We have voted for Higher Taxes and Layoffs.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by mcrain

No. No. No. The problem isn't that the rich are scared, but that "safe" investments minus taxes yield plenty of income. What we need are government policies that encourage riskier, US investments in high-growth areas. The second a billionaire sees no need to grow his/her income, is the second every penny of that person's investments shifts to non-growth investments. That is bad for the economy.

Taxes are a small, small factor in the investment strategy, but an important factor. They can shift an otherwise cautious portfolio to one that is more growth oriented.

Higher taxes yield job growth, economic activity and overall economic improvement for many reasons, none of which are simple.

Safe investments like bonds are at an all time low encouraging investors to gamble on risky investments instead. These don't stimulate growth. We actually need higher rates to stimulate even more savings and less consumption so the money is available to invest.

Right now, that money is coming from China which has to be paid back.

According to you, we should raise taxes to 99% to stimulate growth.

[Mac'nCheese]

David Siegel was one of the CEOs who said he would lay off workers if Obama was re-elected. He is on CNBC right now, talking about how he will not do that now. Instead, he gave his workers raises. He says his company isn't growing and he isn't hiring but he will keep his current staff and pay them better, too.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Safe investments like bonds are at an all time low encouraging investors to gamble on risky investments instead. These don't stimulate growth. We actually need higher rates to stimulate even more savings and less consumption so the money is available to invest.

Right now, that money is coming from China which has to be paid back.

According to you, we should raise taxes to 99% to stimulate growth.

I'm not talking about investments by normal people, I'm talking about the investment strategies of the uber-wealthy. Tiny changes, when you are talking about billions upon billions, make a difference.

Don't believe me? Just look at the difference in wealth distribution and investment strategies during the Clinton administration vs. Bush vs. the first 4 years of Obama (with continuation of Bush tax rates)

[tshrimp]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

David Siegel was one of the CEOs who said he would lay off workers if Obama was re-elected. He is on CNBC right now, talking about how he will not do that now. Instead, he gave his workers raises. He says his company isn't growing and he isn't hiring but he will keep his current staff and pay them better, too.

Good to hear that he doesn't have to do that. Too bad he doesn't have the ability or the confidence to grow his business and increase his labor force.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

Good to hear that he doesn't have to do that. Too bad he doesn't have the ability or the confidence to grow his business and increase his labor force.

A billionaire doesn't have the "ability" to grow his business? You have got to be kidding. This guy could easily build more factories, hire many more people, and offer his existing workforce a raise all at the same time.

You know it, I know it, he knows it.

The only thing keeping him from doing that is that his customers are hurting because guys like him aren't paying their fair share and the economy has suffered accordingly.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

Good to hear that he doesn't have to do that. Too bad he doesn't have the ability or the confidence to grow his business and increase his labor force.

I thought that was supposed to be a result of demand for his product/services.

That's in his hands ... not Obama's.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by CSpackler

I personally think human advancement is us moving away from corrupt, State controlled power structures.

The key point is not to accept corruption, not to do away with government. Societies need structure. Anarchy is not an option, IMO. Our potential lies in cooperation, not every person for themselves.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by Huntn

The key point is not to accept corruption, not to do away with government. Societies need structure. Anarchy is not an option, IMO. Our potential lies in cooperation, not every person for themselves.

Its an imperfect system to be sure and there is a fine line between too little cooperation and too much. Beyond the question of corruption, which pretty much anyone says they are against, you have the questions of efficiency. Many people argue that the public sector is highly inefficient when compared with the private which like all these arguments has its truths and non-truths.

This is why the checks and balances in democracy are so important. One group checks the power of the other group.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Health care cost have been increasing every year regardless of who is president.

I'm looking at those numbers now and it's absolutely mental. Allow me to use my own country, one of those countries that haunts Michele Bachmann's nightmares of Marxist-Leninist-Hitlerist-Satanism, as a reference point...

Total health expenditure per capita
USA: 7,960 USD
Sweden: 3,722 USD

Expenditure on pharmaceuticals per capita, prescribed+over-the-counter
USA: 947 USD
Sweden: 437 USD

Yikes. Looks like the size of the average American medicine cabinet is about the size of the average Swedish refrigerator.

Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm thinking that the staggering difference probably comes down to this: In Sweden, with its socialized health care, the responsible party's goal is to keep the costs down. In the US, an individual is an object to which a cluster of money hungry businesses (insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors etc) attaches and comes up with new creative ways to maximize the spending.

You'd hope that these astronomical costs would at least pay off by giving Americans long and healthy lives, while Swedes live short and miserable health care-deprived lives, but...

Life expectancy
Sweden: 80,9 yrs
USA: 78,2 yrs

Oh, dang.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by robanga

This is why the checks and balances in democracy are so important. One group checks the power of the other group.

Or cancels out the power of the other group by stalling, sabotaging, filibustering, and nothing ever gets done.

Most countries get by with just a single parliament equivalent of the US congress. They tell you in advance what they're gonna do. Then they do it, unobstructed. If it doesn't work, you vote for the other guys in the next election. Having three different bodies guarding each other just seems paranoid... what're they gonna do? Trash the place?

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I'm not talking about investments by normal people, I'm talking about the investment strategies of the uber-wealthy. Tiny changes, when you are talking about billions upon billions, make a difference.

Don't believe me? Just look at the difference in wealth distribution and investment strategies during the Clinton administration vs. Bush vs. the first 4 years of Obama (with continuation of Bush tax rates)

I'm talking about the same thing. This is now a global economy and money goes where there is the lowest taxes and the highest yield. Why do you think money ends up in Switzerland, Singapore, and the Caymans?

Even US multi-nationals are not investing in the US and keep their money offshore. Lower taxes and higher interest rates from the Fed will bring money INTO the US for investments.

You can't compare the 90s to the 2000s and say one was better than the other. The 90s was a stock-market bubble that ended badly just like the housing bubble ended badly. At the height of the housing bubble in 2005, the middle class actually had considerable wealth (equity in their over-priced homes). The problem with that was the the wealth evaporated when the bubble burst. Clinton's economy was built on the same kind of bubble so taxes had nothing to do with it.

The real reason we have a wealth disparity (that actually started in the 70s) is because of the Federal Reserve and their money printing strategy since we came off the gold standard in 1971. That new money goes first to the bankers and uber-wealthy who invest in what they want (tech stocks, housing) and drive up prices for everyone else. Once the prices have reached their nadir, the pull the plug and the middle class ends up losing. If they do lose any money, we bail them out with borrowed dollars from China and print the difference. The extra printing drives up food and energy prices which disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

Nominal incomes of the last 40 years have actually increased so salaries are going up. So why is their a wealth disparity. The problem is that prices of everything are going up faster so we feel poorer than before. Why are prices going up? Because the Fed is printing money which dilutes the dollar driving up prices of everything else. But the rich don't feel this inflation because their assets go up even faster because they get the money first.

[entatlrg]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

I feel sorry for all the small business owners out there, and I will be praying for your continued success in light of what will be coming your way.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/gru...offs-you-voted

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm pro Obama and ecstatic Romney lost thereby delaying the next world war.

Give the people healthcare and some security. No need for the rich and big business to have it all, it's the middle class that built North America, time for fair play. GO OBAMA!!!

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by entatlrg

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm pro Obama and ecstatic Romney lost thereby delaying the next world war.

Give the people healthcare and some security. No need for the rich and big business to have it all, it's the middle class that built North America, time for fair play. GO OBAMA!!!

You aren't giving people health care, you are forcing them to buy it from a private corporation or pay a tax. Huge difference.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I thought that was supposed to be a result of demand for his product/services.

That's in his hands ... not Obama's.

You have it all wrong. Obama can't create jobs or take credit for jobs created but all job losses are his fault. Where have you been the last 4 years?

[Lord Blackadder]

We voted against a repressive, backward social platform and a rich-people-first fiscal policy.

[noteple]

Originally Posted by jeremy h

We have a Conservative government that is trying to cut everything they can find to cut and as we head at full steam for a triple dip recession here there's a lot of debate that cutting demand is actually proving counter productive when trying to pay down debt.

Who might that be, and he does that align with the national debt

[Kashchei]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

You aren't giving people health care, you are forcing them to buy it from a private corporation or pay a tax. Huge difference.

How progressive of you to argue for a single-payer system like the one you currently enjoy in Canada

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Having three different bodies guarding each other just seems paranoid... what're they gonna do? Trash the place?

The odds of that happening are unfortunately quite high.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Kashchei

How progressive of you to argue for a single-payer system like the one you currently enjoy in Canada

Supporter since 2009.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Kashchei

How progressive of you to argue for a single-payer system like the one you currently enjoy in Canada

Why argue for anything else when the numbers tell the whole story. The US healthcare system is the most costly in the world yet it's ranked #37. It's a giant tumor which unfortunately was left untreated for way too long. It now accounts for a whopping 17% of the GDP, has a massive cluster of stakeholders attached to it, and they do everything in their power to brainwash everyone into believing that universal health care is the worst idea in the history of man.

[senseless]

I don't know about you, but I'm happier knowing my waiter and food preparer is getting regular checkups. If every restaurant chain is faced with the same increase in health insurance cost, they will simply raise prices to cover it. There is no competitive disadvantage.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by senseless

I don't know about you, but I'm happier knowing my waiter and food preparer is getting regular checkups. If every restaurant chain is faced with the same increase in health insurance cost, they will simply raise prices to cover it. There is no competitive disadvantage.

Restaurants provide health benefits?

[xlii]

Dems or Republicans... it is all the same s***. We have been voluntarily exporting American jobs to China and India name your low wage country of the decades... since the 1980s. It started with unskilled labor and now it's the hardware and software engineers and anyone else whose job can be exported are not exempt. Figure out how to stop and reverse that and I'd vote for you to be President. My guess is that the plan is to lower wages in the US until they = wages in the developing world. Then the exporting of jobs will stop.

This countries economy will not see any improvement until that happens. We've cut off the manufacturing leg of a 3 legged stool and we are now reaping the results. I always believed that manufacturing created wealth and the service economy just moved wealth around.

[thewitt]

The class envy and total lack of understanding of how the economy actually works by the people on this forum would be funny if it were not also the same misunderstanding that the rest of America seems to have.

Th Federal government CANNOT stimulate the economy by spending tax dollars on infrastructure projects.

Wake up people.

Economic growth occurs only when you create something, sell it at a profit, then reinvest that profit to grow your business.

Everything else is simply overhead.

I cannot believe you still think you can tax your way to prosperity.

My company will be moving another 150 jobs overseas this year due to confiscatory tax policies. We cannot afford to bring foreign profits back to the US where the government will now take 50%, therefor we will expand our foreign offices and invest overseas profits there instead.

You can thank the current administration for those job losses.

It's a global economy. Businesses have choices. If you make it hard to do business, we will go where it's not so hard. It's that simple.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by xlii

Dems or Republicans... it is all the same s***. We have been voluntarily exporting American jobs to China and India name your low wage country of the decades... since the 1980s. It started with unskilled labor and now it's the hardware and software engineers and anyone else whose job can be exported are not exempt.

It stops when consumers stop buying products made in East Asia and start buying products made in the USA. You vote with your wallet. Here's one starting point of many: http://madeinusaforever.com
Start a movement, introduce a logo that manufacturers can put on packaging to let customers find US-made products easily.
As long as consumers opt for the cheaper Asia-made alternatives to save a few bucks, the consumers are the ones exporting jobs to Asia.