Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
Teh Capitan
Level 11
Teh Capitan's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Burke, Va
Posts: 66
Subtract from Teh Capitan's ReputationAdd to Teh Capitan's Reputation Teh Capitan is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Teh Capitan Send a message via Skype™ to Teh Capitan
#51
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llcontrall View Post
What? He has been in office for about two weeks. Are you kidding me?
My sentiments exactly, considering the size of mess his administration has to clean up saying he hasn't done anything is taking a piss in the wind.
mrmuushu
Level 31
mrmuushu's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,223
Subtract from mrmuushu's ReputationAdd to mrmuushu's Reputation mrmuushu is a novice
#52
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muRda View Post
I'm pretty sure the MPC for December was .2 as compared to Novemeber's .35. With the recent loss of 500,000 jobs, I can only imagine it going even just a bit lower in January.
Gonna need you to explain that even though it effectively outs me as not knowing very much about this subject.
KNIGHTSPAWN555
Level 33
KNIGHTSPAWN555's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Upland, Ca
Posts: 2,712
Subtract from KNIGHTSPAWN555's ReputationAdd to KNIGHTSPAWN555's Reputation KNIGHTSPAWN555 is a novice
#53
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadly Buni View Post
Lol'd irl.

My idea's for fixing the economy. Cap executive salaries, higher progressive tax with less loopholes for the rich (not upper middle class), higher mininum wage, public works programs, more regulation of the stock market, economists who pay attention to harmful trends like the housing bubble.
Wouldn't a higher minimum wage fuck the economy? It might make everything more expensive since we'd have more money to spend.

Public works programs seem like a good idea. More jobs but those jobs don't necessarily have to pay higher while still being low paying jobs. It will feed itself until it completely destroys our economy, again.
GT --> Lacrimosa555


Quote:
Originally Posted by tuffy412 View Post
Well I uhhh.....a while back when I would be home alone I would role play with my stuffed animals. Like in a sexual way. I would dress them up in my clothes and play strip games with them like strip poker and strip dice games and take their clothes off when they lost. But for some reason we all lost at the same time and I would roll around in them and jack off. Yea that's f..king weird isn't it? *regrets writing this*
^^
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#54
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadly Buni View Post
Lol'd irl.

My idea's for fixing the economy. Cap executive salaries, higher progressive tax with less loopholes for the rich (not upper middle class), higher mininum wage, public works programs, more regulation of the stock market, economists who pay attention to harmful trends like the housing bubble.
What are your criticisms of a fair/and or flat tax system? Here my criticisms/observations of the policies and ideas you put forward.

Let's start with capping executive salaries. This seems pretty ambiguous. I will get to that later. Above all, the idea to cap salaries (and have the government determine as such) defies The Constitution, capitalism, and economic freedom. Actually, it defies freedom in general and abdicates power to the government that is unheard of. Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural speech:

I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.

Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?
Let history answer this question. Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?

Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration.

So let's get to the ambiguity of this proposal. Capping executive pay...there are infinite limitations I can think of. What executives? What companies, what corporations would be capped? What kind of business executives? What kind of product-oriented businesses would this apply to? What would the cap be, and how could it possibly justified as fair under any circumstances? Would it adjust to certain situations or circumstances? Would it be a fixed rate? Who would decide on executive pay caps? Some group of governmental bureaucrats? Think about that for a second. Where does it end? I'm not trying to slippery slope you, I'm honestly trying to illustrate the faults of the plan. Why not cap hollywood movie stars pay? Do they really millions of dollars per role? What about pro-athletes? Those contracts are incredibly big, they could use a cap on their salaries. They make a lot more than a lot of executives do anyway. And how does this help the economy?

Higher progressive tax with less loopholes. If I said this would be like finding a needle in a haystack, it would be an understatement. Actually, it would be like finding thousands and thousands of needles in a gigantic haystack- or in this case 60,000 + pages of ever-growing, bloated tax code. Our tax code is one big loophole. Messing with it to add a higher progressive tax would add a multitude of loopholes in addition to the ones that exist right now.

Higher minimum wage. Wasn't this just raised? I recall my store manager calling me and telling me to cut four hours from our dept. weekly schedule due to minimum wage going up (and I already make well over minimum wage...not saying I make a whole lot of money- I do what I can as an unskilled college student). We immediately cut hours to compensate for wage increases...one of the numerous ways in which raising minimum wage is pretty futile. Employers compensate for wage increases- they cut hours, jobs, raise costs of goods/services, etc. Besides, most jobs already pay well over well over minimum wage. Don't think this would be a good policy idea, especially in the current economic situation with employers struggling to hold on to employees.

Public works programs. Not as fail-safe as they are made out to be. Cost overrun and shortfall of demand are common problems that plague public works. Also, consider the Broken window fallacy.

More regulation of the stock market, economists who pay attention to harmful trends like the housing bubble. We have regulators of the stock market. Like the SEC. See here.. Congress has a responsibility to pass legislation regarding the Stock Market. The NASD is another regulatory organization. Economists who pay attention to harmful trends? How about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or the financial ways and means committee? You know how Madoff lied to cover his ass? Well, Freddie and Fannie Mae execs cooked the books and made bank on bad mortgages that they knew would eventually cause a major problem. Throw in some Congressmen, assorted cronies, and you have a disaster. People who know they are just making bank off a system that will collapse in a major way soon. Plus as long as things look good on paper, little attention is paid to something like a housing bubble. Even people like Ron Paul who lectured until they were blue in the face on sub-prime loans had no chance at availing the housing bubble mess.

I can't see a single one of your ideas helping the economy. Most of them simply aren't feasible. Others simply aren't effectual.
muRda
Godzilla vs. MLK
muRda's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,731
Subtract from muRda's ReputationAdd to muRda's Reputation muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000
#55
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmuushu View Post
Gonna need you to explain that even though it effectively outs me as not knowing very much about this subject.
MPC is a basic macroeconomic concept. It is the marginal propensity to consume, which means that for ever dollar more a person earns, they will spend x amount of it, and save/invest the rest. So, for December when the MPC was .2, that means that every American would only spend 20 cents on every dollar more they made. What you get from this, is that a tax break, which would put more money in the pockets of Americans, would only lead the cash straight to the banks at 80c on the dollar.

I did the calculations roughly from BEA statistics, but I'm pretty sure I'm right with the numbers.
Tsunami
Level 50
Tsunami's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,130
Subtract from Tsunami's ReputationAdd to Tsunami's Reputation Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana
Send a message via AIM to Tsunami
#56
02-13-2009
Default

Amazing how we both love Jefferson and Madison.

Quote:
So let's get to the ambiguity of this proposal. Capping executive pay...there are infinite limitations I can think of. What executives? What companies, what corporations would be capped? What kind of business executives? What kind of product-oriented businesses would this apply to? What would the cap be, and how could it possibly justified as fair under any circumstances? Would it adjust to certain situations or circumstances? Would it be a fixed rate? Who would decide on executive pay caps? Some group of governmental bureaucrats? Think about that for a second. Where does it end? I'm not trying to slippery slope you, I'm honestly trying to illustrate the faults of the plan.
Simple. We cap executive pay of any mega bank that has to take federal money. The justification is pretty simple, they aren't going to walk away with million, hundreds of million, billions of dollars in compensation for running their companies into the ground. Nobody is proposing to cap pay of all executives in any company. But the people forced to take government money, can legitimately be held accountable by us, through our congress. They also shouldn't be giving their executives huge bonus' either. It's f..king ridiculous, and 80% or more of Americans agree with it.

Quote:
Higher progressive tax with less loopholes. If I said this would be like finding a needle in a haystack, it would be an understatement. Actually, it would be like finding thousands and thousands of needles in a gigantic haystack- or in this case 60,000 + pages of ever-growing, bloated tax code. Our tax code is one big loophole. Messing with it to add a higher progressive tax would add a multitude of loopholes in addition to the ones that exist right now.
I'm all for simplification of the tax code. Our actual corporate tax rate is the lowest in the world after companies offshore their profits. Haliburten moving to Dubai, ect.

Quote:
Higher minimum wage. Wasn't this just raised? I recall my store manager calling me and telling me to cut four hours from our dept. weekly schedule due to minimum wage going up (and I already make well over minimum wage...not saying I make a whole lot of money- I do what I can as an unskilled college student). We immediately cut hours to compensate for wage increases...one of the numerous ways in which raising minimum wage is pretty futile. Employers compensate for wage increases- they cut hours, jobs, raise costs of goods/services, etc. Besides, most jobs already pay well over well over minimum wage. Don't think this would be a good policy idea, especially in the current economic situation with employers struggling to hold on to employees.
How about a living wage like Republican Theodor Roosevelt talked about. Nobody can honestly live on $7 dollars an hour. Wages represent a minuscule portion of the coast of most services. If we had more money in the hands of the people of the bottom, maybe more people would come to your grocery store and spend more money, instead of eating out of McDonalds dollar menu.


Quote:
Economists who pay attention to harmful trends? How about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or the financial ways and means committee?
You know how Madoff lied to cover his ass? Well, Freddie and Fannie Mae execs cooked the books and made bank on bad mortgages that they knew would eventually cause a major problem. Throw in some Congressmen, assorted cronies, and you have a disaster. People who know they are just making bank off a system that will collapse in a major way soon. Plus as long as things look good on paper, little attention is paid to something like a housing bubble. Even people like Ron Paul who lectured until they were blue in the face on sub-prime loans had no chance at availing the housing bubble mess.
There were many economists talking about this long before it happend. See Ravi Batra, Fannie and Freddie were a problem no doubt, but nothing compared to the derivative market that the finicial institutions were basically running Berny Maddoff x1,000.

f..k these banks, to big to fail is to big to exists. If a single bank is so big it alone can fall and bring down the American economy, don't you think we have a problem. Jefferson wrote about his fear of banking institutions. FDR warned us again about the new Economic Royalists.


We should temporarily nationalize these banks, break them up and sell them off. Bring back the Glass-Stegal act.

Last edited by Tsunami; 02-13-2009 at 08:54 PM.
Teh Capitan
Level 11
Teh Capitan's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Burke, Va
Posts: 66
Subtract from Teh Capitan's ReputationAdd to Teh Capitan's Reputation Teh Capitan is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Teh Capitan Send a message via Skype™ to Teh Capitan
#57
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post

How about a living wage like Republican Theodor Roosevelt talked about. Nobody can honestly live on $7 dollars an hour. Wages represent a minuscule portion of the coast of most services. If we had more money in the hands of the people of the bottom, maybe more people would come to your grocery store and spend more money, instead of eating out of McDonalds dollar menu.
I agree with you on parts of the statement TsU. It is preposterous to think that someone in the US can live off $7/hr. The problem is that people do not want to pay high taxes, even if it means better public services. I would be infavor of a higher tax to provide socalized healthcare, or a pay raise for teachers, or to pay for public works (to keep the parks in good condition), or for more Emergency services and Police. However, we don't see these things as good because it appears as "giving my hard earned money away" to many people. Not to mention the "Socialized Healthcare is the first step to Communism" argument.
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#58
02-13-2009
Default

We kind of agree. Slightly. Sort of. More than normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
Amazing how we both love Jefferson and Madison.

Simple. We cap executive pay of any mega bank that has to take federal money. The justification is pretty simple, they aren't going to walk away with million, hundreds of million, billions of dollars in compensation for running their companies into the ground. Nobody is proposing to cap pay of all executives in any company. But the people forced to take government money, can legitimately be held accountable by us, through our congress. They also shouldn't be giving their executives huge bonus' either. It's f..king ridiculous, and 80% or more of Americans agree with it.
Even more simple, we shouldn't have bailed these banks out. See this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1cK_ View Post
So he supported a bailout package that essentially rewarded irresponsible business practices and mismanagement of companies and now he is upset that the crooked companies and CEO's misused the bailout money given them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
I'm all for simplification of the tax code. Our actual corporate tax rate is the lowest in the world after companies offshore their profits. Haliburten moving to Dubai, ect.
Yes! I have been preaching about offshore investing for quite some time now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
How about a living wage like Republican Theodor Roosevelt talked about. Nobody can honestly live on $7 dollars an hour. Wages represent a minuscule portion of the coast of most services. If we had more money in the hands of the people of the bottom, maybe more people would come to your grocery store and spend more money, instead of eating out of McDonalds dollar menu.
We can agree at least that living on/supporting a family on minimum wage is virtually impossible. I'm all for things like food stamps as I have said before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
There were many economists talking about this long before it happend. See Ravi Batra, Fannie and Freddie were a problem no doubt, but nothing compared to the derivative market that the finicial institutions were basically running Berny Maddoff x1,000.
Yes, there was a plenty of greed and dishonesty to go around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
f..k these banks, to big to fail is to big to exists. If a single bank is so big it alone can fall and bring down the American economy, don't you think we have a problem. Jefferson wrote about his fear of banking institutions. FDR warned us again about the new Economic Royalists.
Yes, this is a good point, and as you noted validated by Jefferson's writings on banks. FDR just wanted to centralize government and correct "excessive competition." Which of course, well you know what I think about the policies and the ultimate outcome of the New Deal. But we can agree on the point you made at least.[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
We should temporarily nationalize these banks, break them up and sell them off. Bring back the Glass-Stegal act.
Uh, I can't see this happening. Nationalization- Yes. Temporary? No. Unfortunately.

Last edited by sl1ck; 02-13-2009 at 09:32 PM.
Tsunami
Level 50
Tsunami's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,130
Subtract from Tsunami's ReputationAdd to Tsunami's Reputation Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana
Send a message via AIM to Tsunami
#59
02-13-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1cK_ View Post
Even more simple, we shouldn't have bailed these banks out. See this post:
The problem with that is, if we don't bail them out. (or nationalize them, like other nations have successfully done). They fail, and the world economy falls and makes the great depression look like a cake walk.



Quote:
Yes! I have been preaching about offshore investing for quite some time now.
Good, it's ridiculous and easy to see that.


Quote:
We can agree at least that living on/supporting a family on minimum wage is virtually impossible. I'm all for things like food stamps as I have said before.
So you'd rather have your tax dollars pay for peoples food, instead of the private sector providing jobs to those people that pay a living wage so they can spend money... Intern helping those same business'





Quote:
Yes, this is a good point, and as you noted validated by Jefferson's writings on banks. FDR just wanted to centralize government and correct "excessive competition." Which of course, well you know what I think about the policies and the ultimate outcome of the New Deal. But we can agree on the point you made at least.
I believe FDR saved capitalism from itself. Capitalism left unchecked is cancerous.


Quote:
Uh, I can't see this happening. Nationalization- Yes. Temporary? No. Unfortunately.
The right wing would go ape shit, but I think it's our best option to stop the problem (unlike Japan who didn't take care of the bad debt with the banks), and do so by making at least some of that lost money back by selling the companies back to the private sector.

[quote=Teh Capitan;4599239]I agree with you on parts of the statement TsU. It is preposterous to think that someone in the US can live off $7/hr.
Quote:
The problem is that people do not want to pay high taxes, even if it means better public services. I would be infavor of a higher tax to provide socalized healthcare, or a pay raise for teachers, or to pay for public works (to keep the parks in good condition), or for more Emergency services and Police. However, we don't see these things as good because it appears as "giving my hard earned money away" to many people. Not to mention the "Socialized Healthcare is the first step to Communism" argument.
The Bush tax cuts was worth about 1 trillion in wealth, we need to roll these tax cuts back. The Bush tax cuts at least, we used to have a 91% top marginal rate. Meaning on every dollar you made over 3.2 million in today's dollars. I really don't see why limiting excessive wealth is a bad thing. It would encourage more companies to keep profits inside the company and grow the company instead rewarding greed.... The mantra since Reagan.
Teh Capitan
Level 11
Teh Capitan's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Burke, Va
Posts: 66
Subtract from Teh Capitan's ReputationAdd to Teh Capitan's Reputation Teh Capitan is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Teh Capitan Send a message via Skype™ to Teh Capitan
#60
02-14-2009
Default

Eh doesn't matter anymore sounded like Congress passed the stimulus bill, and Obama is ready to sign that puppy. So we'll need to find something new to complain about, bummer man.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off