US Elections - FK CL October vote

[FlashLackey]

More jobs, created how? If he cuts big government, where will they go? How about the other sectors that are hurting right now - automotive, scientific, textile, and manufacturing?

When businesses have lower expenses and demand for their product or services exists, it is in their interest to hire more people. That is why lower taxes create more jobs.

What about those other industries that are hurting? They need a tax cut to survive as much as anyone else. Do you think that raising taxes for a failing industry is going to help them?

$1500 dollar check? Hell, Bush got away with giving $600. Apples to apples dude. C'mon.

I'm not criticizing a tax cut for lower and middle income people. The $600 from Bush was great. $1500 from Obama would also be great. But, it will be of small help if it's being funded by looting the bread-and-butter of the economy.

The best plan, as McCain summarized, and silverx misunderstood, is one in which business costs are lowered as well as middle and lower income peoples costs.

[gerbick]

When businesses have lower expenses and demand for their product or services exists, it is in their interest to hire more people. That is why lower taxes create more jobs.

So... lower expenses exist right now, right? If they export the jobs.

As it stands, the system in place took 8 years to get to this level. Either it will be more of the same via McSame, or a socialists market via Obama.

Either way, lower expenses will not happen mainly because fuel prices are the most expensive thing from 4 years ago to a company to now. Next up would be shipping - the stamp itself went up. And with petroleum and shipping prices up, what product would you think will be advantageous to go after in this economic downturn where the prices of those two major items will invariably go up faster than the bottom line of possible minimum employment, which McCain kept voting down (or was it only for women?)...

What about those other industries that are hurting? They need a tax cut to survive as much as anyone else. Do you think that raising taxes for a failing industry is going to help them?

Which industries? How would they be taxed more? You mean oil, tobacco, insurance, and pharmaceuticals?

What's the percentage of the tax increase? How much more would they pay, and how long have they been making more money than the difference in taxes that are being proposed?

And why historically under a democratic presidency, small business flourish moreso than a republican?

I'm not criticizing a tax cut for lower and middle income people. The $600 from Bush was great. $1500 from Obama would also be great. But, it will be of small help if it's being funded by looting the bread-and-butter of the economy.

Then why was it brought up? Where was the Bush tax cuts most influential? The bread and butter of the economy? When he said "go spend"... was that to the bread and butter of the economy?

Placing that money into the bread and butter of the economy - the lower/middle class socio-economic layers - and yet not creating new jobs outside of the mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and a lack of professional jobs and skilled-labor jobs being created, there is a vacuum out there and $600 or $1500 won't save or help anything.

The best plan, as McCain summarized, and silverx misunderstood, is one in which business costs are lowered as well as middle and lower income peoples costs.

The best plan is not the one we've witnessed for the last 8 years. Nor is it one that McCain, and honestly, Obama stated either. Business costs will not be lowered if the aforementioned items - petroleum is a finite resource, only an idiot would think otherwise and it will get more and more expensive until you find a proper way to replace it... something that the "drill baby drill" or Exxon executives types are presently thinking about.

Fix that, and you have a point. Address that, and you might have an audience that will listen. To blissfully ignore that things are going to be more expensive tomorrow; you sound like the present administration.

You can't cut costs on those items. You invest for your future elsewhere.

Address that.

[FlashLackey]

So... lower expenses exist right now, right? If they export the jobs.

Remember that taxes ARE an expense themselves. The cost charged for government.

Increasing taxes to do business in the US only increases the motivation to export jobs to countries where the cost of labor is lower.

As far as expenses go, it's relative. They are lower now than they will be if taxes are increased on the people selling the goods, yes.

A tax increase as Obama proposes will only make the cost of gas go up that much more. Of course, many factors go into the cost of gas such as the price of oil. If prices stay low due to less demand, the price could be lower. But, not as low as they could be with lower taxes as an expense.

Which industries? How would they be taxed more? You mean oil, tobacco, insurance, and pharmaceuticals?

What's the percentage of the tax increase? How much more would they pay, and how long have they been making more money than the difference in taxes that are being proposed?

I guess I don't understand the question about how they would be taxed more. The same way they have always been taxed, except with a greater number at the bottom of the page. That is part of Obama's plan in order to fund his health care program and the $1500 checks.

The percentage of increase depends on how much the company makes. Many companies have had up and down years as it is. That's always going to be the nature of business to a degree. Not every business is always successful, even under the most ideal circumstances.

And why historically under a democratic presidency, small business flourish moreso than a republican?

I'm not sure that that is true. Also, there are many factors in an economy that are outside of the presidents policy influences. For example, the tech boom of the 90's. There should be a correction after this current crisis. Undoubtedly, whoever is in office will get credit for it, even if they were to fail any substantial economic policy that could have affected it.

Then why was it brought up? Where was the Bush tax cuts most influential? The bread and butter of the economy? When he said "go spend"... was that to the bread and butter of the economy?

I think that Bush's tax cuts were most influential in keeping unemployment low.

The bread and butter of the economy are, imo, the companies providing the most jobs. Those companies are mostly owned by middle class American shareholders and operated by middle class Americans. Taxing those companies taxes the shareholders and affects the employees.

Yes. Spending more helps our economy, unless it is off-set by increasing the cost of government.

Fix that, and you have a point. Address that, and you might have an audience that will listen. To blissfully ignore that things are going to be more expensive tomorrow; you sound like the present administration.

I agree that our current energy system can't go on forever. The time to address it is now. However, addressing it shouldn't mean that we decide one day that oil companies are evil and that the best course of action is to just start throwing blank checks at the problem. Even with new technologies, we are likely to have a huge need for oil for a long time and thus need our domestic oil industry to be strong.

McCain does have an energy plan for helping to make all of our domestic sources as strong as possible and incentives for private development of new technology. Private companies are already developing new technologies. Since they are the ones who stand to profit from them the most, there should be some moderation regarding how much of the effort is subsidized by the government. Since there already is motivation to make the alternative fuel vehicle and it's already happening, it stands to reason that the problem may not be improved with government money. It may just require time to research and develop, no matter how well funded it is.

[gerbick]

Remember that taxes ARE an expense themselves. The cost charged for government.

Taxes have not risen as much as gas prices have. Which expense do you think is avoidable, which is not?

Increasing taxes to do business in the US only increases the motivation to export jobs to countries where the cost of labor is lower

So... when the tax cuts were happening under Reagan, G.H. Bush, and G.W. Bush... why did the jobs go overseas? Make it make sense.

As far as expenses go, it's relative. They are lower now than they will be if taxes are increased on the people selling the goods, yes.

Expense is an expense. When raised... it affects the business.

A tax increase as Obama proposes will only make the cost of gas go up that much more. Of course, many factors go into the cost of gas such as the price of oil. If prices stay low due to less demand, the price could be lower. But, not as low as they could be with lower taxes as an expense.

You did not answer me. The price of gas/oil will always go up... supply goes down, price will go up.

Ask Exxon.

I guess I don't understand the question about how they would be taxed more. The same way they have always been taxed, except with a greater number at the bottom of the page. That is part of Obama's plan in order to fund his health care program and the $1500 checks.

Ok. Here's the thing.

You say that taxes will be increased. I'm asking you how much. You state it like it will be catastrophic. The tax increase, when/if applied... will it be as much as the gas price increase too?

Think about it. One went up. It will continue to go up. It's inevitable. You make it seem like taxes will go up as much as gas prices. Prove it.

The percentage of increase depends on how much the company makes. Many companies have had up and down years as it is. That's always going to be the nature of business to a degree. Not every business is always successful, even under the most ideal circumstances.

That's all common sense and we agree. So, I'll skip it for now...

I think that Bush's tax cuts were most influential in keeping unemployment low.

$600 did all of that?

The bread and butter of the economy are, imo, the companies providing the most jobs. Those companies are mostly owned by middle class American shareholders and operated by middle class Americans. Taxing those companies taxes the shareholders and affects the employees.

I do not agree simply because the real bread and butter has already departed the US dude... or will be departing soon enough at this rate.

We've talked in the past about how markets/pieces of the government and automotive industry are dried up. Ask Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma. Ask Ford, Firestone, BMW (US), Dayton.

The jobs that are the bread and butter pay more than Walmart.

Yes. Spending more helps our economy, unless it is off-set by increasing the cost of government.

Then explain now. Spending is not what helps the economy. Paying the bills and not living above your means is what helps the economy.

I agree that our current energy system can't go on forever. The time to address it is now. However, addressing it shouldn't mean that we decide one day that oil companies are evil and that the best course of action is to just start throwing blank checks at the problem. Even with new technologies, we are likely to have a huge need for oil for a long time and thus need our domestic oil industry to be strong.

This is where we differ. Time to address this was 34 years ago. But instead, we allowed lobbying to continue. It needs to be funded now, post haste. We are behind the entire world in these fields.

McCain does have an energy plan for helping to make all of our domestic sources as strong as possible and incentives for private development of new technology. Private companies are already developing new technologies. Since they are the ones who stand to profit from them the most, there should be some moderation regarding how much of the effort is subsidized by the government. Since there already is motivation to make the alternative fuel vehicle and it's already happening, it stands to reason that the problem may not be improved with government money. It may just require time to research and develop, no matter how well funded it is.

Private companies need to stop leading. We need that Burt Rutan type of spirit back into our normal processes that drag the best out of the government and make the stuff that NASA does - limited budget, things that outlast expectations and inspire folks.

Right now... we got CEO's just lining their pockets. That's all.

[FlashLackey]

Just yesterday, I happened to be in the barber shop with a guy whose company does over a billion dollars a year in distribution to grocery stores. He said that they will address the Obama tax increase by simply raising their prices. In effect, they will collect everyone's $1500 Obama check slowly over the coarse of the year via increased prices [in order to pay increased taxes and just break even with what they are doing now, let alone without adding new jobs.]

[gerbick]

He was warning about this problem since the first year in office.

Cite a dependable source.

[FlashLackey]

Cite a dependable source.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...080919-15.html

[gerbick]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...080919-15.html

lol. I remember when KPMG, now Bearing Point, had to say about this.

This is not a warning. It was an audit that was the warning. Nothing about how it was going to contribute to this economical downturn. Just a warning that one area of "credit" was potentially dangerous if left unchecked for far too long.

Not an issue warning about sub-prime loans and an ever-increasing deficit. That's the problem now.

[Loyal Rogue]

Just my two cents on some of the comments above...

Supply has never driven the economy.
Demand drives the economy.
Supply-side economics has been a massively failed experiment that has gone on for the last 30 years.
The only reason it didn't look that way earlier is because demand was kept artificially high thru increased credit/debt spending by manipulating the interest rates. The debt bubble has finally burst.

Increased taxes does not send jobs overseas.
The removal of tariffs and giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas is the incentive for outsourcing.
When tariffs were removed there was no longer any reason for a company to choose to make their products in America.
Make importing the product cost the same as paying an American to make it and you will see manufacturing come back to the USA.
Through most of our history, tariffs paid for a major share of our government costs, now they pay for nothing.

The Bush tax cuts were not most influential in keeping unemployment numbers low.
Creative math and no longer counting all of the unemployed was most influential in making the unemployment numbers look low.

I agree that middle class American small businesses are the greatest provider of jobs in America.
Those are the businesses that will benefit the most from Obama's tax cuts and incentives, both immediately and in the longrun.

All businesses, large and small benefit when there is a strong economy and consumers are spending money even if there are higher taxes on the profits.
That is no longer possible under the current debt-based (supply) economics. That idea has been tried and failed.
It is time to go back to what has been successful in the past for building a strong America, and that is wage-based (demand) economics.
A strong economy happens when you put wealth into the hands of the consumers to spend, not when you concentrate 90% of all the wealth into the hands of the top 10% as has happened over the last 30 years.

[FlashLackey]

Supply has never driven the economy.
Demand drives the economy.
Supply-side economics has been a massively failed experiment that has gone on for the last 30 years.

You're trying to argue for Keynesian economics.

It's absurd on the face of it to suggest that either supply or demand drives the economy more than the other. You have to have both for an economy to be healthy. Supply Side Economics is simply the argument that our current rate is too high and that the optimum balance is a lower tax rate than we have now.

It is the common sense tenet that taking too much from suppliers can negatively affect an economy (by lowering jobs, passing along inflated prices, etc) and that we currently are doing that.

Furthermore, the underlying principles supporting modern "supply-siders" theory is not new or experimental. They are some of the oldest principles of economics, being understood and observed since the beginning of the country. Just the opposite of "experiments" these principles are old stand-bys, shown to be true repeatedly throughout modern history.

Increased taxes does not send jobs overseas.
The removal of tariffs and giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas is the incentive for outsourcing.

There are no "tax breaks" for outsourcing. Democrats love to claim this. What they are referring to is that corporations doing business over-seas don't have to pay as much taxes on income that they keep invested over-seas. So, if they expand their factory somewhere else, they still pay taxes on the money required to expand. Just not as much since they aren't taking home earnings.

The irony of this is that it illustrates exactly what I'm saying. That our taxes on business are so high that businesses are motivated to re-invest them outside of the country to increase earnings.

Tariffs? Talk about failed experiments. The last time we tried to implement stronger tariffs in 1930, our trading partners retaliated and we plunged into the Great Depression.

Make importing the product cost the same as paying an American to make it and you will see manufacturing come back to the USA.

You would also see all of the goods we export all over the world no longer having any buyers when they retaliate.

Through most of our history, tariffs paid for a major share of our government costs, now they pay for nothing.

They also played a major role in the Great Depression and their lowering is seen as the liberalization of our economy and most of western civilization followed suit in the better interests of all involved.

The Bush tax cuts were not most influential in keeping unemployment numbers low.
Creative math and no longer counting all of the unemployed was most influential in making the unemployment numbers look low.

pfft. Apply the exact same math and process across time and the numbers were low.

All businesses, large and small benefit when there is a strong economy and consumers are spending money even if there are higher taxes on the profits.

Businesses need profits to grow, innovate and add jobs. Those things are needed to make "a strong economy." Having less profits due to taxes means less growth, innovation and jobs.

Businesses simply pass on the cost of the tax increase to the consumer.

A strong economy happens when you put wealth into the hands of the consumers to spend, not when you concentrate 90% of all the wealth into the hands of the top 10% as has happened over the last 30 years.

I like how you keep talking about "failed experiments" and then bring up these dinosaurs of arguments.

The wealth is only concentrated in snapshots of time. People are constantly moving from the lower 20% to the upper 20%. So, the wealth is always changing hands. Of course, there are some that go to the highest of levels of wealth like Bill Gates. But, such entrepreneurship should be celebrated rather than resented. It's a good thing that such opportunity exists and it functions as motivation for Americans to innovate and take personal risk to improve technology and processes.

[FlashLackey]

This is not a warning. It was an audit that was the warning. Nothing about how it was going to contribute to this economical downturn. Just a warning that one area of "credit" was potentially dangerous if left unchecked for far too long.

Not an issue warning about sub-prime loans and an ever-increasing deficit. That's the problem now.

No. The current situation is exactly what the warning was about. That was before regulators discovered that Fannie and Freddie were cooking the books and the Democrats rushed to their defense.

Fannie and Freddie holds or guarantees over half of all mortgages in the entire United States. They accomplished this massive size in a relatively short time by lobbying Democrats for leverages against private institutions. Bush warned that the massive size they had grown to, the relaxed standards they were held to and the perception their GSE status gave of being government guaranteed made them a huge liability. It turns out that was exactly right.

[david petley]

lets face it, no country can support an expensive war for very long without economic, human and political impacts, and it has been going on for a while now...but whose decision was it to do that? (rhetorical question)

david

[david petley]

no, no, he said 'dependable'

david

[david petley]

nice post and i agree.

david

[FlashLackey]

The recent drop in 401k's is easily understandable. People started selling off stocks on fears of credit problems. Selling begets more selling which causes prices to fall until people start thinking that the lower price is a bargain and start buying again.

Stocks and consequentially 401k's can change value for many reasons, yes. For example, raising taxes on those companies and raising the capital gains tax which Obama intends to do also make investing in those businesses less attractive.

[jAQUAN]

I just don't understand the virulent attacks on Obama. I understand and actually agree that if you're a deadbeat you don't deserve handouts. But with the no holds barred lambasting desperation going on now, it's hard to see their message as anything but "every man for himself and don't share a damn thing."

I'm an extremely giving person and it just seems two faced for the religious right to support McCains pro-life stance at the same time ask for the very charity they demonize Obama for.

[FlashLackey]

Who is making "virulent" attacks on Obama? How is pointing out substantial flaws in his tax plan demonizing him? I know that it is painful for people who are sold emotionally on Obama to hear why his tax plan is flawed. But, claiming "virulent" and "demonization" of valid concern and argument is demonization in itself.

If Obama's plan will not help the people he intends to and will ultimately make their situation worse in the long run, how in the world is that charity? Both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused taxes to become more progressive. Not the other way around. That means that those cuts caused rich people to pay more of the tax burden in proportion than before. If anything, Obama's plan, in effect, is LESS charitable, regardless of how it may be sold or how it may seem to people who don't understand economics.

It's not a question of being charitable. It's a question of having a sound economic plan and whether or not it will accomplish stated outcomes.

[PAlexC]

Who is making "virulent" attacks on Obama?

Socialist...Ayers...Wright, etc. Basically, Palin is.

I have no problem with candidates dissing each other's economics policies, but the McCain campaign uses that to leverage character attacks, instead of sticking to the issues.

I have to say, I'm really disappointed in McCain, I honestly expected better of him with Bush's folks out of the way. But apparently, he sold out to them long ago. Can we roll back to the 2000 version of Johnny Mac?

[FlashLackey]

Socialist...Ayers...Wright, etc. Basically, Palin is.

All of those issues are legitimate. Re-distribution of wealth IS a socialist ideal. Ayers IS a former terrorist. Wright IS a person with radical beliefs that most Americans disagree with.

I have no problem with candidates dissing each other's economics policies, but the McCain campaign uses that to leverage character attacks, instead of sticking to the issues.

Who the person is, what their beliefs are, who they will give access to the White House are legitimate issues.

I have to say, I'm really disappointed in McCain, I honestly expected better of him with Bush's folks out of the way. But apparently, he sold out to them long ago. Can we roll back to the 2000 version of Johnny Mac?

I think you're just buying into a narrative that was authored by someone else.

[gerbick]

All of those issues are legitimate. Re-distribution of wealth IS a socialist ideal. Ayers IS a former terrorist. Wright IS a person with radical beliefs that most Americans disagree with.

Palin's reverend has beliefs that most Americans disagree with. Palin's association with Stevens is a valid concern. Gramm and Keating both still around McCain in one way or the other is a very valid concern.

Don't concentrate in one direction because you seem like you are ignoring McCain's and Palin's faults and bad associations.

Let's just put it out there. As a marine, I'm willing to bet you $10.00 that Wright had been called every racial slur known to mankind and had to tolerate it. I'm not even a marine, and I have had to tolerate it in the corporate world. Let's be even more honest... there is no way in the world you cannot say that you've never been associated with a person that's never said something racists, a racial slur, or a racist joke. No way.

Now... does that mean that your associates should now all become concerns? Should that mean that you yourself are also guilty through association with a person that has said those kind of things?

I remember a post by LR that had posted that he had a long-term friend that had surprised him once. I didn't question LR. I just had a run-in with a long-time friend and he stated something real mf'n inappropriate. We have a 20 year history... and this surprised me. Yet... now does that mean I have to now suspect him... as you do Wright?

You are clutching at straws. It smacks of desperation because you are applying those rules only outward, not inward.

If I saw some equality in your statements, they'd be valid.