Thats it, I'm done caring about politics...

[stratocaster202]

 

And my point is, while my friends and workers got drunk last night, I was sitting at my desk tired and dirty filling out logs for the workers. While my friends get Saturday off to sleep off hangovers I'm up at 5 in the shop getting the work week ready and lining up a supply chain. While my friends enjoy their social life, my girlfriend and I are running a farm. Hell, I'm running two. Foreman on one and owner of mine. You thought one farm was hard? I have the responsibilities of 2. If I'm successful, I see no reason to share with people like my friends. Because while they were living up their 20'a, I was missing mine to secure a future. I want an airplane one day, multiple homes, whatever else I want. I'm not sharing. People call that greed, I call it them playing checkers in a chess game. I don't see why I have to give up a bigger piece of my pie because someone else can't make one. My income comes from my hands. I'm not trading on something that doesn't exist- I produce a product, I should benefit.

 

 

That's a good point.

 

But to say you shouldn't give any of it back ignores the fact that you still needed, one way or another, directly or indirectly, government services. I'm not saying you shouldn't be rich enough to afford the planes and the houses, that once you are that rich the government should swoop in and take all your money so you go back to just living comfortably. I'm not saying that you the government did the {censored} work you have, and are doing. But I'm saying you should still give some of it back, because whether you like it or not, you or your employees are using things the government provides.

[buddhapaugh]

I think if we all lived in a vacuum then greed and selfishness---or simply satisfying every personal desire---would NEVER be an issue.

 

We don't live in such a vacuum, though. We live in shared social and cultural spaces and not all resources are personal or private. It is why the question of "wealth" and "success" is never ultimately a personal question. It is also a question of the individual in relation to the collective---which includes society and the environment we all share in a communal way.

[Gary Cohn]

That's a good point. But to say you shouldn't give any of it back ignores the fact that you still needed, one way or another, directly or indirectly, government services. I'm not saying you shouldn't be rich enough to afford the planes and the houses, that once you are that rich the government should swoop in and take all your money so you go back to just living comfortably. I'm not saying that you the government did the {censored} work you have, and are doing. But I'm saying you should still give some of it back, because whether you like it or not, you or your employees are using things the government provides.

 

 

Agreed. The govt did do those things, but I already pay for it.

 

Roads? Every time I buy gas, I'm paying for it. Bicyclists who use roads don't. Nice.

 

Public schooling I got? My parents paid for that, my college was done at a state school which was paid with student loans, that's I paid back.

 

Police, fire? Pay for it.

 

Everything? I pay for it. So I don't buy the whole "government did that" ruse. I did that, my wallet did that every time I'm a consumer. Government takes more money and my power to be a good consumer diminishes bit by bit.

 

We all pay for what we have, it wasn't free which is why that line is vomit inducing. It's like, hey, thanks government for actually spending my money on things we need instead of aid to foreign countries who hate us.

[NeloAngelo]

niki minaj is an american idol judge now.

 

 

{censored} amerrica, i hope we get nuked by al qaeda, iran, and north korea at the same time.

[NeloAngelo]

 

Is trying to run government as if it were a business or a corporation a failed endeavour, because they are two fundamentally different enterprises, with divergent goals and practices?

 

america is a company.

[Gary Cohn]

You seem to be interpreting his post as saying "you don't work hard", which would be pretty untrue and insulting if it was, but thats not the point at all.

 

Oh no, I'm not, I'm just saying as a person who works in a certain field (no pun intended ) I think my taxes should be different than say my brother who is a wall street banker.

[jlb32]

And my point is, while my friends and workers got drunk last night, I was sitting at my desk tired and dirty filling out logs for the workers. While my friends get Saturday off to sleep off hangovers I'm up at 5 in the shop getting the work week ready and lining up a supply chain. While my friends enjoy their social life, my girlfriend and I are running a farm. Hell, I'm running two. Foreman on one and owner of mine. You thought one farm was hard? I have the responsibilities of 2. If I'm successful, I see no reason to share with people like my friends. Because while they were living up their 20'a, I was missing mine to secure a future. I want an airplane one day, multiple homes, whatever else I want. I'm not sharing. People call that greed, I call it them playing checkers in a chess game. I don't see why I have to give up a bigger piece of my pie because someone else can't make one. My income comes from my hands. I'm not trading on something that doesn't exist- I produce a product, I should benefit.

 

 

That's why if it turns out successful you get the major piece of the pie. What CEO or owner of any business/corporation doesn't? It doesn't mean that your workers didn't do their portion though and shouldn't get paid respectfully for the share of what they did to help with the success of the business.

 

If you feel you are doing everything yourself and feel your workers/friends mean nothing to the point you say "you aren't sharing if you succeed" then why do you have them at all? Maybe you should let them all go and see how well it goes without them. You might realize their contributions to your wanted success is probably more than you think.

[***1776***]

Oh Reagan absolutely presided over massive growth etc. I'm referring simply to his plan of cutting taxes on the rich based on the notion that they money they saved they will spend. Because they don't. You don't stay rich by living beyond your means. Chances are you'll save that extra money. You're right, the marketplace should determine success, but what about the people who cheat the market? Markets only function properly when there is perfect competition i.e. everyone knows everything about all the products and there are enough products out there no one company can make a huge difference. The mobile phone service industry is an example of a free market gone wrong. It's basically an oligopoly, Verizon and AT&T match each other more or less for prices, and none of the upstarts can really afford to enter into the market to challenge the status quo. As for direct government intervention in a market, I would never advocate for that, except when the market has been screwed up by people trying to increase their profits. Although, how do you deal with things like the chemical industry? The cheapest, most efficient option isn't actually the best, care needs to be taken to limit environmental damage from chemical manufacturing, but companies will try to avoid this because it lowers their profit. In the short run the market will choose that option, and in the long run it will be too late to reverse the damage.

Sounds like we agree more than we disagree overall


My 1 gripe is you CANNOT tax and spend your way to prosperity, i dont think thats a good business model for states, countries and goverments, etc


I said the marketplace (producers, consumers-buyers/sellers) should be a fair marketplace where people go to push goods and services and consumers buy from whom they choose, but i agree -- the marketplace should be fair


The govt can step in but it should be the exception and not the rule -- The recent govent goverment in S.C. and Boeing Airlines is a good example, the fed govt was out of its mind in this case and had no business being there, this is a example of a 'overeaching all powerfull goverment', WTF is that about?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2011/04/27/federal-government-attacks-on-boeing-fuel-our-national-economic-suicide/

[meelosh123]

Capitalism will give you the best opportunity, it may not have the best result, (and provided that its a fair and honest market ) but it will give you the best opportunity 4 sure

 

 

Being greedy, selfish, and competitive make all the gears of business run smoother...but when people cheat and rules are not followed, society suffers. I always thought it was the government's job to set up the rules (like anti-trust laws and whatnot), enforce them, and create new rules as the world becomes more complex. If they don't do it, then who will? I can't imagine how many shenanigans would be pulled if sports didn't have referees.

[stratocaster202]

Oh no, I'm not, I'm just saying as a person who works in a certain field (no pun intended ) I think my taxes should be different than say my brother who is a wall street banker.

 

Aren't they? I don't know you, I don't know how much money you make, and how it compares to a wall street banker, but I'm assuming you don't actually pay the same taxes. Since you're field (I appreciate the pun) is, geographically removed from a Wall Street banker's I would assume you pay radically different taxes.

[NeloAngelo]

 

But they have to keep doing those things. That's why everyone has to help pay for it, it helps everyone. And if everyone in society in healthy and capable of working well etc. everyone makes more money.

 

i don't know, man. this sounds pretty socialist. we might want to take another look at this whole taxation thing.

[Gary Cohn]

 

But they have to keep doing those things. That's why everyone has to help pay for it, it helps everyone. And if everyone in society in healthy and capable of working well etc. everyone makes more money. Aren't they? I don't know you, I don't know how much money you make, and how it compares to a wall street banker, but I'm assuming you don't actually pay the same taxes. Since you're field (I appreciate the pun) is, geographically removed from a Wall Street banker's I would assume you pay radically different taxes.

 

 

This year, I'll pay less. Not because of tax rates (I'm in California. We are essentially the same as New York) but because my crop doesn't come off until April.

 

When it does I'll go to 6 figures in a hurry. Then, I'll be raped hard.

 

I'm interviewing Cpa's in the next couple weeks to see if I can find a way to reduce my tax liability. If I have to turn those taxes into business use airplane fuel, I will. But I'm not paying all that tax. No way. And it's not because I want to defecate on people who are needy, but until my taxes start going to causes I agree with and they change some programs to be more strict, I'll spend it on a new tractor or a business plane or new boots or whatever. I'd rather keep workers working with my taxes than see them go up in smoke into a machine that can't be quenched.

[Wayne2]

Obviously everyone is responsible for his/her own spending, but who owns the media, marketing machine, etc.?

 

 

The government owns and runs the public schools. All the garbage they teach, 13 years of time-wasting bull and still kids graduate unable to understand basic personal finance. I see it everywhere I go, dudes at the mattress store buying top of the line mattresses, then asking about monthly payments. WTF? the day I don't have enough money for a mattress I either a) buy the cheap one, or b) put off buying for a while. I've got neighbors who bitch and bitch about property taxes, then resod their lawns and dump thousands more into hiring poor bastards to run around with weed wackers and leafblowers all day making a miserable racket. I see young adults all the time too broke for everything except their $100/month cell phone plans and $100/weekend binge-drinking habits. A true emergency comes up and hardly anyone has two nickels to rub together.

 

Yes I see the point that the super-rich can make money sitting with their thumbs up their asses and that isn't fair either, but it's not about fair. Greatest good for the greatest number comes from capitalism, with allowances made to protect the environment, give every kid a fighting chance, etc. The super-rich hardly stay that way forever. They buy dumb stuff and gamble and lose money in divorces, so eventually all of it gets back in the system.

[stratocaster202]

This year, I'll pay less. Not because of tax rates (I'm in California. We are essentially the same as New York) but because my crop doesn't come off until April. When it does I'll go to 6 figures in a hurry. Then, I'll be raped hard. I'm interviewing Cpa's in the next couple weeks to see if I can find a way to reduce my tax liability. If I hav to turn those taxes into business use airplane fuel, I will. But I'm not paying all that tax. No way.

 

Well that sucks. A lot. {censored}.

 

But I guess the Wall Street guys would argue they work just as hard as you do? Obviously in different ways, but I'm sure it's what they'd say.

 

How much does the CPA cost, against just paying the tax? Obviously they will save you money, otherwise you won't pay them. But it goes back to my thing that you'll pay for all this stuff in the end.

 

As for you actual tax rate that's a more detailed debate I'm not informed well enough to get into, but if your tax rate is making it hard for you to survive/actually reducing your quality of life as opposed to just reducing how much disposable income you have floating around (that's a tough distinction to draw, but I hope you see where I'm coming from) that's pretty {censored}ed up.

 

I'm getting off the computer now, but I've enjoyed this debate, it's actually been informative. And I think we all agree the system sucks

[jlb32]

Being greedy, selfish, and competitive make all the gears of business run smoother...but when people cheat and rules are not followed, society suffers. I always thought it was the government's job to set up the rules (like anti-trust laws and whatnot), enforce them, and create new rules as the world becomes more complex. If they don't do it, then who will? I can't imagine how many shenanigans would be pulled if sports didn't have referees.

 

 

You would think they would enforce the so called "free/fair trade" agreements also but they don't seem to care. China ships everything to the USA but in return China limits/restricts USA imports to them. There seems to be very few penalties for USA companies moving jobs overseas and shipping their products back to the USA either.

 

The free/fair trade was suppose to be a more level playing field but for USA manufacturers it seems to be far from level. We can't compete due to our cost of living being higher which in turn makes manufacturing costs higher. There seems to be very limited import tarriffs, restrictions and other laws to make it so we can compete.

[Gary Cohn]

It was a good discussion. I agree with your post.

 

Either way ya slice it, someone's going to get over on the weaker of the two. Capitalism although flawed is still the best system available. It'd b better if it truly ran free market though IMO.

 

It is my opinion that the federal government should gtfo of commerce. Protect our country and maintain interstate commerce. Leave the rest tithe states that way if CA decides to implement horrible strategy, only CA dies.

 

The federal government making policy on these matters is bad because if they do something stupid, the whole country fails instead of just one state. And putting the same ideas to work on two different states like New York and Missouri is equally ignorant.

 

Well that sucks. A lot. {censored}. But I guess the Wall Street guys would argue they work just as hard as you do? Obviously in different ways, but I'm sure it's what they'd say. How much does the CPA cost, against just paying the tax? Obviously they will save you money, otherwise you won't pay them. But it goes back to my thing that you'll pay for all this stuff in the end. As for you actual tax rate that's a more detailed debate I'm not informed well enough to get into, but if your tax rate is making it hard for you to survive/actually reducing your quality of life as opposed to just reducing how much disposable income you have floating around (that's a tough distinction to draw, but I hope you see where I'm coming from) that's pretty {censored}ed up. I'm getting off the computer now, but I've enjoyed this debate, it's actually been informative. And I think we all agree the system sucks

[Gary Cohn]

Ignore typos, iPhone magic at its best.

[***1776***]

Being greedy, selfish, and competitive make all the gears of business run smoother...but when people cheat and rules are not followed, society suffers. I always thought it was the government's job to set up the rules (like anti-trust laws and whatnot), enforce them, and create new rules as the world becomes more complex. If they don't do it, then who will? I can't imagine how many shenanigans would be pulled if sports didn't have referees.

I agree bro


Thats why i said as long as its fair for al the marketplace, (capitalism) in the anology of a sports game if the refs are calling 'phantom' or unecessary penalties, calls and the league makes TO MANY NEW rules, etc, etc then the game itself suffers or doesnt flow as well, -- is that fair to say?.. the correct answer is a balance imo


1 of the best recent discussions on HCAF in a while good job boyz

[kooter82]

 

I can't imagine how many shenanigans would be pulled if sports didn't have referees.

 

Watch the documentary on Netflix called "The Two Pablo's." Its about the (heavily favored) Colombian world cup soccer team of 1994 (and why they choked) and how Pablo Escobar ran and financed the entire team.

 

That was {censored}ING amazing to watch.

 

Watching that made me think about if all that happens in sports period, all the time.

[mamberg]

 

.............. I'm referring simply to his plan of cutting taxes on the rich based on the notion that they money they saved they will spend. Because they don't. You don't stay rich by living beyond your means. Chances are you'll save that extra money............

 

 

trickle down isn't intended to get the rich to 'spend the money' - it is intended to get the money 'invested' back into the economy.

Save it, invest it - really the same thing.

[FrostByte]

The best way to stop caring about politics = start another political thread!

[madryan]

One problem we have now with the national dialogue is everyone is caught up in ideological absolutes.

 

That may be fine in a theoretical debate with your university professor or at the local pub but it never works in real life.

 

Real life requires an approach that incorporates a variety of economic and political approaches to function. The unfortunate truth is we've fallen away from that in public discourse.

 

Here's what I mean by that. Hybrid capitalist systems work best to generate wealth in an economy. You can't have straight pure capitalism because corporations have no moral compass. You need a governing body as a check/balance against excessive greed and oppression.

 

However, a hybrid Socialized system works best for things like Fire/Police/Medical/Military/Education, etc. You run these ventures as a Not-for-Profit venture and pay the people in them appropriately. They fall under what's known in economics as "common good" endeavors whereby everyone benefits and everyone pays.

 

There are several other similar examples of functions of society that don't fit either a hard line Capitalism or hard line Socialism mold, in fact you won't find anything that does.

 

The problem we're having now is that the political right has swung too far to the extreme with regards to courting votes from people who think America needs to "go back" to being a pure capitalist state. First off, it never was, and second they have no idea what that entails.

 

The really sad thing is that there's no valid dialogue. It's all just partisan Rhetoric.

[madryan]

 

trickle down isn't intended to get the rich to 'spend the money' - it is intended to get the money 'invested' back into the economy. Save it, invest it - really the same thing.

 

 

This is a great point.

 

The proponents of Supply Side econ don't differentiate between the various forms of "Investment" which is one of the biggest problems with oversimplifying such a complex issue. "Investment" can be hugely helpful for the economy if it means investing in new Infrastructure in the form of factories and materiel for your business which leads to jobs. However, in times like these, where consumer demand is way down people don't do that. They invest in the sure thing which is bonds and foreign equities and whatnot. Those don't do anything to help spurn economic growth.

 

That's the fundamental flaw in supply side thinking during times of recession. Nobody builds new factories or hires new people unless there's demand for the products those people and factories will produce. That's a fundamental economic truth. Period.

[kooter82]

 

Save it, invest it - really the same thing.

 

 

There's no point in saving it. Our dollar is crumbling, and will continue to sink lower. I'm worried about what this QE is gonna do to the purchasing power of our cash, I really am. You're better off investing it in gold, and silver, and oil, if you have the ability to do so. Gold will shoot up (again) in the very near future, if you can afford to buy stock.

 

I would be doing it, that is, if I had a {censored}ing job and or money. So maybe everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, but all I know, is boy this sounds all too familiar again...

[kooter82]

The best way to stop caring about politics = start another political thread!

Except for this post