Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Pumpkin Row]

Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot

Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.

Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.

It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce

Stop kazzing. He called you a rightwinger, not a Republican.

I kind of "like" Kaz's unhinged posts but, you're right, they are annoying to others......

I just turned to my wife and told her that I was being referred to as "gay boy".....and for a crusty 70 year old guy, my wife chuckled and said, "gee, you've kept that from me for these 45 years of marriage???" LOL.

For someone who's old enough to fart dust, your posts sure come out REALLY immature.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

Republicans keep adding payroll taxes? When was the last time that happened?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If every employer did it, it would benefit everyone.
How can you say "overpay" when wages have been flat for decades and overall compensation has been declining?

What market forces do you believe act on wages?

Quite simple really: You are worth only as much as the next person willing to do the same job. That's it.

This is how our wages are determined. If I need somebody to clean the toilets in my factory, why would I pay them $20.00 an hour plus benefits? It's a job a monkey can do. So because anybody can clean toilets, the job doesn't pay that much.

If I need a qualified tow motor driver, those people are less replaceable. Their wages are higher because they acquired a skill during their working years that not everybody has.

If I need an engineer, I can't pay them the same as my toilet scrubber. There are not that many engineers for the work I need done yet alone a good engineer. I have to pay top buck to get such an employee because most people can't do engineer jobs.

Until one employer pays more and then they can get the best the market offers while prompting others to offer more in order to compete thereby creating demand. But employers never seem to do that do they?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?

OK...so you weren't talking about anything that is actually happening......you are hyperventilating over something which you insist is being plotted....

It would be lovely if labor market dynamics organically changed the distribution of income and spread the wealth around to that segment of the population with a high MPC....perhaps it will.....it would certainly be my preference

If it DOESN'T, then the crude tool of distribution through federal tax policy may be necessary.......but what Supply Side steeped morons continually overlook is the benefit of increased demand which results from facilitating consumer spending....I'm of the belief that the reason the Clinton era saw better economic outcomes than the Reagan years was that the share of the "national income" going to labor was at the high end of the historical range...EVERYBODY did better.

Thanks for your concern about how I feel, gay boy, but I'm good. You suck at reading emotions for someone who wants to be a chick. Let's focus on the content, OK?

As for, "How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?"

Strawman

As for how it's a strawman, even though I pointed out it was a strawman, I answered your question in point number 2.

You don't actually read posts, do you?

I do........and it is entirely clear that you "reason" in the manner of a hysterical crack whore.....

That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today

There's only Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow....You've ruled out today......and I am disinclined to believe that you are reminiscing.......

As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do


Looks pretty "Not-Today-or-Yesterday" to me.......

Let me dumb this down for you, don't know if I can enough.

I responded to someone who wants to tax the rich more. That's future. Hence, your brilliant insight that this point wasn't about today is right, but what you didn't grasp is that was on purpose since the point I responded to wasn't about today. Here's a cookie

No...you responded to someone who countered the suggestion that Obama is at fault for the increasing concentration of wealth at the top by pointing out that Congress, not POTUS, has the power to address that.....that is NOT a call for confiscatory taxation - it is merely a comment on the process....

here is the string...

No president can stop the concentration of wealth at the top. But congress can. Who's in charge there, anyway?

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

 

[IcebergSlim]

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

Republicans keep adding payroll taxes? When was the last time that happened?

The last major change to payroll tax rates was signed into law by Ronald Reagan....

 

[Faun]

Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot

Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.

Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.

It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce

Stop kazzing. He called you a rightwinger, not a Republican.

I kind of "like" Kaz's unhinged posts but, you're right, they are annoying to others......

I just turned to my wife and told her that I was being referred to as "gay boy".....and for a crusty 70 year old guy, my wife chuckled and said, "gee, you've kept that from me for these 45 years of marriage???" LOL.

You have to remember, kaz calls virtually everyone he argues with either gay or a girl. It's his obsessive reaction to getting bitch-slapped with such an astonishingly high rate of frequency.

 

[IcebergSlim]

In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

So, you think that Businesses paying MORE taxes would help them afford employees, and you think that the influx of illegal but cheap labor across the boarder is the doing of Republicans? I never thought about it like that... because I don't typically abandon all logic in the pursuit of an irrational explanation. Last I checked, the recent taxes and increased expenses all came from our current president, who happens to be a Democrat.

There is currently no "influx" of "illegal but cheap labor across the boarder [sic]".....

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

So, you think that Businesses paying MORE taxes would help them afford employees, and you think that the influx of illegal but cheap labor across the boarder is the doing of Republicans? I never thought about it like that... because I don't typically abandon all logic in the pursuit of an irrational explanation. Last I checked, the recent taxes and increased expenses all came from our current president, who happens to be a Democrat.

There is currently no "influx" of "illegal but cheap labor across the boarder [sic]".....

Oh please, everyone is fully aware of the Mexicans boarder-hopping and being hired by businesses. The Obama Administration has been trying its hardest to allow illegals across and to allow them to stay.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

How can Democrats be upset at Republicans for showing Obama the same level of respect and decorum that Democrats showed Bush, when Obama departs January 2017 from Office?

This is about performance, not self esteem.....

It is always about showing the outgoing President RESPECT whether you agree with him/her or not. Democrats and Liberals justify tossing aside any sense of respect in favor of their rhetoric. They smeared and jeered Bush as he was walking out of Office, accused Tea Party of violence (when none occurred) yet turned a blind eye to the murders and rapes coming out of Occupy.

George Bush was an unprecedented disaster as POTUS.....and a war criminal......he got off easy...

 

[IcebergSlim]

In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

So, you think that Businesses paying MORE taxes would help them afford employees, and you think that the influx of illegal but cheap labor across the boarder is the doing of Republicans? I never thought about it like that... because I don't typically abandon all logic in the pursuit of an irrational explanation. Last I checked, the recent taxes and increased expenses all came from our current president, who happens to be a Democrat.

There is currently no "influx" of "illegal but cheap labor across the boarder [sic]".....

Oh please, everyone is fully aware of the Mexicans boarder-hopping and being hired by businesses. The Obama Administration has been trying its hardest to allow illegals across and to allow them to stay.

Net immigration from Mexico has been negative since 2007.....

 

[Faun]

In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

So, you think that Businesses paying MORE taxes would help them afford employees, and you think that the influx of illegal but cheap labor across the boarder is the doing of Republicans? I never thought about it like that... because I don't typically abandon all logic in the pursuit of an irrational explanation. Last I checked, the recent taxes and increased expenses all came from our current president, who happens to be a Democrat.

There is currently no "influx" of "illegal but cheap labor across the boarder [sic]".....

Oh please, everyone is fully aware of the Mexicans boarder-hopping and being hired by businesses. The Obama Administration has been trying its hardest to allow illegals across and to allow them to stay.

He's doing that with a record number of deportations, is he?

 

[IcebergSlim]

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

It doesn't matter. Investors will put their money where they get the most back. If you want companies to overpay labor, then it's going to lessen that return.

You have to remember that when a company gives an employee a one dollar an hour raise, it's much more than 40 bucks a week. There are all kinds of associated costs with giving that employee a raise. The 40 bucks a week is just the starting point.

Have you ever heard of James F. Lincoln? Or Henry Ford?

They recognized that there was a fundamental problem when employees could not afford to buy your company's output....

 

[IcebergSlim]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

This is actually a pretty lucid post for you. Well done. No sarcasm intended, though I am mocking you for your usual fare

Now let's see if you can reciprocate....

 

[kaz]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Amazing that even as an employee Al Jazzera wants his employer to give him welfare, isn't it? He's not satisfied getting what he earns. Government, businesses, the role of everyone is to give him free money

 

[IcebergSlim]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

When the Roll of the Incurably Stupid is called.....

Winner x 3 SassyIrishLass gipper kaz​

I guess knowledge beyond yours needs to be ignored, we have to convince you that you're wrong meaning with only information you do know, not tell you things you don't know. But that doesn't leave us much ...

I DEMONSTRATED earlier why the "It's all because of the Fed" theory is total bullshit.......if you didn't understand it, just raise your hand and we'll go over it again....more slowly....

 

[kaz]

Damn, government education has fucked you over. You really couldn't read that, could you? If you go back and take out what you cut, it makes perfect sense. The second part I was mocking you. Unbelievable. You really want to highlight how flat out stupid you are, don't you?

LAME....very,very lame.......Why not just admit that you really have no fucking idea of what the hell you are???
Now THAT would be an honest response......LOL

# of positions I have you've identified that I have that are conservative that are not libertarian - 0

And you're the informed one? You're an enema waiting to happen

 

[kaz]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

 

[KissMy]

Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.

Republicans keep adding payroll taxes? When was the last time that happened?

The last major change to payroll tax rates was signed into law by Ronald Reagan....

Yes Reagan increased Payroll taxes.
Obama CUT Payroll taxes then Republicans FORCED Payroll Taxes back UP!!!

 

[HUGGY]

Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

They did their damnedest to make it so. Unfortunately for them Obama cares more about the country than Bush ever did.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.

The Marxism is strong in this one

Market wages?

What market remains flat for three decades?

Well, you're wrong about "three" decades, but it has been one and a half decades, and 16 years of W and Obama will do that to you