or not, your economic ass is coming with it.

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 11:56 AM
People have been predicting the "fall of California" for years. Its not the Midwest, there's lots of reasons people want to live in California. Yes, there are periods where people leave more than they come in, but those periods are rather short and usually surpassed by people later moving into the state. There are some industries out here that simply are not going to move that bring in huge revenues. If California goes in the tank, whether you like it or not, your economic ass is coming with it.

-HH
Oh, I never said it's going to fall ( unless there's a quake), I just agreed people were leaving. I've read about businesses leaving for years. Not to mention people...why have so many moved to Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Montana from Cali?

On and my economic ass is already coming out of it. Didn't the Governator ask for federal funds? I'm sure he got them but I haven't kept up. Just going by typical govt. I do know the biggest spending states were the first line with their hands out. I also read about the outrageus salaries of San Diego govt workers aka bureaucrats in six figures and not low six figures. Just like the Soviet political classes getting all the dough. Greed.

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 12:39 PM
...and the policies that made it that way are being forced on the nation as a whole now too.Just look at Michigan. The best thing that Obama could do for that state is nominate Granholm for SCOTUS.

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 12:44 PM
I want to make it absolutely clear. The Democrats have one party rule in this state and have for almost 2 decades. Only in 94 did we eek out the slimest of majorities in the house, and then were undermined by a slick move by Slick Willie Brown.

Blame California on Bush you dumb democrat piece of shits.

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 12:46 PM
Oh, I never said it's going to fall ( unless there's a quake), I just agreed people were leaving. I've read about businesses leaving for years. Not to mention people...why have so many moved to Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Montana from Cali?

On and my economic ass is already coming out of it. Didn't the Governator ask for federal funds? I'm sure he got them but I haven't kept up. Just going by typical govt. I do know the biggest spending states were the first line with their hands out. I also read about the outrageus salaries of San Diego govt workers aka bureaucrats in six figures and not low six figures. Just like the Soviet political classes getting all the dough. Greed.I have talked to dozens of business owners who have bailed from this state. If I had a clear way out, I'd be gone too. I look forward to that day like a kid does the last day of school before summer vacation.

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 12:54 PM
Can I claim the Geitner or Rangel Rule? :shrug:

You sure can. Just register as a democrat!

HolyHandgernade
05-21-2009, 02:12 PM
I have talked to dozens of business owners who have bailed from this state. If I had a clear way out, I'd be gone too. I look forward to that day like a kid does the last day of school before summer vacation.

Most small businesses don't survive their first year and that was before the economic crisis. Now, its all because of the new Socialist States of America. OK.

-HH

CrazyPhuD
05-21-2009, 04:53 PM
I have talked to dozens of business owners who have bailed from this state. If I had a clear way out, I'd be gone too. I look forward to that day like a kid does the last day of school before summer vacation.

Heh actually a bunch of people are leaving the state in droves too. My dad was telling me about a friends son. Uhaul drop off rate from CA to CO, $5K. Uhaul drop off rate from CO to CA? $5

Me my self I now have to decide in relatively short order if I'm leaving CA, if I do I need to leave in 5 weeks for tax reasons. I've lived in this state for a while now and there are many things about it that are interesting. But the state has many policies that are just designed by idiots. :cuss:

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:15 AM
Freeways are still full when I go to work.

-HH

Those aren't the John Galts.

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 08:47 AM
Those aren't the John Galts.

Stuck in old ideologies and archetypes much?

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 08:48 AM
Stuck in old ideologies and archetypes much?

-HH

What could be older than socialism? Primitives even practiced it.
Gotta be a reason they didn't progress for thousands of years.

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 09:25 AM
What could be older than socialism? Primitives even practiced it.
Gotta be a reason they didn't progress for thousands of years.

Wow.

First of all, I'm not promoting socialism.

Second of all, you could reduce any system to a primitive state, so what's your point? If two tribes trade with each other and determine worth through supply and demand, is that ancient capitalism?

Third of all, my comments are in reference to the conservatives new found fascination with Ayn Rand. What does Ayn Rand know of integrated economic models and international markets? Your response, "socialism is primitive". Thanks for chiming in.

-HH

patteeu
05-22-2009, 10:40 AM
Wow.

First of all, I'm not promoting socialism.

Second of all, you could reduce any system to a primitive state, so what's your point? If two tribes trade with each other and determine worth through supply and demand, is that ancient capitalism?

Third of all, my comments are in reference to the conservatives new found fascination with Ayn Rand. What does Ayn Rand know of integrated economic models and international markets? Your response, "socialism is primitive". Thanks for chiming in.

-HH

What do you know about this topic if you think your crowded freeways observation is relevant?

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 10:45 AM
Wow.

First of all, I'm not promoting socialism.

Second of all, you could reduce any system to a primitive state, so what's your point? If two tribes trade with each other and determine worth through supply and demand, is that ancient capitalism?

Third of all, my comments are in reference to the conservatives new found fascination with Ayn Rand. What does Ayn Rand know of integrated economic models and international markets? Your response, "socialism is primitive". Thanks for chiming in.

-HH

Ayn Rand doesn't need to know anything about intergrated economic models if you've actually read her material. She did come from a country that had an integrated economic model and left due to it's disastrous results. It was called the Soviet Union. Ya' know complete with it's crumbling infrastructure and inability to feed itself.

Hint: intergrated smacks of command and control aka planned economies.
If you believe in that, then don't claim to not be promoting any three of the control type economic models: socialism, fascism or mercantilism or a mix of the three. They are also old, old ideas. All of them from Europe. I just thought the American way was the new way. That's what I was referring to in my post to yours....this idea that free markets are old.

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 11:11 AM
Never mind, you apparently don't know anything about integrated models, it wasn't even a conception in the Soviet Union. You should just go back to fixing the problems between the federalists and anti-federalists.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 11:35 AM
What do you know about this topic if you think your crowded freeways observation is relevant?

Well, it really wasn't meant to be an encompassing critique, now was it. Oh yeah, I forget, conservatives don't practice humor.

First of all, I live in one of those "tax burdened states", so I am familiar with the economy in these parts. I know markets adapt in this area as well. We have new shopping/business areas going up with the rents going down to try and offset the economic difficulties. I know the market in this area fluctuates but never really spirals, so these chicken little comments are nothing more than ideological blowhorns.

California economy is driven by big markets which produce the bulk of the jobs. Those people in turn like to spend their money on services. The number of services provided certainly fluctuates with the economy, but there's no lack of demand for these services that your John Galts are providing out here (and yes, they use the freeways too).

I just find it humorous that all you "free market capitalists" have no trouble blaming consumers for not taking better care of their personal financial situations, but when a few "John Galts" couldn't cut it in the free market, its solely the government's fault and the tax burden. Its blame someone other than the "John Galt".

I'm telling you there are plenty of "John Galts" out here who are making due, and the ones that are leaving are the ones who couldn't keep up in a bad economy. I'm telling you I still have lots of choices of John Galts to purchase my goods and services from. I'm saying, the freeways are still crowded out here, which means there's still a lot of people working out here, which means there are still a lot of people purchasing goods and services from your John Galts out here. The less successful John Galts, who could only survive in a bloated California economic period, are coming back to your less tax burdened states to peddle their less effective business models on you. Enjoy. Capitalism at its best.

-HH

patteeu
05-22-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, it really wasn't meant to be an encompassing critique, now was it. Oh yeah, I forget, conservatives don't practice humor.

First of all, I live in one of those "tax burdened states", so I am familiar with the economy in these parts. I know markets adapt in this area as well. We have new shopping/business areas going up with the rents going down to try and offset the economic difficulties. I know the market in this area fluctuates but never really spirals, so these chicken little comments are nothing more than ideological blowhorns.

California economy is driven by big markets which produce the bulk of the jobs. Those people in turn like to spend their money on services. The number of services provided certainly fluctuates with the economy, but there's no lack of demand for these services that your John Galts are providing out here (and yes, they use the freeways too).

I just find it humorous that all you "free market capitalists" have no trouble blaming consumers for not taking better care of their personal financial situations, but when a few "John Galts" couldn't cut it in the free market, its solely the government's fault and the tax burden. Its blame someone other than the "John Galt".

I'm telling you there are plenty of "John Galts" out here who are making due, and the ones that are leaving are the ones who couldn't keep up in a bad economy. I'm telling you I still have lots of choices of John Galts to purchase my goods and services from. I'm saying, the freeways are still crowded out here, which means there's still a lot of people working out here, which means there are still a lot of people purchasing goods and services from your John Galts out here. The less successful John Galts, who could only survive in a bloated California economic period, are coming back to your less tax burdened states to peddle their less effective business models on you. Enjoy. Capitalism at its best.

-HH

Speaking of being humorless, let's hear it for defensiveness!

If you think your economy is humming along just fine, it's high time you pick up a newspaper and read about what's going on up in Sacramento. You're about to come begging for a handout from those of us saps who support less effective business model hucksters, lol.

At least BucEyedPea can take comfort in the fact that she's not the only person around here who measures economic well-being by the activity that can be observed in the malls (or in your case, on the highways).

patteeu
05-22-2009, 12:19 PM
Never mind, you apparently don't know anything about integrated models, it wasn't even a conception in the Soviet Union. You should just go back to fixing the problems between the federalists and anti-federalists.

-HH

I don't mind saying that I don't know what you mean by "integrated models". Fill me in.

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 01:08 PM
Integrated models look at social dynamics from multiple perspectives to attempt to achieve systems that offer greater mobility to those that seek it. It attempts to accomplish this by understanding the correlations between apparently opposing motivations rather than emphasizing their differences. In economics these motivations might be the individual, the product, the social system and the cultural setting.

For example, most people in the U.S. like the idea of capitalism but would be against the idea of hoarding. They dislike the idea of socialism but like to think of themselves as caring. In a social structure where your "John Galts" were the driving force of not only the economy, but also the culture, it is easier to have a direct effect on the social issues of your more intact community.

But, as the social structure of the economic situation changes (modern capitalism is spearheaded by corporatism), there is a perceived lack of empathy that the small businessman was lionized for in his day. This produces a feeling of disconnect in the culture fostering a justification for fleecing your fellow man rather than caring for him. This produces a shift from systems that focus on the individual to ones that focus on community. These shifts happen in stages of history, its not just socialism versus capitalism. We all have needs of community and for individuality, but these needs evolve, so a shift from individuality does not mean a regression from capitalism per se. It means the economic needs will evolve a new strategy that incorporates the successes of the past with the needs of its future.

Evolution, however, breeds discord and condemnation from the "truthkeepers" of the previous system. It serves the purpose of not letting liberalism lunge to far (and maybe too out of control), but it is also fearfully attempting to hold onto its power base. This is why you see conservative capitalists reaching back for Ayn Rand. They can only see the evolution of the economic system as a threat, so they contrast it against the "golden age" of their system's rise. "If you do that, we're gonna have long lines and crumbling institutions!"

The problem with this line of thinking, without having an integrated understanding, is that the culture doesn't want the impersonal corporation any longer. They want to feel connected and empathetic. Whether you agree with all that "mushy stuff" is not important. You have to be able to judge the pulse of the culture. If you miss that, and you simply appear less empathetic by stressing individualism, you actually reinforce their perception.

An integrated approach asks how do we meet the cultural shift that actually enhances the economic vitality? If your answer is "work harder", then you are going to become culturally irrelevant and your business will eventually fail on the "principles" of the old system. If you're not integrally informed, you're not anticipating and preparing for the shift.

-HH

banyon
05-22-2009, 03:13 PM
What could be older than socialism? Primitives even practiced it.
Gotta be a reason they didn't progress for thousands of years.

Jesus. Socialism is not tribalism or communalism. Give it a rest.

Guru
05-22-2009, 06:09 PM
Eventually people will start leaving Kansas too. Sure wish I could.

VAChief
05-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Wow.

Third of all, my comments are in reference to the conservatives new found fascination with Ayn Rand. What does Ayn Rand know of integrated economic models and international markets? Your response, "socialism is primitive". Thanks for chiming in.

-HH

I liked her books for the most part, there are some very empowering views in her stories, but they were novels where you can make the story fit quite nicely with your particular view.

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 07:29 PM
Why don't Democrats admit they're socialists?

With all their taxes and regulations it's no different than them owning it all.

I love how they LOL when someone calls them socialist or their policies.

HolyHandgernade
05-22-2009, 08:09 PM
Why don't Democrats admit they're socialists?

With all their taxes and regulations it's no different than them owning it all.

I love how they LOL when someone calls them socialist or their policies.

Because subtlty and distinction are lost hard right wing conservative minds who need everything in black and white terms that can be explained to them with nothing much more complicated than a wikipedia search.

Your welcome.

-HH

patteeu
05-22-2009, 08:33 PM
Why don't Democrats admit they're socialists?

With all their taxes and regulations it's no different than them owning it all.

I love how they LOL when someone calls them socialist or their policies.

Because they were raised to believe that socialism was bad and they can't admit to themselves that they've become what they were taught to dislike.

SBK
05-22-2009, 10:16 PM
Because they were raised to believe that socialism was bad and they can't admit to themselves that they've become what they were taught to dislike.

This is how I see it. The term 'socialism' is bad, even though they totally agree with the system.

We become the most prosperous, powerful, and highly looked upon nation on earth, and the very system that created that is viewed as bad by so many people around here.....

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Never mind, you apparently don't know anything about integrated models, it wasn't even a conception in the Soviet Union. You should just go back to fixing the problems between the federalists and anti-federalists.

-HH

Please enlighten me then? It's just the word "integrated" smacks of "planning" by some people at the helm so all the pieces work as a whole system—so it works their way.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 12:04 AM
Because subtlty and distinction are lost hard right wing conservative minds who need everything in black and white terms that can be explained to them with nothing much more complicated than a wikipedia search.

Your welcome.

-HH

Oh I don't think so. I think it's more like this thanks to our education system right up through college that have dumbed most folks down.

The result being:

""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." ——by:

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Source:1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign


Wanna know what he said about Republicans? ( who are not necessarily conservative with is why some moderate socialists will vote for one)



[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party
Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican
and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the
Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform
on which to run.]
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1

Says it all for me. Especialy the "not knowing how it happpened" part. America doesn't need outside threats or enemies to be destroyed. We have enough bad ideas inside to do the job.

googlegoogle
05-23-2009, 03:52 AM
This is how I see it. The term 'socialism' is bad, even though they totally agree with the system.

We become the most prosperous, powerful, and highly looked upon nation on earth, and the very system that created that is viewed as bad by so many people around here.....

ROFL

WTF.

We're prosperous? LOL.

We're buried under the socialist system

HolyHandgernade
05-23-2009, 07:23 AM
Please enlighten me then? It's just the word "integrated" smacks of "planning" by some people at the helm so all the pieces work as a whole system—so it works their way.

I already did. So you took a word, made up your own definition, and then made it my argument so you could attack it as an anti-American value? Nice.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
05-23-2009, 07:28 AM
Oh I don't think so. I think it's more like this thanks to our education system right up through college that have dumbed most folks down.

The result being:

""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." ——by:

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Source:1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign


Wanna know what he said about Republicans? ( who are not necessarily conservative with is why some moderate socialists will vote for one)



[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party
Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican
and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the
Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform
on which to run.]
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1

Says it all for me. Especialy the "not knowing how it happpened" part. America doesn't need outside threats or enemies to be destroyed. We have enough bad ideas inside to do the job.

That is right upthe conservative's agenda. isn't it? The education system dumbs people down? Yes, some words are "charged" beyond a meaning because of past associations for the word. No system produces 100% error and very few systems remain the same from their inception. Yet, in your mind, anything that moves away from your conception is a 1940-50's brand of socialism. Anybody that tries to say something different is "dumbing you down".

-HH

banyon
05-23-2009, 09:43 AM
Hey, why don't you guys just admit you're fascists and anarchists? Just too stupid like us?

That's a really great theory you guys are working on in this thread. :rolleyes:

Calcountry
05-23-2009, 12:50 PM
Heh actually a bunch of people are leaving the state in droves too. My dad was telling me about a friends son. Uhaul drop off rate from CA to CO, $5K. Uhaul drop off rate from CO to CA? $5

Me my self I now have to decide in relatively short order if I'm leaving CA, if I do I need to leave in 5 weeks for tax reasons. I've lived in this state for a while now and there are many things about it that are interesting. But the state has many policies that are just designed by idiots. :cuss:Government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots.

Definitely a majority of idiots, which it should be no surprise that they think they can tax their way out of the budget deficit.

Calcountry
05-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Wow.

First of all, I'm not promoting socialism. CORECT.

Second of all, you could reduce any system to a primitive state, so what's your point? If two tribes trade with each other and determine worth through supply and demand, is that ancient capitalism? CORECT.

Third of all, my comments are in reference to the conservatives new found fascination with Ayn Rand. What does Ayn Rand know of integrated economic models and international markets? Your response, "socialism is primitive". Thanks for chiming in. CORECT.

-HHCORECT!111 Netflix has delivered millions of videos.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 05:22 PM
That is right upthe conservative's agenda. isn't it? The education system dumbs people down? Yes, some words are "charged" beyond a meaning because of past associations for the word. No system produces 100% error and very few systems remain the same from their inception. Yet, in your mind, anything that moves away from your conception is a 1940-50's brand of socialism. Anybody that tries to say something different is "dumbing you down".

-HH
Nope. It's socialism because it meets the definition and the most the ten planks of Marx and others. It's also not just my conception.
Plenty of freedom loving folks share it with me. What have you studied of the subject to know?

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 05:23 PM
I already did. So you took a word, made up your own definition, and then made it my argument so you could attack it as an anti-American value? Nice.

-HH

Oh well, I didn't see it. You do know I said that in post #35 and you didn't explain it until your post #40. Follow the sequence please. Otherwise it looks illogical.
Also, do you know what the definition of "smacks" means?

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 05:27 PM
At least BucEyedPea can take comfort in the fact that she's not the only person around here who measures economic well-being by the activity that can be observed in the malls (or in your case, on the highways).

I love it! :D Where's KCnative, and his sidekick banyon, to jump on him for using anecdotal evidence?

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 05:40 PM
Integrated models look at social dynamics from multiple perspectives to attempt to achieve systems that offer greater mobility to those that seek it. It attempts to accomplish this by understanding the correlations between apparently opposing motivations rather than emphasizing their differences. In economics these motivations might be the individual, the product, the social system and the cultural setting.
Wow! Just Wow, that still smacks of planning and control by elitist experts instead of allowing the creativity and productive forces of the people to create their own destinies. You don't have a clue about what I meant or freedom for that matter.

For example, most people in the U.S. like the idea of capitalism but would be against the idea of hoarding.
Um...no, America is not capitalist exclusively. And what you've witnessed to a large degree for capitalism is mercantilism. Do you know who coined the word "capitalism" and never defined it?

They dislike the idea of socialism but like to think of themselves as caring. In a social structure where your "John Galts" were the driving force of not only the economy, but also the culture, it is easier to have a direct effect on the social issues of your more intact community.
You keep using terms like social structure and social this and that but you're not promoting socialism? What do you think socialism is about? It's not just economics ya' know.

But, as the social structure of the economic situation changes (modern capitalism is spearheaded by corporatism), there is a perceived lack of empathy that the small businessman was lionized for in his day. This produces a feeling of disconnect in the culture fostering a justification for fleecing your fellow man rather than caring for him. This produces a shift from systems that focus on the individual to ones that focus on community. These shifts happen in stages of history, its not just socialism versus capitalism. We all have needs of community and for individuality, but these needs evolve, so a shift from individuality does not mean a regression from capitalism per se. It means the economic needs will evolve a new strategy that incorporates the successes of the past with the needs of its future.

Evolution, however, breeds discord and condemnation from the "truthkeepers" of the previous system. It serves the purpose of not letting liberalism lunge to far (and maybe too out of control), but it is also fearfully attempting to hold onto its power base. This is why you see conservative capitalists reaching back for Ayn Rand. They can only see the evolution of the economic system as a threat, so they contrast it against the "golden age" of their system's rise. "If you do that, we're gonna have long lines and crumbling institutions!"

The problem with this line of thinking, without having an integrated understanding, is that the culture doesn't want the impersonal corporation any longer. They want to feel connected and empathetic. Whether you agree with all that "mushy stuff" is not important. You have to be able to judge the pulse of the culture. If you miss that, and you simply appear less empathetic by stressing individualism, you actually reinforce their perception.

An integrated approach asks how do we meet the cultural shift that actually enhances the economic vitality? If your answer is "work harder", then you are going to become culturally irrelevant and your business will eventually fail on the "principles" of the old system. If you're not integrally informed, you're not anticipating and preparing for the shift.

-HH

Socialist concepts weave in and out of this post. Marx's system was aimed at social issues using economics as a way to achieve them. Look at his views on religion being the opiate of the people and your own scorn for the same subject. But you're not promoting socialism to any degree? Riiiiiiiiight!

It's not liberalism... it's illiberal. Liberals today aren't of the liberalism of those who gave us our free system. For instance when we hear of Sweden and Denmark liberalizing their systems more ( which they have) it means they've moved to less govt control in their markets. Why? Because it was caving in on them.

Evolution? How can you be for evolution in biology but scorn it here. It's how you got here. Are you afraid of becoming obsolete via natural selection?

Oh, and you cannot reduce "any system" to a primitive state. It's a contradiction in terms. Socialism is like living in one big tribe.
Primitives had a lot of collectivism in their systems. It's the individual and not the group that rises up to deliver the advances that push us forward and improve our living conditions....not committees. Govt is one big committee that runs on consensus. They never get much done. It takes the ability to rise above an avid craving for agreement to really get things done. So the dynamics are the opposite when the group is all, and the individual NOTHING.

There are plenty of Rs that embrace socialism. They're just more moderate on it. Even Donger thinks Youth Service is innocuous. Of course, England got theirs under the socialist Atlee govt.

If you'd prefer I'll just call your pov a control system.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 06:02 PM
Obama Hasn’t Noticed People Leaving California and New York?

Taxes, fees, too much regulation, and a “hostile business environment” are reasons cited by people leaving California and New York.

Much of the media covering this story has a liberal bias so ground truth is difficult to find.

But here is a snip from the Orange County (CA) Register last April:

Attendees heard from more than a dozen businesspeople who complained of high workman’s compensation insurance, “predatory” regulators, an unfriendly business climate, a “never ending paper trail of business forms,” exorbitant utility expenses, fees, taxes, quality of life and overpriced overhead.

Randy York said he moved his polyurethane manufacturing business from Huntington Beach to Reno, Nev. in 1987 because he was tired of being “hammered” with regulatory fees from the fire department, the health department, the state Environmental Protection Agency, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

He said it got to the point where he was paying $2,000 or $3,000 a quarter on fees – for company of 20 employees.

“They were killing us with fees,” he said. “Fees, fees, fees.”

See:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ca
lifornia-business-fees-2375002-nevada-company



http://johnltdo5455.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/obama-hasnt-noticed-people-leaving-california-and-new-york/

:clap:
Funny the way some of these threads get framed. Note that Sht4Brns opened his post as if taxes are the main reason these folks are leaving, and federal taxes on top of that, but when we get down to the actual quote from the Orange County Register, we find that taxes are actually pretty far down on the list of reasons given for leaving. It actually looks like most of it has to do with heavy regulations, fees and taxes being imposed by the state and by private companies. You play the states' rights game (which I'm all in favor of), sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If that state is out of control, it is the responsibility of the people of that state to bring it back down to earth.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 06:02 PM
My original post to you was to point out that your support of certain recommendations was old, old hat...and not new. I don't care what you wanna call them...they've been around before.

Here's a cartoon from 1934 in the Chicago Tribune as evidence of it.

I love the text that says: "Young pinkies from Columbia and Harvard." LMAO They need to add Princeton ( spend, spend, spend Krugman) and Yale. Alinsky lives!



http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/2720/picture1gxi.png

HolyHandgernade
05-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Wow! Just Wow, that still smacks of planning and control by elitist experts

........zzzzzzzzz. I'm sorry, I started to read your canned, programmed, uninspired zingers and I fell asleep. After I woke up, I tried again, and it only reminded it me how sad it must be to hold such trite, uninspired, and contrived responses born only from a position that is completely out of power and out of step from people who actually have...some...depth. I won't trouble you anymore until your ilk can hoodwink another mouthpiece of your liking into a position that can actually effect change, thus forcing me to have to take you seriously again. Sorry to have strained you.

If you'll excuse me, I have an elitist function to attend where we will make fun of you as the example of the contrast when we say things like, "I'm so glad the adults are back in charge". Afterwards, we're going to determine if we need to wall off the entire region of red states as our "worker rehabilitation sectors" or if just certain areas of "fly over" country will work. This, of course, after we outlaw your guns, you little people can be so touchy about certain things. I guess there's no reason to hide these desires now that you've figured us out. The clever ones such as yourself we'll probably just have to do away with right away.

Ta ta.

-HH

stevieray
05-23-2009, 08:19 PM
........zzzzzzzzz. I'm sorry, I started to read your canned, programmed, uninspired zingers and I fell asleep. After I woke up, I tried again, and it only reminded it me how sad it must be to hold such trite, uninspired, and contrived responses born only from a position that is completely out of power and out of step from people who actually have...some...depth. I won't trouble you anymore until your ilk can hoodwink another mouthpiece of your liking into a position that can actually effect change, thus forcing me to have to take you seriously again. Sorry to have strained you.

If you'll excuse me, I have an elitist function to attend where we will make fun of you as the example of the contrast when we say things like, "I'm so glad the adults are back in charge". Afterwards, we're going to determine if we need to wall off the entire region of red states as our "worker rehabilitation sectors" or if just certain areas of "fly over" country will work. This, of course, after we outlaw your guns, you little people can be so touchy about certain things. I guess there's no reason to hide these desires now that you've figured us out. The clever ones such as yourself we'll probably just have to do away with right away.

Ta ta.

-HH
It's entertaining reading your posts after hearing your voice.

HolyHandgernade
05-23-2009, 08:20 PM
It's entertaining reading your posts after hearing your voice.

We can't all be blessed like James Earl Jones. :D

-HH

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 08:35 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/


You know we're socialist when a Pravda article takes America to task for adopting Marxism. And to have Putin warn America not to go the Marxist route too.
People who lived it recognize it better I guess. Keep planning other people's lives HH.

Jenson71
05-23-2009, 08:55 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/


You know we're socialist when a Pravda article takes America to task for adopting Marxism. And to have Putin warn America not to go the Marxist route too.
People who lived it recognize it better I guess. Keep planning other people's lives HH.

Help us get a settle on what is more than likely more of your infamous disfigured logic (even moreso than this classic "Look. It's Pravda! SEE!?!?!"). Is the Pravda online junk news anti-Marxist or pro or not really pro or anti anything but selling news like a tabloid?

***SPRAYER
05-23-2009, 09:07 PM
B.O. is a POS moron.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 09:15 PM
Help us get a settle on what is more than likely more of your infamous disfigured logic (even moreso than this classic "Look. It's Pravda! SEE!?!?!"). Is the Pravda online junk news anti-Marxist or pro or not really pro or anti anything but selling news like a tabloid?

I see you got nuthin' again...nuthin' but ad hominem. You know what that means? You can't articulate an argument.

Now tell me why Putin would shake his head at us? 'Eh?

Time for bed Jen.

Jenson71
05-23-2009, 11:13 PM
I know the answer to my question must be somewhere in there.

BucEyedPea
05-23-2009, 11:15 PM
Your question wasn't serious and came across as rhetorical. The article has been reposted and cited on by other sites on economics.
Doesn't matter if there's other junk that commercial.

Jenson71
05-24-2009, 12:12 AM
It doesn't look like a serious website. Cited by other sites? It's a bunch of commentary said elsewhere. What's so special? Cmon, it's not a serious voice of socialism. And if it was a serious voice of socialism, (brace yourself here) it would not be concerned with America's supposedly declining capitalist class and capitalist system. Obviously! This is one more example of your serious lack of evaluating sources to support your arguments and opinions.

Of course, it doesn't quite reach the "THEY LIVE TO BE 144 YEARS OLD. THESE WEBSITES PROVE IT!!"

banyon
05-24-2009, 12:19 AM
Of course, it doesn't quite reach the "THEY LIVE TO BE 144 YEARS OLD. THESE WEBSITES PROVE IT!!"

Wait, what did I miss?

MadMax
05-24-2009, 12:22 AM
B.O. is a POS moron.


Without a doubt!!

BucEyedPea
05-24-2009, 12:23 AM
This is about the Republic of California though. Ahnie is the guv'nah.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 09:08 AM
Is the Pravda online junk news anti-Marxist or pro or not really pro or anti anything but selling news like a tabloid?

I can't tell whether you know this or not, but since you're so young you may not. Pravda was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda)). The current incarnation is obviously no longer a mouthpiece of the old regime, but it was started by former Pravda employees. Whether they are old line communists or reformer/anti-communists, I don't know, but my guess would be they are closer to the latter. However, whatever their ideology, they were front row witnesses of both Soviet communism and post-Soviet struggles with varying degrees of capitalism and thugocracy.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2009, 11:51 AM
I can't tell whether you know this or not, but since you're so young you may not. Pravda was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda)). The current incarnation is obviously no longer a mouthpiece of the old regime, but it was started by former Pravda employees. Whether they are old line communists or reformer/anti-communists, I don't know, but my guess would be they are closer to the latter. However, whatever their ideology, they were front row witnesses of both Soviet communism and post-Soviet struggles with varying degrees of capitalism and thugocracy.
I forgot he is so young that he is a post Cold War child essentially. I thought everyone knew who Pravda was before. That was the the whole point. Ruskies correcting America on Marxism. LOL!

Earthling
05-24-2009, 03:31 PM
Illinois must be one of the higher tax States...I heard Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans..

JohnnyV13
05-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Heh actually a bunch of people are leaving the state in droves too. My dad was telling me about a friends son. Uhaul drop off rate from CA to CO, $5K. Uhaul drop off rate from CO to CA? $5

Me my self I now have to decide in relatively short order if I'm leaving CA, if I do I need to leave in 5 weeks for tax reasons. I've lived in this state for a while now and there are many things about it that are interesting. But the state has many policies that are just designed by idiots. :cuss:

For 5K, i'd drive the damn thing back myself

Jenson71
05-24-2009, 07:45 PM
I forgot he is so young that he is a post Cold War child essentially. I thought everyone knew who Pravda was before. That was the the whole point. Ruskies correcting America on Marxism. LOL!

Okay, you can't or won't answer.

I've heard of Pravda. You don't need to be born in 1954 to know what Pravda is. I'm not interested in what Pravda used to be. I'm interested in why this new Pravda online is both pro-socialist and anti-socialist. Do you think their are hard core capitalists in Russia? Sure. Do you think that there being so means states should not have higher taxes for the rich? Is that your hand?

Anyway, don't bother tripping overself in some effort to respond to this. I don't think anyone needs to see that mess.

wild1
05-24-2009, 07:55 PM
Okay, you can't or won't answer.

I've heard of Pravda. You don't need to be born in 1954 to know what Pravda is. I'm not interested in what Pravda used to be. I'm interested in why this new Pravda online is both pro-socialist and anti-socialist. Do you think their are hard core capitalists in Russia? Sure. Do you think that there being so means states should not have higher taxes for the rich? Is that your hand?

Anyway, don't bother tripping overself in some effort to respond to this. I don't think anyone needs to see that mess.

pravda was an organ of the party in the old soviet union and it isn't much further to the right today. that's the point. pravda realizes B.O. is too far left for their tastes

Jenson71
05-24-2009, 07:58 PM
pravda was an organ of the party in the old soviet union and it isn't much further to the right today. that's the point. pravda realizes B.O. is too far left for their tastes

It's a worthless point built on a misnomer and other misconceptions. That's my point. It's an enormous strawman for BEP to show and tackle, so naturally, it constitutes as evidence of her correctness. It's so catchy too. But taking a moment to think about it leads one to recognize the worthlessness of it.

banyon
05-24-2009, 07:59 PM
pravda was an organ of the party in the old soviet union and it isn't much further to the right today. that's the point. pravda realizes B.O. is too far left for their tastes

It appears to be a little more complicated than that:

On August 22, 1991, a decree by Russian President Boris Yeltsin shut down the Communist Party and seized all of its property, including Pravda. Its team of journalists fought for their newspaper and freedom of speech. They registered a new paper with the same title just weeks after.

A few months later, then-editor Gennady Seleznyov (now a member of the Duma) sold Pravda to a family of Greek entrepreneurs, the Yannikoses. The next editor-in-chief, Alexander Ilyin, handed Pravda's trademark — the Order of Lenin medals — and the new registration certificate over to the new owners.

By that time, a serious split occurred in the editorial office. Over 90% of the journalists who had been working for Pravda until 1991 quit their jobs. They established their own version of the newspaper, which was later shut down under government pressure. These same journalists, led by former Pravda editors Vadim Gorshenin and Viktor Linnik in January 1999, launched Pravda Online, the first web-based newspaper in the Russian language; English, Italian and Portuguese versions are also available.

The new Pravda newspaper and Pravda Online are not related in any way, although the journalists of both publications are still in touch with each other. The paper Pravda tends to analyze events from a leftist point of view, while the web-based, tabloid-style newspaper often takes a nationalist and sensationalist approach.

Meanwhile, in 2004, a new urban guide Pravda has been launched in Lithuania. It has no stylistic resemblance to the original communist Pravda, although its mission purports "to report the truth and nothing but the truth".

The newspaper of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is also called Gazeta "Pravda".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda#The_post-Soviet_period

patteeu
05-24-2009, 08:22 PM
Okay, you can't or won't answer.

I've heard of Pravda. You don't need to be born in 1954 to know what Pravda is. I'm not interested in what Pravda used to be. I'm interested in why this new Pravda online is both pro-socialist and anti-socialist. Do you think their are hard core capitalists in Russia? Sure. Do you think that there being so means states should not have higher taxes for the rich? Is that your hand?

Anyway, don't bother tripping overself in some effort to respond to this. I don't think anyone needs to see that mess.

It's kind of irrelevant whether they are pro or anti-socialism today. The fact that they've seen the Soviet version up close and compare the direction the US is moving to the drawbacks of that system are what makes their take interesting.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 08:24 PM
It's a worthless point built on a misnomer and other misconceptions. That's my point. It's an enormous strawman for BEP to show and tackle, so naturally, it constitutes as evidence of her correctness. It's so catchy too. But taking a moment to think about it leads one to recognize the worthlessness of it.

Why is it worthless? I understand that it's not a debate ender (like Al Gore's proclamations about Global Warming, heh) but why do you think it has no worth at all?

HolyHandgernade
05-24-2009, 10:04 PM
It's kind of irrelevant whether they are pro or anti-socialism today. The fact that they've seen the Soviet version up close and compare the direction the US is moving to the drawbacks of that system are what makes their take interesting.

Well, when you have an over reach of a system, any correction back towards a balance will initially look like a move towards the opposite direction. If scales are initially weighted to the right, a move back to center will look and feel like a move to the left until balance is actually achieved. The error is simply perspective by those who cannot accept that their overweight is what is causing things to be askew. Now, any correction towards balance: SOCIALIST!

-HH

Jenson71
05-24-2009, 10:49 PM
It's kind of irrelevant whether they are pro or anti-socialism today. The fact that they've seen the Soviet version up close and compare the direction the US is moving to the drawbacks of that system are what makes their take interesting.

That's fine, but at least be honest and don't pretend to tell us that even the socialists are worried that we are becoming too socialist.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 11:23 PM
Well, when you have an over reach of a system, any correction back towards a balance will initially look like a move towards the opposite direction. If scales are initially weighted to the right, a move back to center will look and feel like a move to the left until balance is actually achieved. The error is simply perspective by those who cannot accept that their overweight is what is causing things to be askew. Now, any correction towards balance: SOCIALIST!

-HH

You've got to be pretty far left if you see the situation in the US over the past decade or so like that. I don't think calling Obamanomics socialist is much of an exaggeration, but I'm damn sure that calling it a "correction towards balance" is a joke.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 11:25 PM
That's fine, but at least be honest and don't pretend to tell us that even the socialists are worried that we are becoming too socialist.

I see your point. I don't think true socialists think we're becoming too socialist. I think they welcome the change and see it as an onset of common sense or, in some cases, maybe a correction towards balance. ;)

banyon
05-24-2009, 11:25 PM
You've got to be pretty far left if you see the situation in the US over the past decade or so like that. I don't think calling Obamanomics socialist is much of an exaggeration, but I'm damn sure that calling it a "correction towards balance" is a joke.

The past decade is 8 years of Bush, 1 1/2 year of Clinton and almost 1/2 year of Obama. That's left?

HolyHandgernade
05-25-2009, 08:49 AM
The past decade is 8 years of Bush, 1 1/2 year of Clinton and almost 1/2 year of Obama. That's left?

Like I said, when the scales are so tilted one way, if you're sitting in the heavy scale, its hard for them to see the imbalance.

--H

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 09:07 AM
Like I said, when the scales are so tilted one way, if you're sitting in the heavy scale, its hard for them to see the imbalance.

--H

Don't look at me on that. The recent Republican budget ( I have as a pdf) is a joke too. You party partisans on either side don't see the two party system as broke and more of the same. That FACT that you advocate more of what was done to the tenth power is advocating old ideas to the tenth power. What didn't work before, won't work again. That's insanity.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 09:09 AM
Well, when you have an over reach of a system, any correction back towards a balance will initially look like a move towards the opposite direction.-HH

Sheer madnes. This is not a correction back towards balance...it's more of the same to the tenth power. Insanity is doing the same thing over again despite no improvement.

Again, nothing new here. Nothing at all!

patteeu
05-25-2009, 11:36 AM
The past decade is 8 years of Bush, 1 1/2 year of Clinton and almost 1/2 year of Obama. That's left?

I'm even willing to ignore the Clinton and Obama parts. Bush was more right than either of those two, but he was barely a light tap on the breaks of the ever leftward, expanding government trend we've been on for the past 75 or so years. In fact, Clinton plus his Republican Congress may have been a bigger respite given his difficulty forcing his agenda during the scandal years.

Obama is attempting (and will likely succeed) to push the government further left than it's ever been before. Bush didn't come anywhere close to the high water mark of conservatism and he didn't even make much effort to get there. His domestic political strategy was largely based on co-opting some of the left's ideas and implementing less objectionable versions of them (e.g. prescription drug entitlement). And of course, in the end, he signed on with the democrats on TARP. Indeed, his administration was the prime architect of the original version, before Obama eventually made it his own.

Anyone who sees Obama as a reversion to the mean is fooling themselves. On one thing, I can agree with Holy Handgernade. When the scales are so tilted one way, those sitting on the heavy side of the scale have a hard time seeing the imbalance

patteeu
05-25-2009, 11:37 AM
Sheer madnes. This is not a correction back towards balance...it's more of the same to the tenth power. Insanity is doing the same thing over again despite no improvement.

Again, nothing new here. Nothing at all!

It's new only in it's audacity and it's scope, otherwise I agree with you.

banyon
05-25-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm even willing to ignore the Clinton and Obama parts. Bush was more right than either of those two, but he was barely a light tap on the breaks of the ever leftward, expanding government trend we've been on for the past 75 or so years. In fact, Clinton plus his Republican Congress may have been a bigger respite given his difficulty forcing his agenda during the scandal years.

Obama is attempting (and will likely succeed) to push the government further left than it's ever been before. Bush didn't come anywhere close to the high water mark of conservatism and he didn't even make much effort to get there. His domestic political strategy was largely based on co-opting some of the left's ideas and implementing less objectionable versions of them (e.g. prescription drug entitlement). And of course, in the end, he signed on with the democrats on TARP. Indeed, his administration was the prime architect of the original version, before Obama eventually made it his own.

Anyone who sees Obama as a reversion to the mean is fooling themselves. On one thing, I can agree with Holy Handgernade. When the scales are so tilted one way, those sitting on the heavy side of the scale have a hard time seeing the imbalance

I'm going to have to disagree on that. Bush was involved in taking the left's ideas, and then implemening Corporate-friendly versions of those ideas, usually deregulating or just handing out taxpayer dollars to his corporate buddies. That's not "left" at all.

Let me pose some questions: Isn't "socialism" supposed to be about redistribution of wealth and distributing it downwards? Why, then didn't such a wealth transfer occur? Why did, in fact, the opposite pattern occur? I'm sure it had nothing to do with corporate deregulation and massive free trade agreements that outsourced many decent paying jobs, right?

Remember, those were ideas of the right. Straight out of the Heritage Foundation et. al. They were implemented and they were a spectacular failure. It's comical now that they were such a failure that people have to pretend they didn't happen and infact some Bizarro-Bush was in charge that they unwittingly supported who was in fact some kind of FDR clone. Bush (and Clinton before him) pushed de regulation and corporate excess as far as it would go, and this is where it got us. I mean really. There were no "lefty" economic policies that had even remotely the same impact as the unregulated free trade and deregulatory policies that were implemented.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 12:25 PM
I'm going to have to disagree on that. Bush was involved in taking the left's ideas, and then implemening Corporate-friendly versions of those ideas, usually deregulating or just handing out taxpayer dollars to his corporate buddies. That's not "left" at all.

Let me pose some questions: Isn't "socialism" supposed to be about redistribution of wealth and distributing it downwards? Why, then didn't such a wealth transfer occur? Why did, in fact, the opposite pattern occur? I'm sure it had nothing to do with corporate deregulation and massive free trade agreements that outsourced many decent paying jobs, right?

Remember, those were ideas of the right. Straight out of the Heritage Foundation et. al. They were implemented and they were a spectacular failure. It's comical now that they were such a failure that people have to pretend they didn't happen and infact some Bizarro-Bush was in charge that they unwittingly supported who was in fact some kind of FDR clone. Bush (and Clinton before him) pushed de regulation and corporate excess as far as it would go, and this is where it got us. I mean really. There were no "lefty" economic policies that had even remotely the same impact as the unregulated free trade and deregulatory policies that were implemented.

Except that we didn't really have all that much deregulation despite the rhetoric used to describe regulation reform. We had a lot of other-regulation" under Clinton and Bush, but little real deregulation. Even free trade agreements are really government controlled trade agreements. Unregulated free trade? Are you joking?

IMO, socialism is more about government control than it is about redistribution of wealth. It's not like the Soviet Union experienced a surge in the wealth of the working class.

Jenson71
05-25-2009, 12:34 PM
I see your point. I don't think true socialists think we're becoming too socialist. I think they welcome the change and see it as an onset of common sense or, in some cases, maybe a correction towards balance. ;)

The wsws.org, the leading voice of socialists as far as I know, constantly writes negatively about Obama. They only see him as a pawn for the capitalist elite on Wall Street.

banyon
05-25-2009, 03:22 PM
Except that we didn't really have all that much deregulation despite the rhetoric used to describe regulation reform. We had a lot of other-regulation" under Clinton and Bush, but little real deregulation. Even free trade agreements are really government controlled trade agreements. Unregulated free trade? Are you joking?

IMO, socialism is more about government control than it is about redistribution of wealth. It's not like the Soviet Union experienced a surge in the wealth of the working class.

Wasn't this the guy you supported for 8 years here? Why would you support him so vigorously if he was secretly Joseph Stalin? Why did you vote for him again in 04 if he was such a big socialist?

In any event your fictional narrative of the last 8 years is entertaining if nothing else. What is this big reglatory program that was so onerous to business and corporations that Bush enacted?

Also, what free trade agreement do you think puts such onerous burdens on corporations trying to trade? Naturally, by definition, any trade agreement that is made is going to involve 'government' insofar as those will be the parties to the agreements. It doesn't follow though that there would necessarily be any government regulation of business as a result though. I'm pretty familiar with NAFTA, and it's got nothing of the sort in it as far as I can recall. To the contrary, it hamstrings government and precludes them from regulating businesses with tarriffs, environmental, and labor regulations and even enables them a forum in which to sue governments who try to enact such regulations.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 03:50 PM
Wasn't this the guy you supported for 8 years here? Why would you support him so vigorously if he was secretly Joseph Stalin? Why did you vote for him again in 04 if he was such a big socialist?

In any event your fictional narrative of the last 8 years is entertaining if nothing else. What is this big reglatory program that was so onerous to business and corporations that Bush enacted?

Also, what free trade agreement do you think puts such onerous burdens on corporations trying to trade? Naturally, by definition, any trade agreement that is made is going to involve 'government' insofar as those will be the parties to the agreements. It doesn't follow though that there would necessarily be any government regulation of business as a result though. I'm pretty familiar with NAFTA, and it's got nothing of the sort in it as far as I can recall. To the contrary, it hamstrings government and precludes them from regulating businesses with tarriffs, environmental, and labor regulations and even enables them a forum in which to sue governments who try to enact such regulations.

What do you mean "vote for him again in 04"? I didn't vote for him in 00 because he was too liberal. I voted for him in 04 because he was a far better choice than John Kerry on foreign policy alone, but he was also superior to Kerry on such things as taxes, Kyoto-style global warming issues, and social security. But lets not confuse my support for the lessor of two evils on the domestic front and the far superior candidate on the foreign policy front with my endorsement of his comfort with big government. I supported John McCain in 08 too, even though he was even worse than Bush.

As for our free trade agreements, are you allowed to get in your pickup, drive down to Mexico, buy a load of corn and then bring it back home without interference? The free trade agreements are government managed trade agreements. Certainly I see them as far preferable to the hodgepodge of protectionist tarriffs and xenophobic regulations that they replace, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't really "free trade".

The one area where I think the Bush years threatened to bring real conservative change was in the judiciary, but at the all-important SCOTUS level, he never quite brought the pendulum back to the right. It got stuck at the center and now threatens to swing back left again.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 03:51 PM
Banyon, you need to get after the United States Chamber of Commerce. Your "facts" prove them to be such liars!

Or.....


NAFTA at 15: Assessing its Benefits
by John Murphy

President Barack Obama will travel to Canada tomorrow, February 19, for his first foreign trip. One item on his agenda with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The meeting follows a similar encounter with Mexican President Felipe Calderón on January 12, after which a spokesman referred to the idea of an "upgrade" for the agreement.

In this context, understanding NAFTA is more important than ever. Since it entered into force in January 1994, rapid growth in trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has created significant new opportunities for workers, farmers, consumers and businesses in all three countries. However, despite this 15-year record, many of the agreement’s benefits are poorly understood. Below, I address its benefits, debunk some criticisms of the agreement, and place it in proper context.

Trade

The remarkable results of NAFTA are most obvious in the tripling of U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico over the past 15 years. Trade in goods between the three countries rose from $293 billion in 1993 to just under $1 trillion in 2008. In addition, U.S. exports of services to Canada and Mexico exceed $60 billion annually. Each day, the three North American countries conduct well over $2.5 billion in trade. (1)

In fact, Canada and Mexico are by far the two largest markets in the world for U.S. exports, purchasing more than a third of total exports. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada and Mexico rose from $142 billion in 1993 to a projected $422 billion in 2008. This represents a near tripling in U.S. goods exports to Canada and Mexico (a rise of 197%) in a period when U.S. exports to the rest of the world grew by 141%.

While NAFTA has probably boosted U.S. economic growth in limited ways, it certainly hasn’t hurt it. In the 1993-2007 period, U.S. GDP grew by 54%,Mexican GDP grew by 48% and Canadian GDP expanded by 56%.(2)

Jobs

While some critics have claimed NAFTA caused the loss of a million U.S. jobs, U.S. employment has risen from 110.7 million in January 1994 to 138.9 million in December 2007. This represents an increase of more than 28 million jobs, or a 25% expansion in the number of Americans working.(3)

At the same time, the U.S. unemployment rate was markedly lower in the years after NAFTA came into force. In the period 1994-2007, it averaged 5.1%. This compares with an average rate of 7.1% during a period of similar length just before NAFTA came into force (1982-1993).(4) While the financial crisis that struck in 2008 has caused unemployment to rise sharply, this has nothing to do with the 15-year old trade agreement.

Did NAFTA lead to the creation of 28 million jobs or reduce U.S. unemployment rates by two percentage points? No. During a time of dramatic changes in the U.S. economy, the vast majority of economists believe the agreement has had little net effect on the number of jobs. But it has fostered growth in export-oriented jobs over jobs that aren’t tied to exports. Jobs tied to exports generally pay 15-20% higher wages than those that aren’t, so the shift in the mix of U.S. jobs toward more export-oriented industries represents a net gain for working Americans.(5)

Small Business

Small and mid-size firms have long been the primary motor of U.S. job creation, accounting for well over half of all new jobs in recent years. Today, more than 110,000 of America’s small and mid-size firms export to Canada and Mexico. These small exporters hail from all 50 states. The states that export the most to Canada and Mexico are Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Washington.

The dollar value of small business exports is anything but small. U.S. small and medium-size companies exported $70 billion worth of manufactured goods to Mexico and Canada in 2006. Canada and Mexico together accounted for more than one-quarter of U.S. merchandise exports from small and medium size companies.

Manufacturing

While NAFTA critics say that the agreement has harmed U.S. manufacturing, U.S. industrial production — three-quarters of which is manufacturing — rose by 57% between 1993 and 2007. This performance significantly outpaced the 28% increase in U.S. industrial production between 1981 and 1993.(6)

In recent years, U.S. manufacturers have set new records for output, revenues, profits, profit rates, and return on investment prior to the recent financial crisis. At the same time, growth in America’s service sectors — which employ some 80% of U.S. workers — has reduced the share of U.S. GDP represented by manufacturing from 15.6% in 1993 to about 12% in 2007.(7)

However, U.S. manufacturers shed about three million jobs between 2000 and 2003, despite the dramatic growth in output since NAFTA entered into force. Where have the lost manufacturing jobs gone? Not to Canada or Mexico, nor to China or India. Rather, they’ve been lost to a country called "productivity."

A productivity revolution has allowed manufacturers to greatly increase output with fewer workers. Technological change, automation, and widespread use of information technologies have allowed firms to boost output even as some have cut payrolls.

This productivity revolution is a complex phenomenon. NAFTA critics are correct when they say that manufacturing employment hit a peak and then began a steady decline. However, the peak was in 1979, 15 years before NAFTA came into force.(8)

Today, with American manufacturers facing severe difficulties in the face of a sharp recession, revenue from exports to Canada and Mexico is critical. More than 13 million Americans are employed in manufacturing. These workers produced $870 billion worth of exports in 2007. Canadians and Mexicans alone purchased $330 billion of U.S. manufactured goods in 2007.

In other words, the NAFTA market brings export revenue of $25,000 for each and every American factory worker. Compare this to the salary of the average U.S. manufacturing worker — about $37,000. How could manufacturers make their payroll without the revenues they earn by exporting to Canada and Mexico? The short answer is, they couldn’t.(9)

Agriculture

For U.S. agriculture, NAFTA has been critical to export growth. Canada and Mexico account for 37% of the total increase in U.S. agricultural exports since 1993. Moreover, the share of total U.S. agricultural exports destined for Canada or Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007.(10)

Thanks in large part to NAFTA, Canada today is the top U.S. export destination for wheat, poultry, oats, eggs and potato exports. It is the second-largest U.S. export market for beef, pork, apples and soybean meal, and third largest for rice and dry edible bean exports.(11)

NAFTA did even more to open the Mexican market for U.S. farmers and ranchers. Mexico’s “MFN tariffs” — those paid by exporters from countries that lack a free trade agreement with Mexico — were highest for agricultural products; NAFTA allowed American farmers and ranchers to get past those barriers.

Thanks to this access, Mexico is the top U.S. export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, apples, cheese and dry edible bean exports. It is the second-largest U.S. export market for corn, soybeans and oil, and third largest for pork, poultry, eggs, and cotton. (12)

Conclusion

NAFTA is more important than ever. The members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have seen its benefits firsthand as it has generated new opportunities for workers, farmers, consumers and businesses. As President Obama considers the path forward for the U.S. economic partnership with our North American neighbors, NAFTA should continue to play the foundational role it has for the past 15 years.

1-All trade statistics are from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
2-International Monetary Fund.
3/4-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5-Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
6-U.S. Federal Reserve.
7-U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
8-U.S. Federal Reserve.
9-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Department of Commerce.
10-Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
11/12-U.S. Department of Agriculture.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 03:52 PM
The wsws.org, the leading voice of socialists as far as I know, constantly writes negatively about Obama. They only see him as a pawn for the capitalist elite on Wall Street.

Well according to the other thread there's this quote:

""All these – and many other things – are within our reach now!" exclaimed Sam Webb in a New York banquet speech for the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:13 PM
What do you mean "vote for him again in 04"? I didn't vote for him in 00 because he was too liberal. I voted for him in 04 because he was a far better choice than John Kerry on foreign policy alone, but he was also superior to Kerry on such things as taxes, Kyoto-style global warming issues, and social security. But lets not confuse my support for the lessor of two evils on the domestic front and the far superior candidate on the foreign policy front with my endorsement of his comfort with big government. I supported John McCain in 08 too, even though he was even worse than Bush.

As for our free trade agreements, are you allowed to get in your pickup, drive down to Mexico, buy a load of corn and then bring it back home without interference? The free trade agreements are government managed trade agreements. Certainly I see them as far preferable to the hodgepodge of protectionist tarriffs and xenophobic regulations that they replace, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't really "free trade".

NAFTA(nor any other trade agreement I can think of) didn't impact the situation you describe here one iota either way. There was no additional burden placed on doing the action you list. What a useless ploy. You haven't said anything to show that my prior description of our trade agreements is anything less than accurate.

The one area where I think the Bush years threatened to bring real conservative change was in the judiciary, but at the all-important SCOTUS level, he never quite brought the pendulum back to the right. It got stuck at the center and now threatens to swing back left again.

Thank goodness.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 04:21 PM
So, in Banyonland, the Chamber of Commerce, the entire US Trade delegation, and a host of other sources who see NAFTA as having donee rather well are wrong?

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:32 PM
Banyon, you need to get after the United States Chamber of Commerce. Your "facts" prove them to be such liars!

Or.....


The chamber of commerce wrote that treaty. Of course they like it.

You really think it's been good for the U.S. job market and our economic health?

How's are these numbers for you?:

U.S. Pre-NAFTA trade deficits:

Mexico: +1.3 billion (1994)
Canada: -13 billion (1994)

Post NAFTA trade deficits:

Mexico: -64.3 billion (2008)
Canada -74.1 billion (2008)

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

NAFTA job creation predictions by the Heritage foundation:

316,000
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg130?pg=3
Actual jobs created:

-880,000

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7465649


Did the Chamber remember to mention any of that while they were patting themselves on the back?

Their data is also comical, as it appears not to adjust for either inflation or population increases.

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:33 PM
So, in Banyonland, the Chamber of Commerce, the entire US Trade delegation, and a host of other sources who see NAFTA as having donee rather well are wrong?

No, they have donee very poorly.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 04:37 PM
Ive just started reading some of the Nafta reviews and im surprised that your view is so opposed to the information that not coming from some group who opposed it from the very start. Those people have a vested interest in their bias. But why are you so at odds with the others?

See :




Myths vs. Reality

A review of the myths and realities surrounding NAFTA reveals the extent to which its critics have been proven wrong.

Myth 1: NAFTA has not achieved its core goals of expanding trade and investment between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

Reality: Since NAFTA came into effect, trade among the NAFTA countries has more than tripled, reaching US$894.3 billion. In 2006, Canada and the United States’ foreign direct investment holdings in NAFTA partner countries reached US$400.2 billion. Meanwhile, Mexico has become one of the largest recipients of foreign direct investment among emerging markets, receiving more than US$129.1 billion from the NAFTA partners between 1994 and 2006.

Myth 2: NAFTA has resulted in job losses.

Reality: Since NAFTA came into effect, job growth has been strong in all three partner countries. Across North America, total employment has grown by almost 40 million jobs since 1993.

Myth 3: NAFTA hurts workers by eroding labor standards and lowering wages.

Reality: The NAFTA partners negotiated and implemented a parallel agreement on labor cooperation, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The NAALC adds a social dimension to NAFTA. Through the NAALC, the regional trading partners seek to improve working conditions and living standards, and to protect, enhance, and enforce basic workers’ rights.

Over the years, the NAALC has helped to improve working conditions and living standards in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. It has also raised the public profile of major labor rights issues, including pregnancy-based discrimination, secret ballot voting, protection contracts, and protection of migrant workers.

The NAALC promotes the effective enforcement of domestic labor laws in all three countries and highlights cooperation on labor matters in three key areas: industrial relations, occupational health and safety, and employment standards.

In addition, NAFTA has promoted higher wages. In Mexico, for example, export firms employ one in five workers; these workers are paid 40% more on average than those in non-export jobs. Firms with foreign direct investment employ nearly 20% of the labor force and pay 26% more than the domestic average manufacturing wage.

For more information, please visit the website of the Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC).

Myth 4: NAFTA undermines national sovereignty and independence.

Reality: NAFTA is a trilateral agreement designed to facilitate trade and investment between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It respects the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries and allows them to maintain their sovereignty and independence.

Myth 5: NAFTA does nothing to help the environment.

Reality: The NAFTA partners negotiated a parallel agreement on environmental cooperation, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The NAAEC commits the NAFTA partners to work cooperatively to better understand and improve the protection of their environment. The agreement also requires that each NAFTA partner effectively enforce its environmental laws.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation, established under the NAAEC, has produced concrete improvements in the management of North American environmental issues. With a budget of US$9 million annually, some initiatives of the Commission include the:

development of North American management practices for toxic chemicals;
establishment of the first Mexican national air emissions inventory;
launch of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, which provides a resource for bird conservation programs in the three countries;
promotion of best practices to address the linkages between the environment, the economy, and trade.
Additionally, the United States and Mexico created two binational institutions. The Border Environment Cooperation Commission provides technical support for the development of environmental infrastructure projects in the U.S.-Mexico border region (www.cocef.org). The North American Development Bank finances these projects (www.nadbank.org). To date, they have provided nearly US$1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects with a total estimated cost of US$2.89 billion and allocated US$33.5 million in assistance and US$21.6 million in grants for over 450 other border environmental projects. The Mexican government has also made substantial new investments in environmental protection, increasing the federal budget for the environmental sector by 81% between 2003 and 2008.

For more information on what has been accomplished by the parties under the NAAEC, please visit the Commission for Environmental Cooperation website at www.cec.org/.

Myth 6: NAFTA hurts the agricultural sector.

Reality: NAFTA has led to increasingly integrated agricultural and agri-food trade within the North American market. Since 1993, agricultural and agri-food trade and investment flows between the NAFTA partners have tripled, with overall agricultural trade reaching about US$50 billion.

The NAFTA partners are one another’s largest agricultural export markets: Canada and Mexico are the two largest agricultural suppliers to the United States, and the United States is the leading agricultural provider to both the Canadian and Mexican markets. U.S.-Mexico agricultural trade reached US$22.8 billion in 2007, a 260% increase from 1993.

As NAFTA has contributed to further integration of the trading partners’ agricultural sectors, Mexican industries have required more U.S. agricultural inputs. For example, U.S. feedstuffs have increased Mexican meat production and consumption; likewise the importance of Mexican produce to U.S. fruit and vegetable consumption is growing. Grains, oilseeds, meat and related products make up three -fourths of U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico, while beer, vegetables and fruit account for three-fourths of U.S agricultural imports from Mexico.

Myth 7: NAFTA negatively impacts the North American manufacturing base.

Reality: Since NAFTA came into effect, North American manufacturers have enjoyed better access to materials, technologies, capital, and talent available across the continent. Thousands of manufacturers have capitalized on this to improve efficiency and better refine technology, making them more competitive at home and around the world.

U.S. manufacturing output rose by 58% between 1993 and 2006, compared with 42% between 1980 and 1993. In 2007,U.S. manufacturing exportsreached an all-time high of US$982 billion.

Canadian manufacturing output (real GDP) increased by 49% between 1993 and 2007 compared with 23% between 1981 and 1993. Over the same period (1993-2007), Canadian manufacturing exports grew at a much faster pace (up 113.7%).

NAFTA has empowered Mexico’s industrial base by facilitating modernization. As a strategic manufacturing center in North America, Mexico enhances the region’s competitive status in the global marketplace. Since NAFTA’s implementation, Mexico’s international presence has been invigorated by the growth of manufacturing output, which has since tripled. In addition, Mexico’s manufactured exports have multiplied five times over the past 14 years.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 04:38 PM
The governments of three countries all lie....

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:48 PM
The governments of three countries all lie....

If you're just going to cut and paste and not respond to my posts, why should I respond to you?

Do you really think I'm the only one who thinks NAFTA was a bad deal? Are you totally in your own little bubble there?

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/1twfw5paokcb_m7mnomm1q.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113200/Opinion-Briefing-North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement.aspx

And it's funny how you didn't link your last cut and paste.

Here it is since you forgot:

http://www.naftanow.org/myths/default_en.asp

"NAFTA NOW"? LMAO

Of course the people running the damn thing think it's great! Jesus.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 04:51 PM
Trade Deficit numbers you cite are irrespective of the source of outflow. If you remove Energy the data are far more positive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873451908929781.html


Also, take a look here. Seems you have been taken in by some poor numbers...http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba619

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:59 PM
Trade Deficit numbers you cite are irrespective of the source of outflow. If you remove Energy the data are far more positive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873451908929781.html


Also, take a look here. Seems you have been taken in by some poor numbers...http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba619

Heh, what a charlatan, take the Canadian negative energy numbers and conflate them with the negative Mexican manufacturing numbers in order to net some kind of nonexistent benefit. Surely you're not that easy to fool?

Do you have any actual knowledge or anything to say about this, or are you just going to cut and paste some more crap you have no understanding about and ignore the rather legitimate problems I've alreeady posed?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 04:59 PM
Better yet, here is a broader sweep of the issue...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba619

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 05:03 PM
Well, no, actualy I was reading on NAFTA when you posted the information you were using and its so far and away in total opposition to the other data I was a bit confused. So it takes a little time and effort to do but if you read and take your time, you may find that your numbers, from where you are getting them are either wrong or presented poorly.

In any case, your opposition to NAFTA seems to be either misguided by numbers that you have bought into or you have some other reason to be opposed to NAFTA.

banyon
05-25-2009, 05:03 PM
Better yet, here is a broader sweep of the issue...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba619

Oh yeah, well:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/articles.cfm?ID=17640

banyon
05-25-2009, 05:05 PM
Well, no, actualy I was reading on NAFTA when you posted the information you were using and its so far and away in total opposition to the other data I was a bit confused. So it takes a little time and effort to do but if you read and take your time, you may find that your numbers, from where you are getting them are either wrong or presented poorly.

In any case, your opposition to NAFTA seems to be either misguided by numbers that you have bought into or you have some other reason to be opposed to NAFTA.

I'll take this as a "yes I am cutting and pasting stuff I have no inclination or abilty to foster useful discussion on" and a "no, I don't intend to address any of the points or questions you brought up". Thanks. Oh, and "no, your support of NAFTA is misguided" (as if that is persuasive or helpful to discussion).

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 05:12 PM
Sorry to make you feel some need to get so defensive.

You sometimes are pretty pursuasive and seem well informed. I guess I was thinking in this case you knew something or had some understanding that would explain the vast difference between your view and almost every other source I have been reading.

banyon
05-25-2009, 05:16 PM
Sorry to make you feel some need to get so defensive.

You sometimes are pretty pursuasive and seem well informed. I guess I was thinking in this case you knew something or had some understanding that would explain the vast difference between your view and almost every other source I have been reading.

You haven't attempted to engage me in any kind of discussion whatsoever. You avoided every point or question I brought up, and didn't care to ask me anything other than to hurl insults or cut and paste the first thing you Googled. Don't pretend like you made some kind of magnanimous effort here.

I've read extensively about NAFTA in particular, and have written papers on the investor-state Chapter 11 proceedings. You have neither sought nor counseled my understanding, don't act like you made some (or any) kind of hospitable overture in this thread. You've been nothing but nasty and close-minded as usual.

It's also hilarious that the same government that you like to criticize and blame at every opportunity is now a sacrosanct authority on how well their programs are working that you don't dare to question and hold up as unimpeachable proof of your half-considered position.

mlyonsd
05-25-2009, 05:31 PM
NAFTA sucks IMO. I was stupid to once support it. It, and a global economy.

You can't have a country of 300 million people and expect to keep a certain standard of living when you push all your blue collar jobs elsewhere.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 05:31 PM
I asked for some understanding of why your numbers were so different and you did a typical tactic for you...attack the sources or attack whoever questions you...so please dont get up on your little high horse and accuse me of somehow not engaging in a discussion. You feel compelled to go on your attack mode every time you are questioned....I was not attacking you or your stand, I was aking for some enlightenment.

I'm afraid you have come across as less informed than you hoped to. And the fact you wrote a paper is thrilling I am sure but just as the paper I wrote on the history of invasive species in the Pacific Northwest made me feel pretty good, I am now and never was nor will be an expert on the subject because I wrote a paper. Your work on the many individual disputes of who did what to whom is no doubt important but Im not sure I see the connection to your data being so far off from most of the other sources...which was the original question.

Just let it go. I can look into the numbers again when I have a need.

banyon
05-25-2009, 05:47 PM
I asked for some understanding of why your numbers were so different and you did a typical tactic for you...attack the sources or attack whoever questions you...so please dont get up on your little high horse and accuse me of somehow not engaging in a discussion. You feel compelled to go on your attack mode every time you are questioned....I was not attacking you or your stand, I was aking for some enlightenment.

I'm afraid you have come across as less informed than you hoped to. And the fact you wrote a paper is thrilling I am sure but just as the paper I wrote on the history of invasive species in the Pacific Northwest made me feel pretty good, I am now and never was nor will be an expert on the subject because I wrote a paper. Your work on the many individual disputes of who did what to whom is no doubt important but Im not sure I see the connection to your data being so far off from most of the other sources...which was the original question.

Just let it go. I can look into the numbers again when I have a need.

You didn't ask me any particular question that I didn't reply to. You asked me "why are your numbers different" [than the several large cut and pastes which I won't bother to narrow down]. Did you want me to go into exhaustive detail about the whole cut and paste you made? Or was there a particular area you were interested in?

Then you cry about "being attacked". Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread to see who started hurling insults. Your very first post in this thread was sarcastic and combative, and it only got worse from there.

I did point out why your one WSJ article's numbers were conflated, because it was rather limited in scope and there was only 1 main number at issue in the article.

Whether I come across as "uninformed" to someone with their fingers in their ears really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 06:12 PM
NAFTA sucks IMO. I was stupid to once support it. It, and a global economy.
I agree and I'd expect that the CofC is promoting the interests of business only here.

You can't have a country of 300 million people and expect to keep a certain standard of living when you push all your blue collar jobs elsewhere.

I think when you have managed trade, which is what this really is ( mercantilism), it dissallows labor to be part of negotiations ( not Union negotiations bu individuals negotiating with employers) by being flexible. I also think if labor, in more natural market ( not managed by special interests) did become too pricey or whatever disadvantage for an employer, businesses would leave one-by-one or by industry to go outside the country. In this scenario labor wouldn't care where it went. I think things would evolve much more like this as people climb up the economic ladder anyway but that's how it would be dealt with in a free-market. Current interventionist trade policy creates way too fast a vacuum with nothing in place for labor to deal with it. Not good, imo. It's more central planning. There's some businesses that even wanted to stay in the US, but the downward pressure on them by these agreements forced them to go just to survive competitively.

On and it's not just blue collar jobs that are going out. Graphic Design and accounting are but two that are professional skills.

Govt is the problem—not the solution.

banyon
05-25-2009, 06:51 PM
I agree and I'd expect that the CofC is promoting the interests of business only here.



I think when you have managed trade, which is what this really is ( mercantilism), it dissallows labor to be part of negotiations ( not Union negotiations) by being flexible. I also think if labor, in more natural market ( not managed by special interests) did become too pricey or whatever disadvantage for an employer, businesses would leave one-by-one or by industry to go outside the country. In this scenario labor wouldn't care where it went. I think things would evolve much more like this as people climb up the economic ladder anyway but that's how it would be dealt with in a free-market. Current interventionist trade policy way creates too fast a vacuum with nothing in place for labor to deal with it. Not good, imo. It's more central planning. There's some businesses that even wanted to stay in the US, but the downward pressure on them by these agreements forced them to go just to survive competitively.

On and it's not just blue collar jobs that are going out. Graphic Design and accounting are but two that are professional skills.

Govt is the problem—not the solution.

If labor unions and government aren't supposed to negotiate trade agreements, who is?

I won't bother to ask you what "interventionist" policies are in our current trade agreements, since I know you won't answer that (because they aren't there).

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html



\This is in part due to the recession, but largely due to the wealthy escaping Maryland, just as they've been escaping California, New York, and New Jersey. The middle class is left behind to pay for grotesquely metastasizing government. When it is taxed out of existence, Maryland will turn into a giant Detroit.

But this can't happen at a federal level. You can't escape Obama's "spread the wealth around" economics by crossing state lines.

Instead, those with wealth and the companies that create that wealth will be forced to leave the country.

Then we won't have them to oppress us with employment anymore, and Detroit will stretch from sea to shining sea.

http://www.moonbattery.com

SBK
05-26-2009, 04:21 PM
Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html



\This is in part due to the recession, but largely due to the wealthy escaping Maryland, just as they've been escaping California, New York, and New Jersey. The middle class is left behind to pay for grotesquely metastasizing government. When it is taxed out of existence, Maryland will turn into a giant Detroit.

But this can't happen at a federal level. You can't escape Obama's "spread the wealth around" economics by crossing state lines.

Instead, those with wealth and the companies that create that wealth will be forced to leave the country.

Then we won't have them to oppress us with employment anymore, and Detroit will stretch from sea to shining sea.

http://www.moonbattery.com

I was just heading over here to post this, figured I'd highlight the important parts so I feel like I've done something... :clap:

KC native
05-26-2009, 05:23 PM
Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html



\This is in part due to the recession, but largely due to the wealthy escaping Maryland, just as they've been escaping California, New York, and New Jersey. The middle class is left behind to pay for grotesquely metastasizing government. When it is taxed out of existence, Maryland will turn into a giant Detroit.

But this can't happen at a federal level. You can't escape Obama's "spread the wealth around" economics by crossing state lines.

Instead, those with wealth and the companies that create that wealth will be forced to leave the country.

Then we won't have them to oppress us with employment anymore, and Detroit will stretch from sea to shining sea.

http://www.moonbattery.com

I was just heading over here to post this, figured I'd highlight the important parts so I feel like I've done something... :clap:

...really? You guys think this is proof of your arguments? It couldn't have anything to do with Maryland's RE market imploding or even massive job losses could it?

Picking a change from 2007 to 2008 and trying to blame a change in taxes for the drop while we have seen one of the worst economic declines in our nation's history is stupid. There's no way to prove your claims and to try and blame only taxes just shows how low your critical thinking skills are.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:23 PM
I was just heading over here to post this, figured I'd highlight the important parts so I feel like I've done something... :clap:

Thinkers well... think. :thumb:

Moonbats? Spew whatever their cue card tells them too.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:25 PM
...really? You guys think this is proof of your arguments? It couldn't have anything to do with Maryland's RE market imploding or even massive job losses could it?


Massive job losses? What kind of jobs are these? How massive are the losses?

KC native
05-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Massive job losses? What kind of jobs are these? How massive are the losses?

Um, considering U1 is almost 9% and U6 is around 15%, I would say quite massive. Next time do you own homework dumbass.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 07:27 PM
Um, considering U1 is almost 9% and U6 is around 15%, I would say quite massive. .


You didn't answer the questions.

ROFL

KC native
05-26-2009, 08:55 PM
You didn't answer the questions.

ROFL

Just because you're a dumbass and can't assimilate and interpret data doesn't mean I didn't answer the question. Do your own homework and multiply it by the respective workforce numbers.

SBK
05-26-2009, 09:47 PM
Massive job losses? What kind of jobs are these? How massive are the losses?

I have that douche on iggy, but if you're arguing job losses with him you should ask him how many people make over $1,000,000 at a job? Most of the time those folks are the owners of companies, not the employees of someone else......

ROFL

KC native
05-26-2009, 10:01 PM
I have that douche on iggy, but if you're arguing job losses with him you should ask him how many people make over $1,000,000 at a job? Most of the time those folks are the owners of companies, not the employees of someone else......

ROFL

You should recognize that just because they have over a million in income doesn't mean it all came from one source. Jack ass.

***SPRAYER
05-28-2009, 08:21 AM
I have that douche on iggy
ROFL


Great idea! I just put him on igg, too.

ROFL

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 08:22 AM
Me too. He's an ass.