Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

Schiff: The Real State of the Union 2013


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#61    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:08 AM

Quote

in the US it is.

Article I, Section 8

Congress has the power to

- levy and collect taxes
- borrow money on the credit of the US
- regulate commerce
- establish bankruptcy laws
- coin and regulate money and its value
- establish penalties for counterfeiting money and securities
- establish copyright, patent, and trademark laws
- determine a budget for the US and appropriate funds for operations
- make treaties with other nations, which may include economic issues
- make any laws necessary for carrying out its duties and powers.

Good then when it falls apart we specifically know who to blame. Oh wait it already fell apart.


#62    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:48 AM

View Postninjadude, on 26 February 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

in the US it is.

Article I, Section 8

Congress has the power to

- levy and collect taxes
- borrow money on the credit of the US
- regulate commerce
- establish bankruptcy laws
- coin and regulate money and its value
- establish penalties for counterfeiting money and securities
- establish copyright, patent, and trademark laws
- determine a budget for the US and appropriate funds for operations
- make treaties with other nations, which may include economic issues
- make any laws necessary for carrying out its duties and powers.
I consider this progress.  Now don't subvert, disobey, defy or rhetorically ignore those powers anymore now that you've actually read them.   The bailouts subvert our bankruptcy laws and you support the bailouts.  You want even more federal spending and even more bailouts because bankruptcy suddenly isn't an option for this greedy selfish generation of gimme-gimmes and illegal gimmicks.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#63    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,447 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:59 AM

I support the idea of bailouts, just not designated recipients.
You know, a "mum and pop" store, looking down the barrel of insolvency getting a few thousand dollars VOILA no longer going to go bust.


#64    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:01 AM

One of the biggest bailouts in the US is the fact that corporate taxes are levied on earnings, not revenues.  This means that companies that are mismanaged and losing money pay no taxes, that companies that are highly profitable pay huge taxes.  If mismanaged companies still had to pay taxes based on revenues, they would be removed from the system more quickly and therefore the economy would be more efficient.  This system also leads to a race to find ways to hide earnings by inflating expenses, etc.  Hiding revenues is not so easy.  Finally, it creates a false value in such companies because of the possibility of tax-loss carry-forwards.


#65    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:02 AM

Keeping interstate commerce regular isn't picking winners and losers.  The federal government has no authority to avert the law.   It's immoral and blatantly unfair.  How dare these sweet-pumping suits save their favorite giganto-corporations from the same market forces that see the end of smaller businesses every day.   Who do these sanctimonious sweethearts think they are?   It's time to run 'em all out of Washington before they compromise what little respect for the law some of us still have left.   Liberals love to pretend they're so intellectual but they're apparently not smart enough to run a business or know anything about being an employer and how difficult that is, much less how valuable it is to the country and the economy.  Their rulebook is a great big "whatever", and it's usually whatever some two-faced liberal politician says he wants to do.   Now they're cuddling in bed with their beloved bipartisan Corporatocracy.  We can do far better than that in this country and if we want another 100 years of greatness we need to.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#66    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 26 February 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

One of the biggest bailouts in the US is the fact that corporate taxes are levied on earnings, not revenues.  This means that companies that are mismanaged and losing money pay no taxes, that companies that are highly profitable pay huge taxes.  If mismanaged companies still had to pay taxes based on revenues, they would be removed from the system more quickly and therefore the economy would be more efficient.  This system also leads to a race to find ways to hide earnings by inflating expenses, etc.  Hiding revenues is not so easy.  Finally, it creates a false value in such companies because of the possibility of tax-loss carry-forwards.
It means more than just companies that are mismanaged.   New companies in early stages of growth often take years before they can produce earnings.   Your idea that will stifle new entrants to the marketplace and further entrench the largest most entrenched companies in their industries.  That would cause predatory practices and market monopolization by the leverage the largest companies enjoy.  They can easily survive without earnings for a few years while laying waste to every other market competitor on the field.   It's a terrible idea for competition and innovation, it will cause more problems than it'll solve.

And taxes aren't bailouts.  Bailouts are a misappropriation of funds.  Taxes are legitimate but if we want a healthy growing economy, low taxes are not only important they're essential.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#67    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:24 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 26 February 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

Good then when it falls apart we specifically know who to blame. Oh wait it already fell apart.

what fell apart?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#68    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:25 AM

View PostYamato, on 26 February 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

I consider this progress.  Now don't subvert, disobey, defy or rhetorically ignore those powers anymore now that you've actually read them.   The bailouts subvert our bankruptcy laws and you support the bailouts.  You want even more federal spending and even more bailouts because bankruptcy suddenly isn't an option for this greedy selfish generation of gimme-gimmes and illegal gimmicks.

congress passed the bailouts so no they don't subvert bankruptcy laws. I support "some" bailouts. One spends more in a down economy. I have not supported even more bailouts. You need to understand the words that you read.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#69    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

View Postninjadude, on 27 February 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

congress passed the bailouts so no they don't subvert bankruptcy laws.
You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term.  You need not support "all" bailouts; accepting some was enough on principle.

Your premise doesn't support your conclusion.  Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved.   Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law.  That business should be done with someone's own money, not someone else's.   Let the rich risk their own capital and lose it when they're wrong; don't be a shill for the establishment and bail the crooks out.  Don't support Barack Obama when he does it.   For hating capitalism so much you have an endless liberal appetite for cronyism and propping up corporations whose time had come.

Your diatribes against the market are senseless - when you don't even let the market work, you can't blame the market anymore.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, Marie.  Pick one.   There is no better substitute in the long run than the freedom and honesty of the free market.  No utopian gang of liberal bureaucrats cutting backroom deals in their marble halls are smarter or more righteous than all of us.  Let the People decide, dude.

We see this latest Congress is the most disappointing gang of louts in Congressional history after we read the polls.  Reasoning with me that it's okay because the Congress said so isn't a winning argument.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#70    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

Sequester:  A matter of National Security.   A nation run on FEAR.



"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#71    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM

View PostYamato, on 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term.  You need not support "all" bailouts; accepting some was enough on principle.

Your premise doesn't support your conclusion.  Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved.   Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law.  That business should be done with someone's own money, not someone else's.   Let the rich risk their own capital and lose it when they're wrong; don't be a shill for the establishment and bail the crooks out.  Don't support Barack Obama when he does it.   For hating capitalism so much you have an endless liberal appetite for cronyism and propping up corporations whose time had come.

Your diatribes against the market are senseless - when you don't even let the market work, you can't blame the market anymore.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, Marie.  Pick one.   There is no better substitute in the long run than the freedom and honesty of the free market.  No utopian gang of liberal bureaucrats cutting backroom deals in their marble halls are smarter or more righteous than all of us.  Let the People decide, dude.

We see this latest Congress is the most disappointing gang of louts in Congressional history after we read the polls.  Reasoning with me that it's okay because the Congress said so isn't a winning argument.

Can you please back up your argument with some  historical facts showing that the 'free market' more efficiently fixes recessions? Because historically, the opposite is true. Recessions are much, much deeper, and much more drawn out if the government does not intervene in some way. This historical fact, this nugget of economic truth, is why our current government steps in during recessions to mitigate the effect on the economy as a whole. The debate here should be about the best way government CAN intervene in the market to speed up economic recovery, not if they should. Because historically speaking, YES THEY SHOULD.

Edited by Einsteinium, 27 February 2013 - 10:45 PM.


#72    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:52 AM

View PostYamato, on 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

You supported the bailouts in Obama's first term.    Making laws isn't mutually exclusive to breaking laws as the bailouts proved.   Anytime you save a company from inevitable bankruptcy you are avoiding the bankruptcy and shirking the rule of law.

no. no. no. and nada. I support some bailouts. The rest you've stated is just wrong.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#73    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:37 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Can you please back up your argument with some  historical facts showing that the 'free market' more efficiently fixes recessions? Because historically, the opposite is true. Recessions are much, much deeper, and much more drawn out if the government does not intervene in some way. This historical fact, this nugget of economic truth, is why our current government steps in during recessions to mitigate the effect on the economy as a whole. The debate here should be about the best way government CAN intervene in the market to speed up economic recovery, not if they should. Because historically speaking, YES THEY SHOULD.
Every recession we had is an historical fact.   They occur approximately every four years.   We recovered from them all with no quantitative easing.   This immoral generation of greed mongers needs to be put in their place.  Government can speed up an economic recovery by getting out of the way and letting the natural free market forces figure out who stays and who goes.    Pet politicians pouring the money down the holes they prefer is a horrid way to run an economy.  Where do you get such trust in these irresponsible liars?

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#74    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,790 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:41 AM

View Postninjadude, on 28 February 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

no. no. no. and nada. I support some bailouts. The rest you've stated is just wrong.
Please refer me to this great post where you've explained why you're against Obama's bailouts.   And if you can't do that, then no I'm not psychic, and can only go by what you post here.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#75    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:30 PM

View PostYamato, on 28 February 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

Every recession we had is an historical fact.   They occur approximately every four years.   We recovered from them all with no quantitative easing.   This immoral generation of greed mongers needs to be put in their place.  Government can speed up an economic recovery by getting out of the way and letting the natural free market forces figure out who stays and who goes. Pet politicians pouring the money down the holes they prefer is a horrid way to run an economy.  Where do you get such trust in these irresponsible liars?

"The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2001 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945, and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919" - Source

Notice how recessions have decreased in length in modern times as compared to 100 years ago. Indeed, they are about half as long, and most agree they are less severe. Notice that in the era's when non-interventionist-very 'free-market, let the market take care of itself' type thinking was the standard, that recessions were indeed longer and indeed more severe. This is historical evidence that non-interventionist policies actually prolong recessions.

" This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like theFederal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid)." (same source as above)


However, not all economists agree, and it is complicated to say the least. But there is no solid historical evidence that I have found or heard of that backs up your assertion that simply "getting out of the way" is the best action government can take during recession. Prevailing economic theory is that Government should spend at a deficit, should use stimulus, and prevailing economic theory also states that stimulus gets you 'more bang for the buck' than tax cuts do. I am simply stating what the prevailing economic theory is. I am not an economist, but I have taken several University Economics courses and that is why I know what the prevailing theories are. If you really want to dig into the data that these economic theories are substantiated by then good luck! Conservatives tend to take an overly simplistic view of the economy and often fail to recognize how complex the global economic system has become when arguing for non-interventionist economic policy. This debate has been raging for literally hundreds of years and I suspect will continue to rage for as long as capitalism and 'free market' systems are in existence.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users