Another Political question...

[drewl]

lulz

[HKSblade1]

 

As I have said before comparing job growth nowadays to the 80s when the world was going through some major changes both in technology and industry is stupid. Everyone just compares numbers but no one explains why it was like that and that maybe it had more to do with how America was evolving and not some stupid reagonomics bull{censored}.

 

 

I just attempted that explanation based on personal experience in another topic... I was a dem headed grad with big ideas but the world around us was sad and 20x worse economically even for our parents. Credit was not extended as often, and the govt did not extend UE benefits during a time of UAW strikes which were followed by massive layoff's. Those layoffs BTW set the stage for global infrastructure in Asian markets, including automotive, aluminum, and steel production. That news changed the attitudes of domestic workers, and the public started to embrace a new era of import products which grew over the next 30 years.

 

That was just the beginning... The corporate growth of the 80's and 90's was yet again not as much domestic as it was setting the foundations for global competition. The bigger tech and manufacturing jobs were military contracts whose technology was traded to Asian companies, as well as used for domestic company expansions. The idea there was all R and D costs are absorbed by the govt. There was your primary objective in military spending and so many dems and pubs who were financed by large companies invested in that same hardware and computer development.

 

There were tons of facilities for engineers and electronics technicians. Even most of the medical tech we have to today was brought to you in part by military tech R and D that was given to companies ading the development. Picker Int'l, Johnson Technicare, Allen Bradley, TRW.. all major players in MRI, CAT development. TRW had many contracts for the up and coming missile systems and firing systems. I worked at TRW in CO Springs post grad and we designed guidance controllers for missile systems. It was huge business. The tech reached a point as all tech does and many of teh funds were reverted to more global projects as the investment markets shifted.

 

Our newer businesses and investment firms catered to and sucked the life out of domestic companies.

 

What was growth to some businesses, was depleting ourselves of out dated manufacturing and relocations for better and more short term gains. Cap that off with policy from politicians on both sides of the aisle promoting global markets vs domestic and impeding domestic growth due to changing environmental policy and you have phase two.

 

Phase three was more of the same but now in the 90's ushered in the dot coms. Was there real value in those or were they all again speculative markets? That can argued for days. The 90's also had more import consumerism and a changing policy on lifestyles. 90's investment banks and creditors started helping people live not so modest. The two person income was growing and markets capitalized on that. They didn't see domestic devaluation of products and newer consumer trends. Interest rates were much lower and inflation was on a set pace. Living income rose with two income households and tons of {censored} was purchased on CREDIT.

 

Then the Bush era... same as Clintonesque vibe and business tactics until the war. Now the dot coms were dying and the new machine was in the war. Investors both foreign and domestic supported leaders who extended any time and expense in being there. Military had tactical reasons, but the financial gains were primary to those major players. It was also a time to shock and awe new prospective allied buyers of modern weaponry. What better display than what we saw on every cable station at the time. Even better angles and view than in 91.

 

Now add in the housing scam house of cards, then the bailouts, then the oil companies going ape{censored} with their speculative greed market and there you have what has shrunk the middle class by design. We have not seen the credit card and other financial bubble explode just yet. It's coming............

[Stevetemp]

I think most honest people will admit that both parties are responsible for the mess we're in. However, the war in Iraq was a monumental and very costly mistake. I believe the diverted resources additionally hindered our ability to much more effectively deal with the effort in Afghanistan and ending it much sooner. W deserves the bad credit he gets for that. But I'm sure Kerry would've made some bad economic decisions of his own.

 

The "true cost" of the war (both Afghanistan AND Iraq) is contested by even experts. If we were to do a search of it...it'd be between 1 trillion and 3 trillion.

 

The real cost is in death and ruined lives. But... In 2000...spending was about 4 trillion and moves steadily right up the chart to the current 6+. In the last three years..Obama's spending has increased nearly 1 trillion per year.

 

3 trillion. In three years. About the (most aggressive estimated) cost of 12 YEARS of war in two countries.

 

Where da money at?

 

Now my figures are a little rough...I agree. But the general view is sound. If anyone has any corrections I need to know about...I'm listening.

 

Also...where IS the money that went to the war. I understand about 2 trillion was ripped off from a warehouse haha kinda. But we certainly do get jobs from that money. I worked for a plastics company that made loader sleeves for shells. Made thousands of them..and just that one little item for one little company was at least 2-3 jobs and part of an expansion by that company.

 

Not sure it was worth all the lives...I'm just stating facts. When we talk about "Monies"....we need to think it all the way through. Like my state tax referendums. "Should we allow tax breaks for senior citizens". Well....on the surface yes! But...what does it do to the rest of the system? They won't say.

[jenksdrummer]

The "true cost" of the war (both Afghanistan AND Iraq) is contested by even experts. If we were to do a search of it...it'd be between 1 trillion and 3 trillion. The real cost is in death and ruined lives. But... In 2000...spending was about 4 trillion and moves steadily right up the chart to the current 6+. In the last three years..Obama's spending has increased nearly 1 trillion per year. 3 trillion. In three years. About the (most aggressive estimated) cost of 12 YEARS of war in two countries. Where da money at? Now my figures are a little rough...I agree. But the general view is sound. If anyone has any corrections I need to know about...I'm listening. Also...where IS the money that went to the war. I understand about 2 trillion was ripped off from a warehouse haha kinda. But we certainly do get jobs from that money. I worked for a plastics company that made loader sleeves for shells. Made thousands of them..and just that one little item for one little company was at least 2-3 jobs and part of an expansion by that company. Not sure it was worth all the lives...I'm just stating facts. When we talk about "Monies"....we need to think it all the way through. Like my state tax referendums. "Should we allow tax breaks for senior citizens". Well....on the surface yes! But...what does it do to the rest of the system? They won't say.

 

Seems everyone ignores the elephant in the room with re: Iraq/Afganistan...

 

Dick Cheney = Haliburton = KBR = No-bid, no-limit contract to build bases.

 

I know, from working in the goverment sector, that having a no-bid contract is a HUGE no-no. Having an open-ended contract is a HUGE no-no.

 

 

That, my friends, is where all the money went. Cheney, VP of the United States. Who do you think pushed for us to go to Iraq/Afganistan...

[RSBro]

LOL WUT? It amazes me that these people have any political traction at all! That hoarding is just a pure insult to, and declaration of contempt for, American voters: "we think enough of you are ignorant, uneducated and/or stupid enough to be swayed by this absurdity".

 

It works every time, for both sides of the aisle.

 

u mad?

[Stevetemp]

 

Seems everyone ignores the elephant in the room with re: Iraq/Afganistan... Dick Cheney = Haliburton = KBR = No-bid, no-limit contract to build bases. I know, from working in the goverment sector, that having a no-bid contract is a HUGE no-no. Having an open-ended contract is a HUGE no-no. That, my friends, is where all the money went. Cheney, VP of the United States. Who do you think pushed for us to go to Iraq/Afganistan...

 

 

Not without Congress. So everyone BUT Congress knew we shouldn't have done it?

 

 

And I'm glad someone "in" responded. Because someone asked "what other company could have feasibly done the same thing?" I don't know. (Disregarding for the moment the reasoning and motivation for it in the first place)

[jenksdrummer]

 

Not without Congress. So everyone BUT Congress knew we shouldn't have done it? And I'm glad someone "in" responded. Because someone asked "what other company could have feasibly done the same thing?" I don't know. (Disregarding for the moment the reasoning and motivation for it in the first place)

 

 

By that point, congress had *already* passed power to the president to declare war on whoever, whenever, whatever, etc...due to 9/11 and public outcry over it - with the intent that we would go after the bastards that were responsible for the attacks...

 

Yet, after that was done - Afganistan? Iraq? Weren't most of them from Saudi Arabia? Oh, they have oil. Guess we better leave them alone. Haliburton stocks would suffer!

[rushtallica]

LOL WUT? It amazes me that these people have any political traction at all! That hoarding is just a pure insult to, and declaration of contempt for, American voters: "we think enough of you are ignorant, uneducated and/or stupid enough to be swayed by this absurdity".

Sadly, I think plenty do fit that description. If only you could see what browsing through my Facebook daily feed looks like. It's all I can do to avoid voicing my views there.

[Stevetemp]

By that point, congress had *already* passed power to the president to declare war on whoever, whenever, whatever, etc...due to 9/11 and public outcry over it - with the intent that we would go after the bastards that were responsible for the attacks... Yet, after that was done - Afganistan? Iraq? Weren't most of them from Saudi Arabia? Oh, they have oil. Guess we better leave them alone. Haliburton stocks would suffer!

 

I've said it before and I will say it again. Bush's "mission" changed (for WHATever reason) from "revenge" to fighting global terrorism as a whole. I honestly believe he was sincere. Had trouble getting people and countries to "buy in"...especially France, Germany, And Russia

 

There was no formal "Declaration of War", IIRC. In the end... all Congress had to do was/is withhold the budget money. End of war.

 

Now the Saudi's....well...that certainly is a bugger{censored}! I can't believe it was/is all about oil. I suppose there are some...diplomatic idiosyncrasies I'm not too educated about. So we take down some Saudi's. What are they gonna do...not sell all that oil to us? I suppose they could put a temporary embargo? If it's THAT much oil it'd sure {censored} things up not just for us.

[Phrophus]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Bush's "mission" changed (for WHATever reason) from "revenge" to fighting global terrorism as a whole. I honestly believe he was sincere. Had trouble getting people and countries to "buy in"...especially France, Germany, And Russia There was no formal "Declaration of War", IIRC. In the end... all Congress had to do was/is withhold the budget money. End of war. Now the Saudi's....well...that certainly is a bugger{censored}! I can't believe it was/is all about oil. I suppose there are some...diplomatic idiosyncrasies I'm not too educated about. So we take down some Saudi's. What are they gonna do...not sell all that oil to us? I suppose they could put a temporary embargo? If it's THAT much oil it'd sure {censored} things up not just for us.

 

Yeah, Congress is going to withhold the money that supports the Americans fighting the wars. The whole congress can withhold money is a very empty threat. Once the President gets us into a war, we're gonna be there for awhile. Congress can't stop it.

[jenksdrummer]

 

Yeah, Congress is going to withhold the money that supports the Americans fighting the wars. The whole congress can withhold money is a very empty threat. Once the President gets us into a war, we're gonna be there for awhile. Congress can't stop it.

 

 

Political suicide, as opponents attempting to take office have ammo to say "he voted to put troops in harms way!"

[~Abstract~]

LOL WUT? It amazes me that these people have any political traction at all! That hoarding is just a pure insult to, and declaration of contempt for, American voters: "we think enough of you are ignorant, uneducated and/or stupid enough to be swayed by this absurdity".

 

 

Please explain.

 

It seems to me that you're saying that the billboard image I posted, while being exactly "demonizing" as RSbro questioned, is so far out of touch as to not be worthy of consideration?

 

 

Is that how I am to take your post?

[marshallnoise]

 

This. And it will actually create significantly more than $100,000 worth of income for others (read spending multiplier). Props for Milton Friedman, but Classical Liberalism was essentially disproved by the Great Depression. I'm guessing you've never heard of John Maynard Keynes.

 

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Thanks for that one.

[marshallnoise]

lulz

You do realize that the effective tax rate is slightly different than the income tax rate. Right?

That 94% under Roosevelt was knocked down to about 20% after deductions. But, it does make for good political cartoons.

[Megadeth Man]

Please explain. It seems to me that you're saying that the billboard image I posted, while being exactly "demonizing" as RSbro questioned, is so far out of touch as to not be worthy of consideration? Is that how I am to take your post?

Yes, I think that's a comprehensive, and fair, analysis.

[NeloAngelo]

 

Actually, unemployement under Reagan was only 1-2% lower than it is with Obama, on average for months in office. Clinton by far had the best employment record with many months under 5% unemployement. Never once did it get under 4% since 1978 (as far back as I went with it)

 

are these %'s adjusted for increase in population and decrease in local manufacturing and outsourcing of call centers and other jobs?

[Stevetemp]

Yeah, Congress is going to withhold the money that supports the Americans fighting the wars. The whole congress can withhold money is a very empty threat. Once the President gets us into a war, we're gonna be there for awhile. Congress can't stop it.

 

 

I didn't say the Congress would be WILLING to do it.

 

I don;t see how it is an "empty threat". Congress represents the will of the people...do they not? They should be doing their job and they'd likely look like heroes. We have to remember that there was never a formal declaration of war by the President.

 

an article from WAY back in 2007:

 

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/01/TNScongresspower070130/

[Stevetemp]

 

are these %'s adjusted for increase in population and decrease in local manufacturing and outsourcing of call centers and other jobs?

 

 

We often call that "massaging the numbers".

[jlb32]

If the rich businesses havn't invested in the US economy with the money they are making now then more in tax savings isn't going to change their minds IMO. Look at the billions Apple is making for example and where are they still manufacturing their products. Unemployment high, wages down for workers, insurance and cost of living keep going up, corporations making record profits. That IMO should say enough to know tax cuts for the mega rich won't do anything. Trickle down is a bust when the top 400 people in the country have as much wealth and half the country combinded.

[marshallnoise]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/saving-is-killing-the-economy/

[LSDis4me]

 

I didn't say the Congress would be WILLING to do it. I don;t see how it is an "empty threat". Congress represents the will of the people...do they not? They should be doing their job and they'd likely look like heroes. We have to remember that there was never a formal declaration of war by the President.

 

 

No they don't. Unless by "people" you mean those multi-national corporations (who are people) that pay the politicians, and set policy through their lobbyists and revolving-door of political staffers.

[~Abstract~]

Yes, I think that's a comprehensive, and fair, analysis.

 

Thought so.

 

You are one ignorant mother{censored}er.

 

It's OK to put Obama on the same billboard as Hitler because no one's gonna take it seriously. People ARE and DO take it seriously. People are saying the same thing on TV and Radio.

 

 

Anyway,

 

I need a picture of your mama.

 

 

Don't worry. I'll make the photoshop so bad, no one will think she really has a giant black dick in her mouth.

 

No problem right? I mean, everyone will know it's fake.

 

[HKSblade1]

 

If the rich businesses havn't invested in the US economy with the money they are making now then more in tax savings isn't going to change their minds IMO. Look at the billions Apple is making for example and where are they still manufacturing their products. Unemployment high, wages down for workers, insurance and cost of living keep going up, corporations making record profits. That IMO should say enough to know tax cuts for the mega rich won't do anything. Trickle down is a bust when the top 400 people in the country have as much wealth and half the country combinded.

 

 

Part of Romney's initiative was equalizing fair trade via tariffs, or some type of VAT to imports. This would take Co's like Apple and others in many consumer based product manufacturing to re-evaluate their business end of production. He took a {censored}ing beating in the WS Journal, and other business analysts hated the idea... why? because their investment portfolios as well as many millions of 401k's get their earning from slave labor in Asia.

 

Obama's remark in the debate was what..."face it, some of those jobs are never returning" ???? What? so much for incentives and fair trade laws... Ok. and what was the most recalled key point of the {censored}ing debate? Whether or not the President said terror attack or not. {censored}ing LULZ........ people do NOT have their eye on the ball and that is why DC and the Wall St function as such.

 

Bush 1 and Clinton discussed similar options (tariffs) with Import car makers in the late 80's and 90's.. they moved here. They made a {censored}load too because they were provided tax incentives for hiring US workers. Their automation processes were later adopted by many domestic auto makers. Why did Bush and Clinton do those things? They were focused on the economy... unfortunately at the same time their focus was on domestic policy and the ME, private domestic and foreign investors were building up the global infrastructure for what came next... outsourcing !!

[Rear Naked]

 

You do realize that the effective tax rate is slightly different than the income tax rate. Right? That 94% under Roosevelt was knocked down to about 20% after deductions. But, it does make for good political cartoons.

 

 

Also, (I know this is too much for simpleton graphics...) the top rate in Hoovers administration was applied to people making over 2.5 MILLION {censored}ING DOLLARS (2011 dollars).

 

The top rate today is enforced on incomes over around 350K. People making 350K during the 94% top rate years would be paying about 66%.

 

 

I mentioned in a recent post that our simple 6 bracket system is fantastic for the rich. Back in Hoovers day there were around 23 brackets! The simplified bracket system we have today protects the rich by lumping the FILTHY rich guys in with your family dentist.

 

Source:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

[Stevetemp]

 

No they don't. Unless by "people" you mean those multi-national corporations (who are people) that pay the politicians, and set policy through their lobbyists and revolving-door of political staffers.

 

 

Haha....touche!