We have voted for Higher Taxes and Layoffs.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

when Apple moved manufacturing from the US to China it was a survival move spearheaded by the recently hired Tim Cook (who moved Apple to a Just In Time inventory management style resembling Dell's approach).

This.

Apple under Jobs 1.0 manufactured Apple II and Mac computers in the US. He shared Ford's vision of a device for the masses. (Though unlike Woz, he didn't plan to give it away). The Apple II was very much the Model T for the 8 bit era. Not low end, but easily repairable and common.

By the time Jobs 2.0 returned to Apple the industry had changed. Not only because of the pressure from the PC clone vendors, but also because the whole idea of supply chain management had changed. JIT was the name of the game, and it continues to be. Global JIT on the scale Apple practices it today wasn't an option for Jobs 1.0 or Ford. If it had been, they probably would not have had their factories where they had them.

Today, Apple creates plenty of US jobs in their retail arm, reflecting the change of our economy from manufacturing to service. Apple even has a page describing their job creation in the US: http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

B

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

Do we really have that many newly disabled workers?

Our population is increasing. Disabled workers are a percentage of our population. Can you prove that the "record number" of disabled workers is due to Obama's policies and not simply a reflection of population growth?

[balamw]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Our population is increasing.

And aging. Median age from the 2010 census was up to 37.2 years from a "record high" of 35.3 in 2000.

B

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by balamw

reflecting the change of our economy from manufacturing to service.

Originally Posted by balamw

And aging. Median age from the 2010 census was up to 37.2 years from a "record high" of 35.3 in 2000.

Which is precisely why I have a service sector career, and I specialize in older adults!

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

Costco and Jim Sinegal are good, modern examples of how you can lead a very successful company without fleecing your employees.

Jim Sinegal: Costco CEO Focuses on Employees

I really like the Costco example. It shows perfectly that you do not have to have low wages and no benefits to be highly successful. Indeed, it shows that you can still be highly successful, and still reap billions in profit, WITH those things. And, you can do it all with a CEO making only $350k.

It's not always about how many billions you can add to your profits.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

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

Aggressive reframing. I like it.

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

You're missing a hundred years. Prior to 1913 and the creation of the Fed and the income tax (that big spike in your chart), federal spending was flat for over a hundred years and miniscule (except during the Civil War) . During this time we had the industrial revolution and many world changing inventions without any income taxes or government stimulus. Amazing isn't it?

Well, that's true to a point. Remember that the government had, at one time, massive tracts of land that it could give away. So, the US government essentially funded the railroads, not with cash, but with land giveaways. Similar systems gave away land to settlers as well, which had a cash value not included in this data.

...I'm not taking away the work of the government agencies in the development of the Internet, GPS, space exploration, etc. But it certainly isn't needed. Private industry can do a lot on their own.

I'm not sure this is true, the problems are getting harder and are more resource intensive to solve. Understanding electricity took a descent-sized lab, but understanding quantum physics requires billions to build something like the LHC.

...The problem is the federal government is spending very little on innovation. Most of the expenses go to supporting the welfare (corporate and personal) and warfare state.

The welfare state is a new expense that we've accepted because until FDR, we effectively ignored the social problems inherent without such a system. So, in this sense, we've added a huge expense to the federal government, but we're reaping huge rewards as well.

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

I'm not the one pointing to taxes as the sole reason for prosperity in the 1800s. Of course we live in a different time. My point is that raising will NOT necassarily fix the problem.

Raising taxes will help cut the deficit and then pay down the debt, allowing the government to either shift those payments to new tax breaks down the line, or new investments.

Meanwhile, the economy may shift into a higher gear as lots and lots of moribund investments go into new investment in businesses, hiring, or equipment. We can work the tax-code to such a benefit.

As for the warfare state, I think you're right. Partially, this is the consequences of the Spanish-American War and our new imperial ambitions. If we pulled our forces back—removed troops from far-flung places like Okinawa, Guam, Qatar, Diego Garcia, etc.—and stepped back from preparing for the next high-end naval battle, we'd reap huge savings.

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by mcrain

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.

What's your definition of a fair share?

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Our population is increasing. Disabled workers are a percentage of our population. Can you prove that the "record number" of disabled workers is due to Obama's policies and not simply a reflection of population growth?

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...oke/page/full/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...RN1G33u8zELLfQ

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by balamw

This.

Apple under Jobs 1.0 manufactured Apple II and Mac computers in the US. He shared Ford's vision of a device for the masses.

True, but he didn't share the "inexpensive goods" part of his vision required to make the products ubiquitous. The Model T had a 48% market share. After the Apple II, Jobs immediately got carried away and reached for the sky with ludicrously expensive Lisa ($9,995). Meanwhile Commodore butted in and made the C64 the true Model T of home computers (17 million sold, most popular single home computer model of all time). The C64 was also way more popular internationally. I never even saw an Apple-II in my country. The majority of the kids had C64, some had Sinclair Spectrum and TI-99/4A.

Jobs continued reaching for the sky with the NeXT Cube ($4,000), the G4 Cube etc. It wasn't really until the iPod Mini that he struck upon Apple's equivalent of the Model T in terms of popularity and low price.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The ... 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.

That's funny because there are people on these forums who have a lot of experience and expertise you seem to be lacking.

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

What's your definition of a fair share?

My definition is going to be on the "radical" side. I'm socially liberal, but radically conservative when it comes to taxation and fiscal policy. My idea of "fair" share is for the people who were accumulating massive amounts of wealth to pay for the debt we accumulated and which disproportionately benefited them.

It is obvious from any review of the change in our economic status from say, 1980 to today, that wealth has accumulated in the hands of a small number of people and corporations. That happened due to huge amounts of borrowing and policies that placed the borrowed money into the hands of a small few. Those few should pay taxes now that are high enough to begin shifting that wealth accumulation back to the government so that debt can be paid down and government can continue what it does.

Personally, I think if you borrow $16 trillion dollars, and it benefits a defined group of people, that group should pay about $16 trillion in extra taxes.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by mcrain

That's funny because there are people on these forums who have a lot of experience and expertise you seem to be lacking.



My definition is going to be on the "radical" side. I'm socially liberal, but radically conservative when it comes to taxation and fiscal policy. My idea of "fair" share is for the people who were accumulating massive amounts of wealth to pay for the debt we accumulated and which disproportionately benefited them.

It is obvious from any review of the change in our economic status from say, 1980 to today, that wealth has accumulated in the hands of a small number of people and corporations. That happened due to huge amounts of borrowing and policies that placed the borrowed money into the hands of a small few. Those few should pay taxes now that are high enough to begin shifting that wealth accumulation back to the government so that debt can be paid down and government can continue what it does.

Personally, I think if you borrow $16 trillion dollars, and it benefits a defined group of people, that group should pay about $16 trillion in extra taxes.

I agree with this as certain people have become rich by leeching from the government trough. But how can you ignore the $1T in transfer payments that go to those who receive services from the government that also makes up a large part of the deficit?

[henchman]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

I agree with this as certain people have become rich by leeching from the government trough. But how can you ignore the $1T in transfer payments that go to those who receive services from the government that also makes up a large part of the deficit?

There is mo corporate welfare, than standard welfare.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government...re-statistics/

Lets start by ending corporate welfare, shall we?

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

I'm not the one pointing to taxes as the sole reason for prosperity in the 1800s. Of course we live in a different time. My point is that raising will NOT necassarily fix the problem.

Yeah, different times call for different measures. The reason why I'm an independent is that ideologies tend to poison problem solving abilities. Instead of asking "what should we do?", one asks "what WOULD we do?". It's more than mere semantics... it's a world of difference. Screw the 'party bible' and the partisanship, look at the problem, be pragmatic.

Perfect ideologies are like ghosts and UFOs -- if they actually existed, we would have found them by now. Yet every democracy has a political spectrum and two parties or more. Each ideology has its own set of favorite scapegoats and culprits. It's the rich! It's the parasites! It's overpopulation! It's regulation! It's the taxes! It's the private sector! It's the public sector! It's the golden parachutes! It's the violent video games! It's the gun laws! It's immigration!

But I guarantee you that you can shoot down every single one of those culprits by going out in the world and finding countries (or even states in your own country) that have much MORE of whatever you think is the problem, and see that for them it's not detrimental at all, sometimes even the contrary. Taxes killing job market and growth? Then why is country X with taxes twice as high doing splendidly? Etc.

My country dug itself out of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession with swiftness that stunned economists worldwide, and it did so with policies that were polar opposites. The first time we did it with far left stuff that makes Roosevelt look like Rush Limbaugh, the second time we went full Michele Bachmann retard, refused to pay a nickel in bailouts no matter how much the banks and corporations begged (they all survived -- I wouldn't want to play poker against our minister of finance with his mad skillz for calling bluffs) and cut spending while all others ran in the opposite direction. Each solution was the best one for that particular time and situation. Who knows, maybe Joe the Plummer would've handled the economy better than Obama. After all, Lusha the chimpanzee outperformed 94% of Russia bankers with her investment portfolio, and Paul the Octopus accurately predicted the outcome of all 7 of Germany's matches in the 2011 World Cup.

[henchman]

Also, lets to forget. It's not really about raising taxes. It's about allowing the disastrous Bush tax CUTS for the wealthy expire.

----------

And I too have lived in countries with higher taxes, much better safety nets and great national healthcare.
And those countries have thrived.

Americans really don't understand the load of BS they a being sold by the Republican Party.

[charlieroberts]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Yeah, different times call for different measures. The reason why I'm an independent is that ideologies tend to poison problem solving abilities. Instead of asking "what should we do?", one asks "what WOULD we do?". It's more than mere semantics... it's a world of difference. Screw the 'party bible' and the partisanship, look at the problem, be pragmatic.

Perfect ideologies are like ghosts and UFOs -- if they actually existed, we would have found them by now. Yet every democracy has a political spectrum and two parties or more. Each ideology has its own set of favorite scapegoats and culprits. It's the rich! It's the parasites! It's overpopulation! It's regulation! It's the taxes! It's the private sector! It's the public sector! It's the golden parachutes! It's the violent video games! It's the gun laws! It's immigration!

But I guarantee you that you can shoot down every single one of those culprits by going out in the world and finding countries (or even states in your own country) that have much MORE of whatever you think is the problem, and see that for them it's not detrimental at all, sometimes even the contrary. Taxes killing job market and growth? Then why is country X with taxes twice as high doing splendidly? Etc.

My country dug itself out of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession with swiftness that stunned economists worldwide, and it did so with policies that were polar opposites. The first time we did it with far left stuff that makes Roosevelt look like Rush Limbaugh, the second time we went full Michele Bachmann retard, refused to pay a nickel in bailouts no matter how much the banks and corporations begged (they all survived -- I wouldn't want to play poker against our minister of finance with his mad skillz for calling bluffs) and cut spending while all others ran in the opposite direction. Each solution was the best one for that particular time and situation. Who knows, maybe Joe the Plummer would've handled the economy better than Obama. After all, Lusha the chimpanzee outperformed 94% of Russia bankers with her investment portfolio, and Paul the Octopus accurately predicted the outcome of all 7 of Germany's matches in the 2011 World Cup.

I loved your insight, thanks

Also, what country are you from? sorry If youve said it but I didnt read the whole thread.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by charlieroberts

I loved your insight, thanks

Also, what country are you from? sorry If youve said it but I didnt read the whole thread.

The French call it La Suède.

Here's an article about how we dealt with the '08 recession...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibb...actually-work/

They explain in their Policy Guidelines that “the expenditure ceiling is the Government’s most important tool for meeting the surplus.” Imagine that, a government that stays within its limits. So why didn’t Sweden hop on the stimulus bandwagon like the U.S. and much of Europe?

Anders Borg explains, “Look at Spain, Portugal or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus… Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.”

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Yeah, different times call for different measures. The reason why I'm an independent is that ideologies tend to poison problem solving abilities. Instead of asking "what should we do?", one asks "what WOULD we do?". It's more than mere semantics... it's a world of difference. Screw the 'party bible' and the partisanship, look at the problem, be pragmatic.

I came to this realization a while ago myself. I started to say that the only 'ism' I believed in was pragmatism and that the 'ideology' we should all aspire to follow is to find pragmatic and sustainable solutions to the problems we encounter.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by henchman

Also, lets to forget. It's not really about raising taxes. It's about allowing the disastrous Bush tax CUTS for the wealthy expire.

----------

And I too have lived in countries with higher taxes, much better safety nets and great national healthcare.
And those countries have thrived.

Americans really don't understand the load of BS they a being sold by the Republican Party.

I don't follow any party either but I understand math. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would bring in $80B a year in revenue. How should we deal with the other $920B in annual deficit? I would like us to go over the fiscal cliff, raise taxes on everyone (Clinton era rates for all), cut defense and domestic expenses.

----------

Originally Posted by henchman

There is mo corporate welfare, than standard welfare.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government...re-statistics/

Lets start by ending corporate welfare, shall we?

Let's do both? That social welfare number is incorrect btw. Please also include Medicaid, Food Stamps, Medicare, and SS. These programs come out of the general budget because they are not self-funded by payroll taxes. So they can be thought of as welfare.

[Vanilla Ice]

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

What’s even more sad is, that’s not all the companies that will be laying off. More and more to come. Very Sad! I’m very thankful that my wife and I still have fulltime jobs.

[edk99]

And here come the job losses in healthcare. Thank you Obamacare!!

In the largest staff reduction in its nearly 100-year history, Orlando Health is cutting up to 400 jobs starting immediately, hospital system officials announced Monday.

The move is part of a broader effort to position the hospital system for the health-care overhaul, CEO Sherrie Sitarik said.

....

Orlando Health officials called the cost-cutting moves necessary.

"Health-care reform mandates and changes in reimbursement structures for Medicare and Medicaid are forcing health-care organizations throughout the U.S. to confront new challenges," Sitarik said. "We must find better ways to deliver enhanced value to patients and lower the overall cost of care."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7763193.story

[henchman]

Originally Posted by edk99

And here come the job losses in healthcare. Thank you Obamacare!!

Another lame excuse to blame cutting staff on obama.
I'm sure there will be less sick people under Obama care.

Btw, this from the article:

The cuts are necessary as the hospital transitions to a new payment model, one that pays based on value or outcome, not on volume, said Sitarik

.


So, this is actually very good.
They a now having to deliver quality. Instead of just ramming people through the system.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by henchman

Another lame excuse to blame cutting staff on obama.
I'm sure there will be less sick people under Obama care.

How is this a lame excuse? It’s really happening and it’s affecting thousands of hard working Americans. Total fail for Obama.

[SlasherDuff]

Don't blame me, i voted for Romney

[henchman]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

How is this a lame excuse? It’s really happening and it’s affecting thousands of hard working Americans. Total fail for Obama.

Getting Amercan healthcare costs down is not a fail.
Obviously these companies have been sucking money out of the industry, by ramming as many people as tehy can through the system.
Now they will getbff based on quality, to quantity.
The way it should be.

Also, if you read the article, you would know that it is a 2-3% cutting of their workforce.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

I don't follow any party either but I understand math. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would bring in $80B a year in revenue. How should we deal with the other $920B in annual deficit? I would like us to go over the fiscal cliff, raise taxes on everyone (Clinton era rates for all), cut defense and domestic expenses.

----------



Let's do both? That social welfare number is incorrect btw. Please also include Medicaid, Food Stamps, Medicare, and SS. These programs come out of the general budget because they are not self-funded by payroll taxes. So they can be thought of as welfare.

You are incorrect about Social Security. SS is booked separately and has a large surplus.

Food stamps has definitely grown during the recession, but, it is still only around 5% of the federal budget. The big money is in Medicaid and Medicare-- around 23% of the federal budget-- and growing. Once again, we get back to that pesky healthcare question again.