Cleveland Buck;1086944 wrote:$180 trillion is not the cumulative growth.

Yes it is. You don't understand the math. You're so confused it's mindboggling. If I give you $1M and you increase annual sales $1M, after 10 years do you still only have $1M or do you have $10M? those two numbers are not equal.

You made the claim that GDP has not grown that it's just all govt debt. Let me try to make it more simple. $5T per year for 30 years = $150T.....Actual cumulative GDP over that time is something like $300T (-the 14T increase in debt)....So you're only off about, oohhhhhh, $140T.

gut;1087278 wrote:Yes it is. You don't understand the math. You're so confused it's mindboggling. If I give you $1M and you increase annual sales $1M, after 10 years do you still only have $1M or do you have $10M? those two numbers are not equal.

You made the claim that GDP has not grown that it's just all govt debt. Let me try to make it more simple. $5T per year for 30 years = $150T.....Actual cumulative GDP over that time is something like $300T (-the 14T increase in debt)....So you're only off about, oohhhhhh, $140T.

What statistic shows the size of the economy is $150 trillion? Or has ever grown $5 trillion in a year?

Cleveland Buck;1087291 wrote:What statistic shows the size of the economy is $150 trillion? Or has ever grown $5 trillion in a year?

Probably the same statistic you have showing GDP growth the last 30 years is due solely to deficit spending. Obviously no such statistic exists (and I've said no such thing) because it's beyond idiotic.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/barack-obamas-budget-nowhere-180114958.html


obama'a budget to nowhere ......................... change we can believe in ...

Cleveland Buck;1086944 wrote:$180 trillion is not the cumulative growth. It doesn't grow by $6 trillion per year. When they come out with numbers saying GDP growth was 2% that means it grew by $300 billion or something. Where are you getting $180 trillion? That is 3 times the size of the Earth's economy.

What Gut is saying is that the national debt is measured as an aggregate cumulation, which it is. In comparison, the GDP numbers are yearly. That is all.

Without looking it up, I think our GDP is around 14.5 trillion per year. The GDP "growth has averaged a puny 2-3% over the past few years. So you would be correct in stating that the percentage of debt increase has been far greater than the percentage growth of our GDP. And you are also correct in stating that, unlike 26 years ago, the government spending/growth is added onto the GDP number. Incredibly, the yearly trade deficit is also added onto the GDP, which makes no sense at all.

So...on the one hand Gut is correct...you are comparing apples and oranges. On the other hand, you are on the right beating track...in stating that government spending has artificaially inflated our GDP. We have exported our GDP, and it is a subject that I strongly disagree with how it's being handled.

I will vote for Ron Paul for a number of reasons, and I don't like debating fellow Paulbots. But in MO, you and Ron are dead nuts wrong in implementing pure, laissez faire principles across the board.

When I have time, I'll give you all the reasons why.

QuakerOats;1087525 wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/barack-obamas-budget-nowhere-180114958.html


obama'a budget to nowhere ......................... change we can believe in ...

Gee, another "cut the taxes" supply sider stating that that will fix everything. How about implementing real policy that will stimulate the private sector here?.... and not abroad? Say what you want about YoBamma, but he needs commended for his tax proposals in helping our country to become manufacturers again.

You don't like paying a 5% pemium for American made shirts? Well the alternative that we see today is paying a lot more than 5% to bankroll the everexpanding welfare state.

In a nutshell...you want to stop the government bloat?....level the playing field and quit doing business with countries that violate workers rights, health, safety and all environmental laws. Comparative advantage is a wonderful thing. Comparative cheating for further advantage is a horrible thing.

Instead of galavanting around the globe with physical wars, channel the warmongering attitudes into the economic wars which need to be fought...and won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

Is this for real?

Can you imagine Romney, Santorum, Newt or Paul putting out a call for all the “white brothers and sisters” to vote for him because he's white .........

While many jobs have gone overseas, that also has created more white collar management jobs here for the multinational companies that are "exporting" those jobs. It's also not the "great evil" it's made out to be - those profits accrue to the shareholders, of which pensions of millions of Americans tend to be the largest holders.

I don't disagree that the auto and airline manufacturers actually are of national defense interest to have that capability here. But we do want more for our people than making $8/hr in a textile mill.

And while we've "lost" all these jobs, we have had significant job growth over the years. You also have to consider there are far, far more women in the workforce today than 30 years ago.

The real issue here is not jobs going overseas, but the worker getting less and less of productivity gains in the form of compensation. Another problematic caveat is that real wages have gone down, but total comp HAS kept pace with inflation (only because of healthcare benefits). That's the reality of global competition. Heck, even within the US and Canada you see companies moving down south where labor is cheaper.

Footwedge;1087711 wrote:Gee, another "cut the taxes" supply sider stating that that will fix everything. How about implementing real policy that will stimulate the private sector here?.... and not abroad? Say what you want about YoBamma, but he needs commended for his tax proposals in helping our country to become manufacturers again.

You don't like paying a 5% pemium for American made shirts? Well the alternative that we see today is paying a lot more than 5% to bankroll the everexpanding welfare state.

In a nutshell...you want to stop the government bloat?....level the playing field and quit doing business with countries that violate workers rights, health, safety and all environmental laws. Comparative advantage is a wonderful thing. Comparative cheating for further advantage is a horrible thing.

Instead of galavanting around the globe with physical wars, channel the warmongering attitudes into the economic wars which need to be fought...and won.

The funny thing about economic warfare is it almost always evolves into - um - "physical wars." Let's just say protectionism is also not the answer to our economic whoas. The last thing we need is more gubmint interference in the semi-free market.

believer;1088071 wrote:The funny thing about economic warfare is it almost always evolves into - um - "physical wars." Let's just say protectionism is also not the answer to our economic whoas. The last thing we need is more gubmint interference in the semi-free market.

Who said anything about protectionism?

Footwedge;1088250 wrote:Who said anything about protectionism?

In a nutshell...you want to stop the government bloat?....level the playing field and quit doing business with countries that violate workers rights, health, safety and all environmental laws.

How do you propose to do that without Big Government intervening?

believer;1088271 wrote:How do you propose to do that without Big Government intervening?

enforcing labor laws is not protectionism. encouraging businesses through tax incentives and tax disencentives is not protectionism. making American businesses accountable for shifting our economies overseas due to tax circumvention is as anti American as it can get...and it is not protectionism

Footwedge;1088606 wrote: encouraging businesses through tax incentives and tax disencentives is not protectionism.

Yes it is. Basically the same thing as a tariff...in fact, tariffs ARE taxes. Taken to the extreme, you cross over the line of unfair trade practices.

GM is winning - http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/16/gm-pays-less-tax-buffet%E2%80%99s-secretary-uaw-profits

I wonder how the folks at Ford feel about their own government being in competition with them? Allowing one of Ford's major competitors to NOT pay a dime in taxes surely helps Government Motors survive while Ford is penalized by having to pay taxes and ultimately subsidize their competition.

Obama is picking winners and losers and many on here just look the other way and complain about the 1% who don't pay "their fair share". Guess what...GM and the UAW is in the 1%. It's no wonder we're in a shithole.

gut;1088621 wrote:Yes it is. Basically the same thing as a tariff...in fact, tariffs ARE taxes. Taken to the extreme, you cross over the line of unfair trade practices.

No it isn't. And the only unfair trade practices going on here is what the likes of China is doing...and has been doing.

I'm a little sick and tired in having to subsidize China's economy because of their state sponsored cheating...and that our government has been complicit in allowing it to happen.

Secondly, on your other post, you are wrong regarding white collar workers supplanting the blue collar workers and calling outsourcing as a "wash". Hogwash. That was a line of crap fed the American people whenever NAFTA wa passed. The facts tell a completely different story.

Let's just cut right to the point: obama stole taxpayer money and used it to buy union votes, and the taxpayers remain under water to the tune of billions of dollars and will never recover it.

Similarly, he has stolen additional taxpayer money and given it to failed green energy companies in return for large campaign contributions.

I don't know how else to describe it; he has simply circumvented existing law for his own benefit. The arrogance and criminality is stunning.

I don't know if the fact it took 18 months for the IRS to respond or the list questions that has me more angry - http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=268656&article=9774219

I wonder if "Media Matters" went through the same rectal exam?

Seriously...18 months to receive an application and then respond? And there are many on here that can't wait for the day we have a single-payer healthkare system that runs just as efficiently. SMFH.

Footwedge;1088648 wrote: Secondly, on your other post, you are wrong regarding white collar workers supplanting the blue collar workers and calling outsourcing as a "wash". Hogwash. That was a line of crap fed the American people whenever NAFTA wa passed. The facts tell a completely different story.

Tax "incentives" and "disincentives" are just political speak for tariffs and credits. True, it's not semantics they are "technically" different, in language. But walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's pretty much the same thing whether you hit the supplier with a tariff or jack-up taxes on the buyer. Basically an identical mechanism just a different tax base. But what do you really think he's talking about when he says "incentives" and "disincentives" - what's the means to accomplish that? Answer: tariffs and credits. Obama is just avoiding the politically charged word of tariffs.

Care to provide statistics showing a NET JOB LOSS over the past 30 years? Or, in fact, have many of these "lost" manufacturing jobs been supplanted with service jobs, which would include white collar management/support staff roles? It's not like we have more burger flippers and cab drivers than we did 30 years ago, aside from population growth. Truth is - and liberals will refuse to hear this - those service jobs are better than what a competitive wage mfring job would have needed to be to stay here. Also safer and less physically taxing.

Sorry, I'm not "dead wrong" about the subsequent creation of white collar jobs, either, it's just obviously not 1 to 1. I live it and see it. The fact of the matter is, you and the liberals are crying over the loss of mostly shitty jobs. That's the bottom line. And everyone is benefiting via cheaper goods.

Third, I'm also dead-on about the profits flowing through to the pension funds because those multi-nationals are headquartered and listed in the US.

And why not a fourth? Yeah, brilliant idea to jack-up taxes so those overseas earnings NEVER get repatriated and pumped back into the economy. You also fail to realize that "disincentives" can create "incentives" to just flat out move headquarters overseas. Other countries are lowering corporate taxes to attract companies and make locating there more attractive. Only the economically ignorant with Obama as their ring leader think raising taxes higher and higher on corporations is a good idea.

QuakerOats;1088649 wrote:Let's just cut right to the point: obama stole taxpayer money and used it to buy union votes, and the taxpayers remain under water to the tune of billions of dollars and will never recover it.

Similarly, he has stolen additional taxpayer money and given it to failed green energy companies in return for large campaign contributions.

I don't know how else to describe it; he has simply circumvented existing law for his own benefit. The arrogance and criminality is stunning.

Yawn...

gut;1088718 wrote:Tax "incentives" and "disincentives" are just political speak for tariffs and credits. True, it's not semantics they are "technically" different, in language. But walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's pretty much the same thing whether you hit the supplier with a tariff or jack-up taxes on the buyer. Basically an identical mechanism just a different tax base. But what do you really think he's talking about when he says "incentives" and "disincentives" - what's the means to accomplish that? Answer: tariffs and credits. Obama is just avoiding the politically charged word of tariffs.

Care to provide statistics showing a NET JOB LOSS over the past 30 years? Or, in fact, have many of these "lost" manufacturing jobs been supplanted with service jobs, which would include white collar management/support staff roles? It's not like we have more burger flippers and cab drivers than we did 30 years ago, aside from population growth. Truth is - and liberals will refuse to hear this - those service jobs are better than what a competitive wage mfring job would have needed to be to stay here. Also safer and less physically taxing.

Sorry, I'm not "dead wrong" about the subsequent creation of white collar jobs, either, it's just obviously not 1 to 1. I live it and see it. The fact of the matter is, you and the liberals are crying over the loss of mostly ****ty jobs. That's the bottom line. And everyone is benefiting via cheaper goods.

Third, I'm also dead-on about the profits flowing through to the pension funds because those multi-nationals are headquartered and listed in the US.

And why not a fourth? Yeah, brilliant idea to jack-up taxes so those overseas earnings NEVER get repatriated and pumped back into the economy. You also fail to realize that "disincentives" can create "incentives" to just flat out move headquarters overseas. Other countries are lowering corporate taxes to attract companies and make locating there more attractive. Only the economically ignorant with Obama as their ring leader think raising taxes higher and higher on corporations is a good idea.

I'll be back tonight. Apparently you do not understand the definition of protectionism.

stlouiedipalma;1088784 wrote:Yawn...

That's what all the takers are saying ...........

gut;1088718 wrote:Tax "incentives" and "disincentives" are just political speak for tariffs and credits. True, it's not semantics they are "technically" different, in language.

LOL. So which is it? Do you really want me to post the definition of protectionism? I'll spare you some embarrassment by not doing so.

But walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's pretty much the same thing whether you hit the supplier with a tariff or jack-up taxes on the buyer. Basically an identical mechanism just a different tax base. But what do you really think he's talking about when he says "incentives" and "disincentives" - what's the means to accomplish that? Answer: tariffs and credits. Obama is just avoiding the politically charged word of tariffs.

Ibid. LOL. So which is it? You know what is really sad here? You are so twisted up and wrapped into the corner on your YoBamma hatred, that even when YoBamma presents a conservative approach (cut taxes to help business), you find a way to manipulate the proposal into something it is not. Again, do you want me to post the definition of protectionism here and embarass you?

Let me put it another way. When Bigass Industry ABC decides to shop for a place to set up shop...with it's 2000 member future labor force, the communities will "bid" to attract them. By far and away, the biggest attraction is ABC attracting the biggest tax credit to operate there. So.....are the communities walking and talking like ducks and offering protectionism? LOLOL.

Care to provide statistics showing a NET JOB LOSS over the past 30 years?

How many links/articles do you want? You must be the only "economist" out there that doesn't know this. As with ALL statistics, the links I provide will be on a per capita basis, mmmkay?

Or, in fact, have many of these "lost" manufacturing jobs been supplanted with service jobs, which would include white collar management/support staff roles? It's not like we have more burger flippers and cab drivers than we did 30 years ago, aside from population growth.

No, I'm talking about manufacturing jobs...where the people actually make "things" whereby you have the grunts, the managers, the accountants, the supervisors, the sales people, the division managers, the maintenance engineers, the project engineers, the division supervisors, the shippers, the human resource department, the marketers and the truckers et al. Yeah...a whole lotta shit jobs there, eh? SMFH.

Truth is - and liberals will refuse to hear this - those service jobs are better than what a competitive wage mfring job would have needed to be to stay here. Also safer and less physically taxing.

No...what the ghastly truth really entails is the "conservatives" that spew out the rattling falsehoods that manufacturing had to go and there's nothing anyone could do about it.....that Americans have to deal with the standard of living....across the board...dropping to the level of total mediocrity....on pace to hit second world status. All because the pro oligopolic/federal government bed sharing and corporate elite felt it more important to line their own pockets, instead of upholding the constitutional values of overseeing the general welfare of it's citizenry.

Sorry, I'm not "dead wrong" about the subsequent creation of white collar jobs, either, it's just obviously not 1 to 1. I live it and see it. The fact of the matter is, you and the liberals are crying over the loss of mostly ****ty jobs. That's the bottom line. And everyone is benefiting via cheaper goods.

Ibid...see above. And let me reiterate what I said in a previous post. Most Americans would rather pay an additional 5%..or even 10% more to help keep the federal government from the gross practice of unbridled expansion in order to bridge the gap and keep the masses employed. Not to mention the unbelievable expansion of the unemployment entitlements that future taxpayers are saddled with.. The fact is...I offer both American and Chinese made equipment to people I call on each and every day. I see people from all walks of life....and trust me, it is far more than just liberals that see what irreparable damage globalization has done. Most people buy American...not the cheap crap Chinese equipment.

The absolute brilliance of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

Enjoy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thBSuK4zLis

Footwedge;1088606 wrote:enforcing labor laws is not protectionism. encouraging businesses through tax incentives and tax disencentives is not protectionism. making American businesses accountable for shifting our economies overseas due to tax circumvention is as anti American as it can get...and it is not protectionism

So what you're saying is Big Government has already intervened...you simply want the Feds to enforce their existing protectionist laws and tax policies..

The decline and fall of the American Empire.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire