Romney's economic plan

[Jmayer20]

First off I do not understand why people say "Obama caused this recession". These people seem to not have long term memory. You can say that he didn't end the recession or make the economy better. That would be legit. But he could not have caused the recession for the recession started under the Bush administration.

The reason I brought this up was to compare this to Romney's economic plan. Romney's plan is lets do the exacted thing the Bush administration did and hope for opposite results. We have to stop trying the same thing over and over again it FAILED give it up.

The problem with supply side economics or as I like to call it trickle down economics is that it goes under the idea that if the rich oh excuse me "job creators" get just get a little more money then they will hire more workers to make more of the product regardless of whether or not the demand increases. The problem with this is it goes against human nature.

Lets go under the scenario that you are a "job creator". Lets face it if you get a little more money but the demand for your product has not increased then would you hire more workers to increase your supply of that product. I don't think so. You would stick most of that money in the bank and spend the rest on your self.

The only reason they would hire more workers is if the demand for the product increased and they needed more worker to increase the supply. These people already have the money needed to do that so they don't need more in order to keep up with supply, after all they are could rich oh excuse "job creators" for a reason. This means they HAVE a lot of money sitting around in the bank already.

[Brae]

Agreed in part, disagreed in part. I don't think any single administration caused the current recession. The economy's been turbulent just about as long as I can remember, and as long as my parents can remember, too. And neither party has the answers, because the government taxing the rich "job creators" then trying use that money to make the world a better place fails, as does letting the rich "job creators" run rampant over the general populace and control the market under the stupid pretense that Joe Regularguy actually has a shot at becoming rich if only he would work harder.

The economy needs to be approached from the other end. Trickle-down fails, because as you've noted, if I'm a company owner and I have more money, but the general populace doesn't, the demand for my product is going to stay the same. I won't hire or expand, but I'll have more money. Go me. To increase the demand for product, the general populace needs to have the money to spend. But that money can't come from taxing or regulating the people who hire the general populace or make the product. They need to have the money to hire and expand.

I wonder a little bit if a "trickle-up" system might work. What if the government just cut everybody's taxes by 500$ a month? Rich, poor, whatever. No bureaucracy or fancy system about it, no governmental programs to collect or distribute or track the money, no governmental programs to analyze people's wealth and determine whether they really need the tax break or not. Just don't collect it. From everyone. Take 500$ less a month from every single person in America. It would probably take a few years for everyone to rebuild their savings and get on the right side of their mortgages again, but after that, I sure would be able to breathe easier about spending money at people's retail stores and restaurants. Right now, I can't afford it, but if I had 500$ more a month, that's money I could spend, which would lead to more jobs for people who make the stuff I'm buying, more jobs for people who sell it, more jobs for people who build and maintain the machines and plants that make the stuff I'm buying, and so on.

[Camarohusky]

Trickle down is a complete failure. There has been not one piece of credible evidence showing that it works. None.

We massively slashed taxes in the 2000s and what happened? The stage set for the worst economic crisis since the depression.

The problem with the "lower taxes so the wealthy have enough money to pay their employees" fallacy is how money works.

Guess what the biggest deduction of taxes is for EVERY business in the country. Come on. Guess. WAGES. "Wait, what? So you're telling me that the money that business use to pay their workers is not taxed?" So if that pool of money is not taxed, how the hell do high taxes keep workers from getting paid?

In the end, what gets taxed is profit. Profit goes into a couple different areas, growth and "prizes". By prizes I mean dividends, executive perks, and executive bonuses. Where should the money for taxes come from? Prizes. So if the company does decide to sacrifice growth for taxes, they are actively deciding that their PERSONAL gain is more important than the company's growth. In essence, the executives are forcing the business to pay the taxes so that they can still take home their bloated salaries.

Now, I can hear people saying "what about small business, or business that are having trouble making money?" They don't pay but a nominal amount of taxes. In business, only NET income is taxed, and on top of that, one massive loss can cover several year's of gain (i.e. if you lose 10,000,000 you can shift that loss over many years to essentially hide the fact that you have actually made some, if not all of that money back). So when a business has no money, taxes aren't levied to an extent that it would prohibit anything greater than a new coffee machine in the breakroom.

Don't be fooled by this "job creators" nonsense. It's a lie made by those with money to convince the poor that the wealthy do not have to pay for the astronomical amount of services they use. Entitlement at its finest.

[Brae]

At 9/4/12 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The problem with the "lower taxes so the wealthy have enough money to pay their employees" fallacy is how money works.

This dodges the OP's main point. It doesn't matter how much money the rich company owners have, and whether they keep it or try to grow the company. If there isn't demand for their product, the company can't be grown, whether they're greedy bastards or diligent business owners interested in creating jobs and wealth for all. Demand comes from the general populace having the desire for your product, and the money to buy it, not from the company owner being less greedy or paying more in taxes.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/4/12 11:55 AM, Brae wrote: This dodges the OP's main point.

How so? His point was that low taxes for the wealthy does not create job. I was merely adding onto that that high taxes do not cost jobs. Essentially saying that taxes levels on business and wealthy people have no noticable impact on the economy.

[adrshepard]

At 9/4/12 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't be fooled by this "job creators" nonsense. It's a lie made by those with money to convince the poor that the wealthy do not have to pay for the astronomical amount of services they use. Entitlement at its finest.

By "they" you mean the poor, right? Wouldn't you be describing then that the right to keep one's own earnings is an entitlement?

I haven't been following Romney's campaign really closely, but I remember some of his policies would include a reduction in tax rates across the board, accompanied by ending certain deductions. That would theoretically help the economy.
He also calls for ending and modifying regulations like Obamacare and the financial reform bill. The power of the EPA to impose enviromental restrictions will also be reduced.
There's other stuff on his website about promoting free trade, investing in education, and reducing union-favoring legislation. Some of them offer specifics.

Honestly, I don't think there's a whole lot he can offer. Obama's signature policies haven't helped much and have possibly harmed in some ways, but Romney's plans aren't going to solve the problem by themselves.

[adrshepard]

At 9/4/12 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/4/12 11:55 AM, Brae wrote: This dodges the OP's main point.

How so? His point was that low taxes for the wealthy does not create job. I was merely adding onto that that high taxes do not cost jobs. Essentially saying that taxes levels on business and wealthy people have no noticable impact on the economy.

Hate to respond right away, but that makes no sense at all. It's going to have an effect on some level given the size of the economy. The 90's saw strong job growth in spite of relatively higher taxes, not because of it. It's a given fact that the government will distribute resources less efficiently than the private sector when it comes to absolute economic performance (with exceptions for public welfare costs and smoothing business cycle reductions). It's the fundamental premise of free-market economics.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/4/12 01:10 PM, adrshepard wrote: By "they" you mean the poor, right? Wouldn't you be describing then that the right to keep one's own earnings is an entitlement?

No. I mean the wealthy. The wealthy use a MASSIVE amount of government funded infrastructure. The entitlement comes with the idea that it's just "their" money and the roads, power lines, phone lines, garbage, police, fire, education, sewer, and so on had nothing to do with it. In other words, they use more services than the average person by far, but insist not only that they shoul dnot pay more, but that they should pay less for their higher usage. See the entitlement here?

I haven't been following Romney's campaign really closely, but I remember some of his policies would include a reduction in tax rates across the board, accompanied by ending certain deductions. That would theoretically help the economy.

Raising taxes on the middle class by ending deductions would hardly help the economy. Taxing the average family actually DOES directly effect the economy. As people, not only are they taxed on gross, they as consumers use their profit toward the economy.

He also calls for ending and modifying regulations like Obamacare and the financial reform bill. The power of the EPA to impose enviromental restrictions will also be reduced.

Really, how much has the EPA hurt the economy? Sounds sexy to conservatives "Stop government regulations whilst sticking it to the tree-huggers!" but in the end it's a small impact, at best.

Honestly, I don't think there's a whole lot he can offer. Obama's signature policies haven't helped much and have possibly harmed in some ways, but Romney's plans aren't going to solve the problem by themselves.

No President can solve the economic problems we have. Voting on this point is just plain ignorant. Kind of like voting a student body president on their promise of lowering homework.

At 9/4/12 01:17 PM, adrshepard wrote: Hate to respond right away, but that makes no sense at all. It's going to have an effect on some level given the size of the economy. The 90's saw strong job growth in spite of relatively higher taxes, not because of it. It's a given fact that the government will distribute resources less efficiently than the private sector when it comes to absolute economic performance (with exceptions for public welfare costs and smoothing business cycle reductions). It's the fundamental premise of free-market economics.

You work, as most ultra-capitalists do, on a massive failed premise. For the bottom 99% of persons this rings true. When you don't have obscene amounts of money, the money you get goes back into the economy, and does so more efficiently than the government. However, for the wealthy, and their businesses it is the exact opposite. Your claim rests of the premise that ALL money goes back into the economy, which, when it comes to the ultra-wealthy is extremely wrong. When the government gets money it spends it. It may not be the best manner of spending, but it is spent back into the economy. When the ultra-wealthy get money, yes they spend a bit of it, but they hoard the rest. This is money that leaves the economy and serves no further use. Other than the fattening of net-worth this money is as good as destroyed.

But my point is that when people claim that higher taxes costs job, what they're actually saying is "higher taxes hurt my net worth (although it won't hurt how much I actually use) and as a reaction to this, I (by I I mean ME ME ME) choose to take the money from the employment pool to return my net worth to what it would have been." Higher taxes do not cost employment pool money. Plain and simple. In the same way higher taxes do not hurt the regular person's ability to pay for health insurance (as it is deducted).

[Brae]

Are you absolutely certain that the filthy rich fat cats hoarde huge piles of money, just to have it, in a big money vault they can swim in like Scrooge McDuck? And even though the money is useless to them and is far more than they can spend in a year, they're greedy bastards who just like big numbers, so they refuse to spend the money growing their business and hiring poor people because they want to add a few mil to their net worth? Because growing your business and hiring people is really easy--all you have to do is spend money instead of hoarding it--and there aren't any other important factors involved? Evil rich people are just greedy and won't spend the money hiring people?

[Iron-Hampster]

At 9/4/12 03:17 PM, Brae wrote: Are you absolutely certain that the filthy rich fat cats hoarde huge piles of money, just to have it, in a big money vault they can swim in like Scrooge McDuck? And even though the money is useless to them and is far more than they can spend in a year, they're greedy bastards who just like big numbers, so they refuse to spend the money growing their business and hiring poor people because they want to add a few mil to their net worth? Because growing your business and hiring people is really easy--all you have to do is spend money instead of hoarding it--and there aren't any other important factors involved? Evil rich people are just greedy and won't spend the money hiring people?

he didn't say that he said there is no demand for them to expand their business and there for no reason to. doing so would put them at a disadvantage to their competitors and would eventually force them to cut back to stay competitive anyway. The result of that would be bad because they would end up with less than they started off with forcing more people to be laid off than the amount of temporary jobs created. that's called a boom and bust, if everyone did it, that would mean double dip recession.

realistically, the economy will never recover under any administration that refuses to fix the fed.

[adrshepard]

At 9/4/12 03:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/4/12 01:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

No. I mean the wealthy. The wealthy use a MASSIVE amount of government funded infrastructure. The entitlement comes with the idea that it's just "their" money and the roads, power lines, phone lines, garbage, police, fire, education, sewer, and so on had nothing to do with it. In other words, they use more services than the average person by far, but insist not only that they shoul dnot pay more, but that they should pay less for their higher usage. See the entitlement here?

No, because you're totally wrong. It makes about as much sense to attribute their success to roads, phone lines, power etc as it does to point out that it's only because of plants and photosynthesis that we have enough oxygen in the air to respirate. Infrastructure is a given; everyone has access to it. Nothing is stopping anyone from building a business that use it and makes money in the process. Yet most startup businesses fail outright, some pedal along, others do well, and a few do extremely well. The difference between those businesses is not access to roads or power or sewer lines or police officers, but the ability of the person running them, the viability of their business plans, and their ability to adapt to changes in the marketplace. To discount real personal acumen and suggest that the infrastructure is actually responsible for their success is patently absurd, and I'm surprised someone like you bought into it.

I haven't been following Romney's campaign really closely, but I remember some of his policies would include a reduction in tax rates across the board, accompanied by ending certain deductions. That would theoretically help the economy.

Raising taxes on the middle class by ending deductions would hardly help the economy. Taxing the average family actually DOES directly effect the economy. As people, not only are they taxed on gross, they as consumers use their profit toward the economy.

Depends on the exact deductions that would be ended and on the extent of the overall rate decrease.

He also calls for ending and modifying regulations like Obamacare and the financial reform bill. The power of the EPA to impose enviromental restrictions will also be reduced.

Really, how much has the EPA hurt the economy? Sounds sexy to conservatives "Stop government regulations whilst sticking it to the tree-huggers!" but in the end it's a small impact, at best.

Well there's this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/08/25/epa s-proposed-ozone-regulation-could-cost-1-trillion
And this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/01/the-epa-has -petroleum-processers-over-a-barrel-costly-regulations-produ ce-crude-unrefined-results/
And there's this and this to show what a mess the entire regulatory system has turned into
http://www.economist.com/node/21547804
http://www.economist.com/node/21547772

Honestly, I don't think there's a whole lot he can offer. Obama's signature policies haven't helped much and have possibly harmed in some ways, but Romney's plans aren't going to solve the problem by themselves.

No President can solve the economic problems we have. Voting on this point is just plain ignorant. Kind of like voting a student body president on their promise of lowering homework.

You misunderstand; he can't solve it, but he can nudge things along. Obama has been nudging things along in the wrong direction.

At 9/4/12 01:17 PM, adrshepard wrote: Hate to respond right away, but that makes no sense at all. It's going to have an effect on some level given the size of the economy. The 90's saw strong job growth in spite of relatively higher taxes, not because of it. It's a given fact that the government will distribute resources less efficiently than the private sector when it comes to absolute economic performance (with exceptions for public welfare costs and smoothing business cycle reductions). It's the fundamental premise of free-market economics.

When the government gets money it spends it. It may not be the best manner of spending, but it is spent back into the economy. When the ultra-wealthy get money, yes they spend a bit of it, but they hoard the rest. This is money that leaves the economy and serves no further use. Other than the fattening of net-worth this money is as good as destroyed.

You misunderstand. The argument is not so much that the money goes back into the economy but that the government will never be able to distribute it as efficiently. All the money collected through taxation in a command economy goes back into the system, but the outcomes are usually horrible (like in the Soviet economy). By definition alone, when everyone spends their money the way they want to, the outcomes will be better for everyone. There has to be some government, obviously, but that core idea is something we should always aim for.
"Hoarding" is not the right word to use for rich people's spending habits, either. Unless they are putting the money in a sack and hiding it under their beds, it is contributing to investment spending, even if it's sitting in a checking account. More likely, rich people are putting their money in various financial instruments, which serve an vital purpose in the US economy. Restrict liquidity or discourage investment and you will see fewer jobs and smaller economic growth.

[Th-e]

1. Whoever said "Obama caused this recession"? Things went to hell beginning in 2008, aka Bush's final term.

2. Why are people trying to make Romney look like Bush? Are all Republicans George W. Bush?

3. What I feel needs to be done is to balance the system...

When I mean balance the system, it must not go too far to the left or too far to the right. There needs to be regulations to prevent companies from performing actions that create economic bubbles and dangerous situations, but too many regulations and the companies will find it unfeasible to expand or develop into new areas.

For example, deepwater oil drilling. Too few regulations means an oil disaster, while too many regulations means no drilling. Getting it at a proper level allows drlling to safely take place with minimal harm to the environment.

Also, I heard about plans to help handle entitlement costs. The Heritage Foundation has developed a plan to help deal with such problems, which do have an impact on the economy. I know that this is a conservative organization's material, but you should look at the details and see what aspects would be worth following. I doubt that all of the plan would be best for this country, but it should be examined and compared to the Democrat's plans and compromised on to find a good solution.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/4/12 08:07 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, because you're totally wrong. It makes about as much sense to attribute their success to roads, phone lines, power etc as it does to point out that it's only because of plants and photosynthesis that we have enough oxygen in the air to respirate.

You completely whiffed here. I wasn't saying that their success is solely or largely because of this, rather two things. Their success is allowed because of it, and their success uses a shit ton of it. Without the government provided infrastructure most business that exist today would not exist and those that still would would be nowhere near as profitable.

Infrastructure is a given; everyone has access to it. Nothing is stopping anyone from building a business that use it and makes money in the process. Yet most startup businesses fail outright, some pedal along, others do well, and a few do extremely well. The difference between those businesses is not access to roads or power or sewer lines or police officers, but the ability of the person running them, the viability of their business plans, and their ability to adapt to changes in the marketplace.

Then why aren't you mad that business that lose money, because they're run by idiots don't pay taxes? Either way, who cares what makes one business succeed and another fail? Not relevant to any point I was making.

To discount real personal acumen and suggest that the infrastructure is actually responsible for their success is patently absurd, and I'm surprised someone like you bought into it.

FACEPALM. Seriously. Did you just read the first sentence and make up what you thought I had said? I said that businesses, especially large businesses, use a HUGE amount of infrastructure. To say that they shouldn't pay as much in taxes to help support, maintain, and grow that infrastructure is just selfish and stupid. it's the equivalent of charging $20,000 for a simple doctor's visit, and just $10,000 for a year's worth of aggressive cancer treatment.

Depends on the exact deductions that would be ended and on the extent of the overall rate decrease.

How would that be revenue neutral like Romney wants? To make up for the massive cuts almost every deduction would have to go, thus raising taxes on all but the wealthiest.

You misunderstand; he can't solve it, but he can nudge things along. Obama has been nudging things along in the wrong direction.

By taking money from those who actually move the economy and giving it to those who hide their money and take it out of the economy? By encourging those who are doing juyst fine to send American jobs and money overseas?

You misunderstand. The argument is not so much that the money goes back into the economy but that the government will never be able to distribute it as efficiently. All the money collected through taxation in a command economy goes back into the system, but the outcomes are usually horrible (like in the Soviet economy). By definition alone, when everyone spends their money the way they want to, the outcomes will be better for everyone. There has to be some government, obviously, but that core idea is something we should always aim for.

Bet you can't guess what the country's largest employer is. Hint: the vast majority of their employees are paid well enough to drive the economy.

"Hoarding" is not the right word to use for rich people's spending habits, either. Unless they are putting the money in a sack and hiding it under their beds, it is contributing to investment spending, even if it's sitting in a checking account. More likely, rich people are putting their money in various financial instruments, which serve an vital purpose in the US economy. Restrict liquidity or discourage investment and you will see fewer jobs and smaller economic growth.

Do you even know what financial instruments do? Most of them are bullshit and serve to do nothing but hide oney and inflate value. Bonds are good. Stocks, after the IPO, are a complete waste of dollars and resources. Commodities options do nothing but leech. The current banking laws making direct banking instruments unneeded economically. Venture capital only serves any value when the target venture is a start-up. Economically, most of these instruments serve only the holder and a few other people whilst harming the economy as a whole.

[Jmayer20]

At 9/4/12 09:12 PM, Th-e wrote: Why are people trying to make Romney look like Bush? Are all Republicans George W. Bush?

The reason I compared Romney to Bush is because Romney wants to do the EXACT economic policy that Bush did which got us into the recession in the first place.

[Jmayer20]

Look every one the point i am trying to make is we don't need to increase the mount of money the rich make in order get the rich to hire more worker. The problem is not that they have a lack of money for they do have money, they are called rich for a reason. The rich will not higher more workers unless the demand goes up. That's why we need to get more money into the middle class so they can buy more stuff. Then the demand for products will go up and the rich will hire more workers so they can increase the supply to try and meet the demand.

The rich do this so as to make more money. This is how the economy grows. But we have not been doing this so the economy has stagnated and will not grow until this changes. In the long run this hurts even the rich because they make less money because the economy does not grow.

Also some of you don't like me using the word rich instead of "job creator". Well to bad. Calling them "job creators" instead of rich people is stupid.

[pirateplatypus]

OP, why are you hating on the Reagan-omics? We've only been trying trickle down for 30-someodd years. It's bound to start working any day now.

And I'd like to add, if it's tl;dr for some of you, here's Romney's full economic plan summed up:
"Fuck the poor."

[Jmayer20]

I'm pretty sure pirateplatypus is just trolling because he did not explain how he can believe what he just said even with all the points I made.

[wwwyzzerdd]

Gallop did a poll at the beginning of this year asking 600 small business owners various questions regarding their company and hiring.

https://wellsfargobusinessinsights.com/File/Index/jgPY5gJSV0 KGDdfPOkJNkQ

How are most companies doing in 2012?

1) How would you rate your companyâEUTMs financial situation today? Would you say very good, somewhat good, neither good nor poor, somewhat poor, or very poor?

Very or somewhat good - 54%
Somewhat or very poor - 27%
Neither good nor poor - 18%
Did not answer - 1%

So at least a majority of 600 small businesses are doing alright, and almost 3 out of 4 are at least not doing bad. Now I don't know if "very good" means they're pulling in decent business or they're lighting cigars with $100 bills, but I guess they're not selling first-born children to make ends meet.

2) How do you think your companyâEUTMs financial situation will be 12 months from now? Would you say very good, somewhat good, neither good nor poor, somewhat poor, or very poor?

Very or somewhat good - 63%
Somewhat or very poor - 21%
Neither good nor poor - 15%
Did not answer - 2%

Almost 2 out of 3 companies in the survey feel good about the future it seems. I really don't know if it's because of just the way business is going, or maybe Wells Fargo and Gallop surveyed 600 repo truck companies, or if these businesses even give a shit about current political climate.

BUT, let's ask them about what everyone seems to care about; creating jobs.

9) Over the past 12 months, did the overall number of jobs or positions at your company increase a lot, increase a little, stay the same, decrease a little, or decrease a lot?

Increased - 13%
Decreased - 22%
Stayed the same - 63%
Did not answer - 2%

That seems like it falls in line with the repeated jobs numbers. A few companies are hiring new workers, most are keeping the same workforce (even if they did downsize at some point), and a good deal of them did downsize in the last year or so.

What does the future hold?

10) And over the next 12 months, do you expect the overall number of jobs or positions at your company to increase a lot, increase a little, stay the same, decrease a little, or decrease a lot?

Increase - 22%
Decrease - 8%
Stay the same - 69%
Did not answer - 1%

So some companies expect to bring in more workers, a few might downsize, but again the biggest trend is that employers don't want to hire people. Much more straightforward:

17) Are you currently looking for new employees, or not?

Yes - 15%
No - 85%

From that 85% who said they don't need employees; here's their reasoning(s);

18) Why are you not looking for new employees? For each of the following, please indicate if it is a reason why you are not looking to hire.

Don't need any additional employees at this time - 76%
Worried revenues or sales won't justify adding more employees - 71%
Worried about the current status of the U.S. economy - 66%
Worried about cash flow or ability to make payroll - 53%
Worried about the potential cost of healthcare - 48%
Worried about new Government regulations - 46%
Hard to find qualified employees - 34%
Worried you may no longer be in business in 12 months - 24%

The top 4 reasons given alone are related to the economy it's self, while the top reason actually is at least 3 of the 4 companies said they just don't need anyone. Less than half of the companies said they're actually concerned with government regulations (if you don't understand the rules of the game, maybe running a business isn't a good idea?), and a third of these companies cannot find qualified individuals. I would like to maybe find out if those companies use head-hunting services that utilize software that screens applicants with specific questions. Many of these programs have been found to completely weed out entire pools of candidates because they are extremely picky and have tendencies to require high standards (by their logic, if they only send "quality" applicants, then their service looks like they only pick the cream of the crop). That's all speculative though, but what I can deduct from these reasons is just the bare market forces themselves seem to be more of a concern than political affairs.

BUT, I do want to point out one more question asked;

15) If you were able to hire and had hiring needs today, would you be more likely to hire 1) a temporary or contract worker, 2) a full-time employee, or 3) a part-time employee

Temp/Contract - 36%
Full-time - 26%
Part-time - 36%
Did not answer - 2%

So even if they could justify hiring a new worker and could find a qualified individual, only 1 of 4 companies would care to hire them as full-time employees.

So what I gathered from this survey, most businesses aren't doing bad. They're probably just doing better than they were a few years ago, but nonetheless better. In terms of the future, they don't seem all to concerned about their own company at the moment, so their best option is to just stay the course. If they did need the extra help though, there's a higher probability that they would seek only temporary assistance or low-wage assistance.

I feel this information can easily be skewed by anyone for their own political gain or to beat the other side with, but I'd figure that at least some bare information from business owners was worth showing and discussing. My whole take is that Romney's economic plan is exactly what he's offered; nothing specific at all. All you have to do is let businesses run their course, see some slight improvement, claim it's all your doing, and inflate your ego that way. Just about all of his plans rely on things out of the government's current control to run their course; his claim that we can become more energy independent by 2020 under his unspecific plan (also the same time our own resources are expected to loosen some of our dependency on imported energy), his budget plan with no further details (promises to balance the budget decades into the future; granted a "balanced budget" means that you eliminate budget deficits, which means our debt will only slow it's accent up until deficits rise again... by the way, this is also the expected path for the budget and debt in the next 10 or so years).

[adrshepard]

At 9/4/12 10:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You completely whiffed here. I wasn't saying that their success is solely or largely because of this, rather two things. Their success is allowed because of it, and their success uses a shit ton of it. Without the government provided infrastructure most business that exist today would not exist and those that still would would be nowhere near as profitable.

If anything, your argument justifies a tax on business operations depending on resources used. A financial advising company, by your reasoning, does not use nearly as much infrastructure as a shipping or freight company, therefore one should be taxed at a different rate. It doesn't make sense to say that rich people use the infrastructure when in reality its businesses and corporations. In terms of the rich person himself, he is using about the same amount of infrastructure as anyone else (he may have marginally higher energy consumption and produce slightly more garbage because he buys additional stuff, but he's still paying more for that anyway).

FACEPALM. Seriously. Did you just read the first sentence and make up what you thought I had said? I said that businesses, especially large businesses, use a HUGE amount of infrastructure.

You said "the wealthy," and what you said afterwards sounded so much like Obama's recent "you didn't build that" remarks that I couldn't help myself. If you meant to say "businesses," your argument makes more sense, but still doesn't quite work. The resources a company uses aren't free, and I can't think of a public resource that isn't directly or indirectly paid for by people who use it. Roads and highways are funded by gasoline taxes, schools and utility infrastructure by property taxes

Depends on the exact deductions that would be ended and on the extent of the overall rate decrease.

How would that be revenue neutral like Romney wants? To make up for the massive cuts almost every deduction would have to go, thus raising taxes on all but the wealthiest.

The wealthy use deductions, too, that's why they can sometimes pay a relatively low effective tax rate. Since its a question of extent, you'd have to have the numbers to work with, and as far as I know the only number Romney has given is an overall tax rate of 25%, I think, which he mentioned months ago. Plus, you don't know how much he plans to reduce government spending.

You misunderstand; he can't solve it, but he can nudge things along. Obama has been nudging things along in the wrong direction.

By taking money from those who actually move the economy and giving it to those who hide their money and take it out of the economy? By encourging those who are doing juyst fine to send American jobs and money overseas?

It's not "American" money, it's "their" money, and they can spend it how they wish. In terms of jobs, you're putting the cart before the horse. The investment doesn't make it more profitable to outsource, outsourcing is more profitable to begin with. Someone's going to pursue that profit opportunity, better that it be an American than some other foreigner.

Bet you can't guess what the country's largest employer is. Hint: the vast majority of their employees are paid well enough to drive the economy.

Few would claim that the current government spending and employment level represents the best possible use of taxpayer money. It doesn't make economic sense to pay someone to do a redundant or relatively useless job when that money could be better served going to the people who earned it in the first place.

Do you even know what financial instruments do? Most of them are bullshit and serve to do nothing but hide money and inflate value. Bonds are good. Stocks, after the IPO, are a complete waste of dollars and resources. Commodities options do nothing but leech. The current banking laws making direct banking instruments unneeded economically. Venture capital only serves any value when the target venture is a start-up. Economically, most of these instruments serve only the holder and a few other people whilst harming the economy as a whole.

If you think bonds are good, you must know that all those financial instruments are bonds in one way or another. Stocks are essentially unsecured bonds with no expiration date. They provide money to the company who issues them and if it does well, they pay back the person who bought them with a net gain. Options are zero-sum agreements between two parties that manage risk. The damage is only limited to the two people who engage in them. Venture capital, by definition, only targets start-ups, so I don't know what your complaint is.
It was only when risk-spreading instruments like mortgage-backed securities and swaps got so convoluted that nobody could really figure out their value that there was a problem. That led to the widespread resentment and fear of the financial industry that you're expressing now.

[pirateplatypus]

At 9/5/12 01:37 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I'm pretty sure pirateplatypus is just trolling because he did not explain how he can believe what he just said even with all the points I made.

Well, the comment about Reaganomics was very tongue-in-cheek. America's been stuck on trickle-down economics since the 80s. Rather than seeing prosperity in the working class as had been promised, we see lower wages and foreclosure rates through the roof.

The fuck the poor comment was more a prediction/attempt at humour.

[Gunner-D]

The Romney plan in a nutshell "I got the skills to schmooze the rich."

A couple of serious questions I would ask Mitt Romney directly...

"Do you believe a minimum wage is helpful or hurtful to the economy?"
"Do you believe in the collective bargaining rights of labor unions?"
"Why do people in Massachusetts not like you?"

I think the real undertone of the Republican message of "Obama as a failure", which I think you'll hear address more directly, is that Obama was nominated and then the economy collapsed - and that the two events are somehow linked. Another part of Republican alternate universe.

[All-American-Badass]

At 9/6/12 02:00 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The Romney plan in a nutshell "I got the skills to schmooze the rich."

A couple of serious questions I would ask Mitt Romney directly...

"Do you believe a minimum wage is helpful or hurtful to the economy?"

Contrary to popular belief, a minimum wage isn't helpful to the economy from a hiring perspective. All it really does is discourage hiring entry level positions which teenage and college aged people would likely take to get their foot in the door because they may not be worth the hourly wage that they legally have to pay them. If a company wants to keep a skilled worker they'll pay them more than minimum wage

[Camarohusky]

At 9/5/12 09:04 AM, adrshepard wrote: If anything, your argument justifies a tax on business operations depending on resources used.

While that makes sense, my point still stands. My point is that lagre business, as a whole, even purely service based businesses, use massive amounts of infrastructure that well outweigh that which a regular person would use.

You said "the wealthy," and what you said afterwards sounded so much like Obama's recent "you didn't build that" remarks that I couldn't help myself. If you meant to say "businesses," your argument makes more sense, but still doesn't quite work. The resources a company uses aren't free, and I can't think of a public resource that isn't directly or indirectly paid for by people who use it. Roads and highways are funded by gasoline taxes, schools and utility infrastructure by property taxes.

In other words, my money is going to fund businesses. I don't mind that at all, so long as they contribute back.

The wealthy use deductions, too, that's why they can sometimes pay a relatively low effective tax rate. Since its a question of extent, you'd have to have the numbers to work with, and as far as I know the only number Romney has given is an overall tax rate of 25%, I think, which he mentioned months ago.

But, again, Romney would likely only pay around 19% without deductions, while would be stuck with 25%. Why should I be punished because I have less to work with or he rewarded because he has more to work with?

Plus, you don't know how much he plans to reduce government spending.

His tax plan isn't revenue netural as it is, therefore we'd have to cut more than now, and the current cuts would be deep.

Few would claim that the current government spending and employment level represents the best possible use of taxpayer money. It doesn't make economic sense to pay someone to do a redundant or relatively useless job when that money could be better served going to the people who earned it in the first place.

A shit ton of people "earned it" and don't get much money. Others want to earn it but are not given the opportunity. Very poor choice of language. Extreme wealth is HARDLY a function of "earning it". It is more a function of luck and being in the right place at the right time.

If you think bonds are good, you must know that all those financial instruments are bonds in one way or another. Stocks are essentially unsecured bonds with no expiration date. They provide money to the company who issues them and if it does well, they pay back the person who bought them with a net gain. Options are zero-sum agreements between two parties that manage risk. The damage is only limited to the two people who engage in them. Venture capital, by definition, only targets start-ups, so I don't know what your complaint is.

You don't understand my point. I don't care about the person who directly sells the isntrument, the direct buyer, or the financial industry. I am talking about the whole economy.

Let's go down the list:
Bonds - The money goes directly to the party in need of it.
Stock - Outside of an issuance or liquidation stocks provide no help to anybody but the direct seller, buyer, and incidentals. The company doesn't see a cent of post Issuance sales or purchases. The money spent on this does not help the named company, only those in the financial sector.
CDs and Savings Accounts - Now that banks do not need to carry more than a small amount of capital inrelation to outstanding loans, CDs and Savings have little productive value. If BoA only needs 10%, they could get away with
having $1 billion in capital. Massive CDs help to this point, but then do nothing else beyond that.
Takeovers, buyouts, and restructing capital (i.e. what Bain calls "venture capital") - Sometimes this can help, but quite often buyers become nothing other than leeches. Then there are people like Icahn who have made billions off of greenmail, in the end doing nothing but siphonig money away from the economy into their own accounts.
Commodities - This is the most nefarious form of financial instrument around. Third party commodity speculators hurt everyone's pocketbook. They raise the prices of needed goods and provide ZERO return to the economy. A large part of the reason gas has returned to $4/gallon is because a bunch of people in some 60th floor office in NYC are afraid that oil prices may spike and they don't want to lose money on their old options. They don't want to ever see any of that oil, they just want all of us to pay more so they can make a profit for essentially doing nothing.

It was only when risk-spreading instruments like mortgage-backed securities and swaps got so convoluted that nobody could really figure out their value that there was a problem. That led to the widespread resentment and fear of the financial industry that you're expressing now.

I'm not talking risk. Every intrument carries risk. It's in their nature. The harms I speak of are not those brought on by the risk. I am speaking about the harms of financial instruments that provide no tangible or productive value at the least harmful, and those that actively leech off of the economy at their most harmful.

[Dawnslayer]

At 9/6/12 02:47 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Contrary to popular belief, a minimum wage isn't helpful to the economy from a hiring perspective. All it really does is discourage hiring entry level positions which teenage and college aged people would likely take to get their foot in the door because they may not be worth the hourly wage that they legally have to pay them. If a company wants to keep a skilled worker they'll pay them more than minimum wage

As tempting as it is to flatly agree with this, I don't think minimum wage itself is the problem. The problem, as I see it, is that minimum wage keeps escalating to keep up with the cost of living (which in turn ties into the cost of running a business, which is affected in part by the cost of paying employees). For instance, in my home state of Washington minimum wage is tied directly to the consumer price index, which is why it's increased by two dollars in ten years.

I'm no economist, but this is what makes sense to me: if you abolish the minimum wage, you might or might not see more people getting hired, but it doesn't change the expense of living, and people working for less money won't be able to afford that expense any more than they could before, so it doesn't drive up demand. On the other hand, if you can find a way to reduce the expense of living, people will be able to afford more products with less money, increasing demand and improving business. That in turn encourages companies to hire needed workers, who then have more money to spend and further increase demand, allowing prices to drop even more. Over time the CPI would decrease to the point that minimum wage could also be decreased, making it more economically sound to hire workers.

I am well aware that this is not a perfect model. Reducing prices runs the risk of reducing profits, possibly to the point of endangering the business, and no business wants to assume that risk. But reducing or eliminating the minimum wage could have a similar and possibly even worse effect. There is no risk-free solution. So the question is: what plan carries the least amount of risk?

[adrshepard]

At 9/6/12 02:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While that makes sense, my point still stands. My point is that lagre business, as a whole, even purely service based businesses, use massive amounts of infrastructure that well outweigh that which a regular person would use.
In other words, my money is going to fund businesses. I don't mind that at all, so long as they contribute back.

They are. In addition to paying taxes, they are employing people, and they produce goods and services that provide some useful function to people or other businesses.

But, again, Romney would likely only pay around 19% without deductions, while would be stuck with 25%. Why should I be punished because I have less to work with or he rewarded because he has more to work with?

How is he going to pay 19% without using deductions, in this case I'm guessing it'd be something involving offsets from investment losses? Besides, why shouldn't he pay less taxes on investment income? Whatever he put into it was already taxed once when it was initally earned.

Few would claim that the current government spending and employment level represents the best possible use of taxpayer money. It doesn't make economic sense to pay someone to do a redundant or relatively useless job when that money could be better served going to the people who earned it in the first place.

A shit ton of people "earned it" and don't get much money. Others want to earn it but are not given the opportunity. Very poor choice of language. Extreme wealth is HARDLY a function of "earning it". It is more a function of luck and being in the right place at the right time.

That's where our fundamental disagreement is. To me, "earning" it isn't just a question of how hard you work at your job, but how hard you've worked to make yourself valuable relative to other people. I have no doubt that certain factory laborers etc work very hard in jobs that punish their bodies, but the fact is that there are a hell of a lot of people that can do exactly the same thing. Most jobs don't pay in relation to what a worker actually does (exceptions would be output or commission-based pay) but to how much it would cost to get someone else to do it. Fast food workers don't make much because they are so easily replaced. CEOs make a hell of a lot because they bring a lot of special skills to an organization that relatively few people have. They can be very difficult if not impossible to replace. So when you say someone has earned more than they are being paid, I don't see it as a trend but as an anomaly or unavoidable inefficiency in the system.

You don't understand my point. I don't care about the person who directly sells the isntrument, the direct buyer, or the financial industry. I am talking about the whole economy.
Let's go down the list:
Bonds - The money goes directly to the party in need of it.
Stock - Outside of an issuance or liquidation stocks provide no help to anybody but the direct seller, buyer, and incidentals. The company doesn't see a cent of post Issuance sales or purchases. The money spent on this does not help the named company, only those in the financial sector.

And it helps the person buying it through potential gains in correlation to the company's success. If buying stock only helped the financial sector, no one would purchase it to begin with.

CDs and Savings Accounts - Now that banks do not need to carry more than a small amount of capital inrelation to outstanding loans, CDs and Savings have little productive value. If BoA only needs 10%, they could get away with

having $1 billion in capital. Massive CDs help to this point, but then do nothing else beyond that.
I don't see your point. Raising the reserve ratio may make banks more solvent, but its a very heavy handed tool of monetary policy compared to open market operations and the interest rate target, which can acheive the same things.

Takeovers, buyouts, and restructing capital (i.e. what Bain calls "venture capital") - Sometimes this can help, but quite often buyers become nothing other than leeches. Then there are people like Icahn who have made billions off of greenmail, in the end doing nothing but siphonig money away from the economy into their own accounts.

A business owner will only sell control of his company to a business like Bain if he believes there's nothing he can do to save it. Bain took over failing companies and tried to make them profitable. Bain made money when its efforts failed and it was forced to liquidate plants and equipment, but that would have been the same outcome for the business anyway had Bain or some similar company not stepped in.

Commodities - This is the most nefarious form of financial instrument around. Third party commodity speculators hurt everyone's pocketbook. They raise the prices of needed goods and provide ZERO return to the economy. A large part of the reason gas has returned to $4/gallon is because a bunch of people in some 60th floor office in NYC are afraid that oil prices may spike and they don't want to lose money on their old options. They don't want to ever see any of that oil, they just want all of us to pay more so they can make a profit for essentially doing nothing.

I admittedly don't know enough about commodity instruments to say very much. I can say that this sort of speculation has always existed and is very difficult to stop, but my gut tells me that getting rid of commodity markets entirely to end speculation would be a bad idea.

[DragonPunch]

At 9/5/12 12:44 AM, pirateplatypus wrote: OP, why are you hating on the Reagan-omics? We've only been trying trickle down for 30-someodd years. It's bound to start working any day now.

And I'd like to add, if it's tl;dr for some of you, here's Romney's full economic plan summed up:
"Fuck the poor."

Good one, and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps, we should try raising taxes for the rich and wealthy. Somehow, Clinton was able to balance the budget by doing it, I personally don't see any reason for that plan to fail.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 9/6/12 07:37 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
Good one, and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps, we should try raising taxes for the rich and wealthy. Somehow, Clinton was able to balance the budget by doing it, I personally don't see any reason for that plan to fail.

when Clinton did it, the economy was a lot better, and the spending was also a lot lower. Now we have2 wars being fought, and another war on the way (and trust me, Obama isn't going to try and stop it.) as well the debt wasn't nearly as high which means the interest was much lower.

[Gunner-D]

At 9/6/12 02:47 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 9/6/12 02:00 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The Romney plan in a nutshell "I got the skills to schmooze the rich."

A couple of serious questions I would ask Mitt Romney directly...

"Do you believe a minimum wage is helpful or hurtful to the economy?"

Contrary to popular belief, a minimum wage isn't helpful to the economy from a hiring perspective. All it really does is discourage hiring entry level positions which teenage and college aged people would likely take to get their foot in the door because they may not be worth the hourly wage that they legally have to pay them. If a company wants to keep a skilled worker they'll pay them more than minimum wage

Obviously that is why I would ask him that. I helps out poor people but the rich don't favor it. I'd like to hear Romney's answer. It would be pretty sad if a teenage or college age worker isn't worth minimum wage, seeing as most young American-born people are full of energy, educated, and speak English. I don't think the minimum wage laws are out to necessarily help most high schoolers with no children or "real-life" obligations such as rent, mortgage, groceries, etc.

[RazzleDazzleBeatz]

Its funny... you think Romney's plan is "trickle-down", the 2nd commenter mentioned a cut everybody's taxes plan.

...
....
.....

That's what Romney wants to do...
.............

[Camarohusky]

At 9/7/12 01:52 PM, RazzleDazzleBeatz wrote: Its funny... you think Romney's plan is "trickle-down", the 2nd commenter mentioned a cut everybody's taxes plan.

Not sure you know what's involved in a trickle down policy.