I'd be insulted by that amount too.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Sweden's tax rate is the highest in the world. Are you suggesting that we could raise tax rates to above 70% and still have a fully functional and successful economy? If so, I think you liberal, tax-and-spend nutjobs need a lesson in basic economics! Feh I say! FEH!
GasBandit
Staff member
Sweden cut their tax rate, when everybody else was raising. Yet they benefited while the others suffered. Sometimes, I think economics is as much about perception as anything else.
Sweden cut their tax rate from astronomically high to astronomically high - 5 and had Q4 GDP growth of 1.1%
Compared to
Austria: 1.2%
Canada: 2.2%
France: 1.41%
Germany: 1.5%
Iceland: 2.7%
Norway: 1.5%
Now, that's not saying that GDP growth and tax rates are intertwined because they're aren't really. But 'the benefit' as you put it, isn't as indelible as some writers like to think it is.
Necronic
Staff member
On wiki it shows it as having roughly a 50% income tax and a 25% sales tax. Using them as an example of "cutting taxes is good" makes doesn't make much sense since they are still uncompetitive for international investment even after the tax cuts. Maybe it increased local investments and oppurtunities, but really the evidence seems to point more towards saying that high tax rates don't necessarily stymie growth, since they are still incredibly high.
GasBandit
Staff member
Or, as I said earlier, perhaps it also has to do with perception. If they are perceived as starting to move toward austerity, that figures in to business planning for the future. Another example of perception shaping an economy is how much of the commercial sector in the US has spent the last 3+ years battening down the hatches, hoarding capital and refusing to hire or expand - mostly, I think, based upon the perception that the current administration is hostile to business.
But you could be right too - I just came across another article saying that Sweden's growth is going to be revised downward.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, that's not too unrealistic for a metaphor... given that you control what you eat and other factors that affect consistency and regularity of bowel movements
But yes, the government can't "control" the economy, but policy certainly affects it. For instance, the decision to spend trillions vs... not.
But I don't think they can control how they are perceived sometimes. There's pretty much absolutely nothing Obama can do or say to make american businesses unclench other than lose/resign, especially not after campaigning so forcefully on "Elect me and I will make sure all those businesses get spiked dildo enemas."
He never campaigned on that. Republicans campaign on a daily basis that he is doing that. He hasn't been anymore anti-business than the Bush administration but that doesn't really matter.Actually, that's not too unrealistic for a metaphor... given that you control what you eat and other factors that affect consistency and regularity of bowel movements
But yes, the government can't "control" the economy, but policy certainly affects it. For instance, the decision to spend trillions vs... not.
But I don't think they can control how they are perceived sometimes. There's pretty much absolutely nothing Obama can do or say to make american businesses unclench other than lose/resign, especially not after campaigning so forcefully on "Elect me and I will make sure all those businesses get spiked dildo enemas."
Necronic
Staff member
He does seem to be making a pretty big gambit on the OWS crowd (or at least he is percieved to be doing so.) A lot of businessmen that supported him in the last election are pulling out in this round, but it's not like their running to Romney either. I dunno, this whole election seems more and more like the Bush v Kerry one as time goes on. Controversial incumbent vs an opponent with no real shape or form other than not being the incumbent. Only difference is that Bush was still riding high on 911 and the war (in many peoples minds), and the economy was doing ok, whereas Obama is still in this quagmire and sitting on a terrible economy. So maybe this one will turn out different.
And before someone says otherwise it doesn't really matter who started these things, not to the electorate. There's a kind of strange irony in that when you think of Afghanistan and their inability to seperate the actions of Russia and the rest of the western world. Because it didn't matter to them either.
And before someone says otherwise it doesn't really matter who started these things, not to the electorate. There's a kind of strange irony in that when you think of Afghanistan and their inability to seperate the actions of Russia and the rest of the western world. Because it didn't matter to them either.
A bit of both as I recall. In 2009 Germany launched tax cuts and stimulus package bigger than anything in their modern history (1,6% GDP). I've been led to believe that's a rather Keynesian approach to these matters.
In 2010 they announced heavy austerity measures to tackle deficit, though they have been less succesful in implementing them. In 2011, they reached only half of the savings they had planned, but growth in their export sector and steady domestic demand seemed to have carried them out of recession in 2009-2010.
GasBandit
Staff member
He specifically stomped on corporate vegas tourism. He said he'd like to bankrupt coal companies. He painted bondholders as "speculators" and ripped them off so that the unions could get paid. He addressed the graduating class of Arizona State University in 2009 and told them that instead of starting businesses they should join and help "struggling not-for-profits." Direct quote from him as well: "There is a time for profits... this is not that time." Not to mention multiple references to needing to "spread the wealth around" by redistribution, which makes any entrepreneur's blood run cold in terror. He blocked and/or banned energy exploration at every chance he could. He trumped up accusations of foreign collusion in the Chamber of Commerce. He sued Boeing for attempting to decertify their union. He attempted to close down the Yucca Mountain nuclear energy repository. His minions even went on record saying they didn't care how high the price of gas got to be. And, of course, the health care "reform" package that is inseparably linked to his name is a huge jobkiller in addition to stomping on the insurance industry.
Yes, he's projected a very distinct "anti-business" vibe.
Where did he say that?
Again, where did he say that?
You mean so that the people who worked for the company would get paid before the bond holder. I see no issue with this.
I don't get how helping the community when the economy sucks balls and there are no jobs is a bad thing, especially since it looks good on a resume.
Talking point with no basis in fact. Silly and pointless.
If you are talking about oil, you are incorrect. If you are talking about gas and coal, I have a hard time feeling bad for them. There should be stricter enforcement on these, especially coal.
He sued Boeing for attempting to decertify their union.[/quote]
And? So what?
Uh, you mean the place that was shut down in 2009? The place in Nevada which lost funding because Harry Reid is head of Senate and it's his home state, which 2/3 of the residents oppose? Oh, yeah, that's Obama's fault.
Stupid and pointless, again. Has nothing to do with anything and we've shown time and again that the Presidency has no control over gas prices. Whoop dee doo.
You hear that? It's healthcare hooey.
Since most of your insinuations are either false, talking points with no basis in fact, or the fault of someone else, I see nothing to support your claim other than the enforcement on coal mining, which considering the poor containment of coal runoff from mountain top removal sites I can't really blame them.
Not making the country a corporate oligarchy more than it is doesn't make Obama anti-business. Maybe you should look this stuff up before you make yourself look foolish. I know you're a smart guy, and there is no way you can possibly fact check this stuff and still come up with what you do. Spend a few moments checking your claims and we'll have some better arguments.
GasBandit
Staff member
You've either been asleep or choosing to ignore things you don't like, Krisken.
1) Vegas fumes over Obama anti-tourism rant
2) Obama coal bankruptcy quote
3) The contractual, lawful definition of a secured bond is they get paid first. That you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean it isn't anti-business (and probably illegal). In fact, your whole post is pretty much "I, Krisken, am also anti-business."
4) "don't start a business." Businesses create jobs. And the statement is pretty much the shortest sentence you can have that defines anti-business sentiment.
5) Obama, spreading the wealth (See also, "fairness.") 1 2 3
6) The cost of Obama's offshore moratorium. Note other nations kept drilling. Other energy stuff:
8) Happened under his watch, and he was happy to help. It's a NIMBY, but if not Nevada, then where?
9) The link you provide does a whole lot of shucking and jiving, mostly saying that the people who would be out of work would want to be out of work. I know you believe in socialized medicine, however, so I don't expect this to go anywhere, but the simple truth of the fact is the more expensive government makes it for businesses to provide benefits, the less incentive they have to hire.
Oh, and one more I forgot to mention earlier - about how Obama, in his memoir, described his brief time actually holding a job in the private sector as being "behind enemy lines."
George Will goes into more detail about it all.
1) Vegas fumes over Obama anti-tourism rant
2) Obama coal bankruptcy quote
3) The contractual, lawful definition of a secured bond is they get paid first. That you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean it isn't anti-business (and probably illegal). In fact, your whole post is pretty much "I, Krisken, am also anti-business."
4) "don't start a business." Businesses create jobs. And the statement is pretty much the shortest sentence you can have that defines anti-business sentiment.
5) Obama, spreading the wealth (See also, "fairness.") 1 2 3
6) The cost of Obama's offshore moratorium. Note other nations kept drilling. Other energy stuff:
- One of the Obama Administration’s first acts in February 2009 was to unilaterally cancel 77 leases offered for new energy production on tracts of land in Utah (it later backtracked slightly and allowed 17 of the 77 leases to go forward). That August, the Administration withdrew another 23,757 acres of land leased for energy production, and in March 2010 withdrew 61 leases in Montana and 4,400 acres in West Virginia, putting more energy under lock-and-key.
- Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar “scrapp[ed] leases for oil-shale development on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.” The Heritage Foundation says “[t]he amount of oil available through oil shale is staggering,” and that “800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.”
- Having failed to pass it through the Democrat-run Senate, the Administration is using the EPA to impose its job-crushing national energy tax – the same one President Obama once admitted would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” The Heritage Foundation says “[a]nnual job losses exceed 800,000 for several years” under the EPA’s proposed regulations.
- Interior Secretary Salazar imposed new red tape and regulatory hurdles to make leasing land and developing new oil and natural gas more difficult. According to the Houston Chronicle, “Salazar acknowledged that the new rules could add delays to the leasing and drilling process…”
- The EPA moved to block a coal mine in West Virginia – despite the fact that it already had a federal permit – threatening jobs across the region. The Washington Post said it was the first time the EPA had ever vetoed a project that already had a permit.
8) Happened under his watch, and he was happy to help. It's a NIMBY, but if not Nevada, then where?
9) The link you provide does a whole lot of shucking and jiving, mostly saying that the people who would be out of work would want to be out of work. I know you believe in socialized medicine, however, so I don't expect this to go anywhere, but the simple truth of the fact is the more expensive government makes it for businesses to provide benefits, the less incentive they have to hire.
Oh, and one more I forgot to mention earlier - about how Obama, in his memoir, described his brief time actually holding a job in the private sector as being "behind enemy lines."
George Will goes into more detail about it all.
Thank you for the links to the Vegas thing. The exact quote is "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college." Holy shit, pushing for fiscal responsibility. What a dick.
Of course, as is expected from NewsBusters, grossly out of context and selective quote does not anti-business make.
Also, you're wrong on Bondholders. Getting paid before SHAREHOLDERS, not everyone else, and only in the case of asset liquidation.
Starting a business just out of college is DUMB. Businesses typically lose money in the first three years of operation. Small businesses (real small businesses, not the ones Republicans tout) rarely employ more than 5 employees, and most of the time those positions are minimum wage positions.
First link Joe the Plumber, the guy who isn't really a plumber and became a pundit (ie. never bought this supposed business which would make 250k a year).
Second link- I'm not reading a Real Clear Politics link. Sorry man, you have to find something a little less nut baggery.
Third link is a NY Times Opinion piece. Beside that, i have no idea why you included it.
Also, complaining about the cost of the moratorium on drilling is in poor taste after the disaster they caused the east coast and their record profits. The worlds smallest violin is playing for the oil industry. Drilling more does NOT reduce the cost of oil. You're really failing on oil, sir.
Again, not giving them the world does not make him anti business. I am so tired of that trope.
Talking point. You can be for both. I would argue that being pro union with the caveat of union regulation is in favor of business growth and prosperity.
Ok, I got bored halfway through. This is horrid and pointless. Is there something worth reading in this mess?
Edit: Ya know what, nevermind. I'm not going to get anything useful out of this and I'm willing to bet neither are you.
GasBandit
Staff member
You complain about my links then link CNN.com?
Also, yes, it was about Obama meeting "Joe the Plumber," but it still had obama explicitly state he wanted to spread the wealth around, in those exact words. That Joe never started his business does not change what Obama said. If that were true, every undercover policeman would be rendered useless. The other links also showed his tendency toward redistribution, and the various names he gives it (IE, Fairness, fair share, etc).
Is it boring, horrid and pointless because you don't agree with it and want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA" until it all goes away?
Also, yes, it was about Obama meeting "Joe the Plumber," but it still had obama explicitly state he wanted to spread the wealth around, in those exact words. That Joe never started his business does not change what Obama said. If that were true, every undercover policeman would be rendered useless. The other links also showed his tendency toward redistribution, and the various names he gives it (IE, Fairness, fair share, etc).
Is it boring, horrid and pointless because you don't agree with it and want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA" until it all goes away?
GasBandit
Staff member
Newsweek: Obama - the first gay president. Salon: Not so fast.
No, it's horrid and pointless because you sit there and point your finger complaining of others drinking kool aid while taking huge gulps of the stuff.
Sure he could. I find the whole thing a little silly though. We've known for a year that was what he was doing and why he didn't go after police and fire unions. Not sure why this is news, tbh.
Go fuck yourself. Unions aren't anti-business, they are anti-management. There is a significant difference between a group trying to ensure it's members get adequate pay and benefits and a group actively trying to sabotage the success of a company. One improves productivity by ensuring good working conditions and job security. The other is something that is actually, provably perpetrated by investors looking to make a quick buck.
GasBandit
Staff member
If that were true, right to work states would be 3rd world hellholes. They're not. They, in fact, just had to foot the bill to bail out the oh so enlightened union shops. So, right back atchya.
GasBandit
Staff member
On the lighter side: Obama's gotta get his shit.
(In all fairness, it just sounds to me like he stopped talking after "his")
(In all fairness, it just sounds to me like he stopped talking after "his")
Necronic
Staff member
Unions aren't inherently bad, but there's a lot of experience out there to show that they can be.
When a company is about to go into bankruptcy and has to do significant restructuring and layoffs to save the few jobs it can, and then the union goes on strike to demand raises, that's a bad thing.
When competent employees get laid off in preference to senior employees, that's a very bad thing.
When the pricing of a labor source is divorced from supply/demand and has an arbitrary price point put on it, or when a person simply can't get a job unless he gets a membership into the union (pretty common), that's a downright immoral thing.
I think unions do have a place, and I think that the government should protect unions to a certain degree, but a lot of the pro-union laws out there (like union security agreements/hiring halls) strike me as very bad things.
When a company is about to go into bankruptcy and has to do significant restructuring and layoffs to save the few jobs it can, and then the union goes on strike to demand raises, that's a bad thing.
When competent employees get laid off in preference to senior employees, that's a very bad thing.
When the pricing of a labor source is divorced from supply/demand and has an arbitrary price point put on it, or when a person simply can't get a job unless he gets a membership into the union (pretty common), that's a downright immoral thing.
I think unions do have a place, and I think that the government should protect unions to a certain degree, but a lot of the pro-union laws out there (like union security agreements/hiring halls) strike me as very bad things.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm not even sure I agree with that. Look at the strike at Lockheed martin going on right now. These machinists are mad that the pension plan is being removed, and are going on strike. They talk about the greed of management and how unfair it is.
What they don't talk about is how many engineers have been laid off in the last year, or the fact that the outlook for pentagon funding is worse than it's been in years. Or the fact that there are only a hanful of companies left in the world that offer pensions anymore since they are an outdated and risk-inducing financial system.
No, to them it's simply a matter of greed.
What they don't talk about is how many engineers have been laid off in the last year, or the fact that the outlook for pentagon funding is worse than it's been in years. Or the fact that there are only a hanful of companies left in the world that offer pensions anymore since they are an outdated and risk-inducing financial system.
No, to them it's simply a matter of greed.
hey I said most good, and that is in the best interest of the shareholders workers. Unions behavior is about as predictable as a Corporation.
Besides everyone knows white collar workers don't need any labor protections. That's only for blue collar workers, members of Hollywood, and pro athletes.
Besides everyone knows white collar workers don't need any labor protections. That's only for blue collar workers, members of Hollywood, and pro athletes.
Pensions are only risk-inducing for the company giving the pension, not the pensioner, because it's up to the company to meet the obligation it agreed to. As long as they manage the pension fund well and set realistic pensions in the first place, they will be fine. 401ks are the opposite; they are risky for holder because it is up to them to manage it on their own, as their company has no real incentive to help them out and the whole system is utterly dependent on the stock market.
Pensions still have their place, they just need to be reworked into more reasonable amounts.
Necronic
Staff member
The problem is that unions are often very short sighted. Often times they seem to assume that their demands are completely divorced from the survival of the company itself, as if the company is some kind of eternal giving tree that would only withold demands out of spite, not because it actually hurts the corporation.
This is a good example of exactly what I am talking about. Even well managed pensions add a level of uncertainty to the company, since the terms of it may be competitively defined in an economy that is vastly different from the one they have to pay out in. Like, say, a pension in the 80s, where interest rates were at record highs, vs a pension right now, where they are at record lows. And we have repeatedly seen situations where pensions come up as a major threat to a company/government body. I would rather not have my employer expose itself to unnecessary risk.
And it's not like a corporate pension doesn't still bring risk to the employee. The company can go bankrupt. The economy could go sour in a way that devalues your pension. The company may not be able to meet its full obligation. All of these things have happened to people who assumed that a pension was risk free. There's a million things that could happen, and there's nothing you can do about it since you don't have a hand in it's management.
So, to me, a 401k is massively less risky since I have the freedom to manage it myself. I actually have a pension at work, and I don't even think about it in terms of my retirement. If I end up getting it, great, but I don't count on it. My 401k is my nest egg.
GasBandit
Staff member
Fox News fact-checks Romney, is surprisingly critical.
Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman's injury reports:
Zimmerman: Cuts on back of head, 2 black eyes, broken nose.
Martin: Bloody knuckles, gunshot.
Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman's injury reports:
Zimmerman: Cuts on back of head, 2 black eyes, broken nose.
Martin: Bloody knuckles, gunshot.
FTFY
The problem with this whole line of thinking is that you're ignoring the context. The guy was being followed, and possibly harassed, by Zimmerman. If I start a bar fight, begin to lose, and then kill the other guy with a weapon, I would still be guilty of manslaughter. At the very least the police would launch an investigation. It took the fucking FBI and a media frenzy to get those morons down in Florida to actually do something.
You're inventing context. There's no evidence that Zimmerman followed or harassed Trayvon. In fact, his deposition states that he was walking back to his truck when he was punched in the back of the head by Trayvon. The police did investigate, and based on the evidence they had before them, and the Stand Your Ground law as it was written, they couldn't charge him with anything, nor could they hold him with anything.