Help me understand Democrats thinking in this!

Except, at prevailing wage it is so expensive that we will continue to patch the road for years. No on gets hired.

Can you recognize that the prevailing wage regulation is a barrier to entry?

Had "too big to fail" not been the order of the day. Had the government / Fed adjusted the interest rates per the Taylor rule. Had they listened to Brooksley Born in 1996, had Fannie and Freddie not fueled sub-prime mortgages (125% loan to value loans, really???), if, if, if.....

Where was the government oversight
Where were the regulators (and please don't tell me we were under regulated)
Where were the media watchdogs

If this was all the Republican's fault -what has been done since them to assure it doesn't happen again - SQUAT! The Democrats want to be sure to get theirs....

This was collusion between corporate, lobbyist, government, regulator, and the media. Why now, because government was finally powerful enough to trade favors with business and unions, with the 50% of us that are tax payers, picking up the tab.

 

If one wanted to take that to it's most ridiculous extreme one would say that if you could use prison labor (or slave labor) you could get your roads fixed more cheaply.

Prevailing wage is an average of union and non-union scales for the area. It's purpose is to prevent tax dollars from subsidizing poverty.

 

Capitalism gave us wealth, socialism, supported by people like you with antagonism toward it, has reduced our wealth.

Not in my neighborhood - prevailing wage is fully loaded union wages - 4 men with shovels, the young one working.

 

It is unregulated, or poorly regulated capitalism that has reduced our wealth.

One year after NAFTA we lost 10,000 jobs.

Allowing manufacturers to shut down production here and import those same items with little or no import taxes reduced our wealth.

What neighborhood has a prevailing wage like you mention? Are you working with tax money or property owners dues? I'm having trouble understanding this kind of prevailing wage.

 

The best regulation for capitalism is vibrant competition. Any time my competitor's profits soar, that means I can undercut him and steal market share. The winner is the consumer.

Do you think we wouldn't have lost those jobs without NAFTA?

The government can't control global competition.

How big a tariff is required to keep unionized manufacturing in the US, when Chinese labor works for a couple of dollars a day?

Tariffs are responded in kind, exports slow, as does our economy.



How do you keep our economy intact and pay "a living wage" to unskilled labor?

 

Competition as a regulator? Doesn't sound like regulation. The end result is big fish eating little fish until there is only one really big fish. Then the big fish sets the price. consumers lose.

We didn't have to give up our manufacturing. But NAFTA, CAFTA and other government programs that favored immediate profits over sustainability brought us to this point. Global economy is the product of unregulated greed by American business.

How do you keep the economy intact and pay a living wage to unskilled labor?

When a living wage is not paid the economy is sick. A nation that contains a poor,desperate population is a nation on it's way to chaos.

I don't want to live behind locked gates, worrying about the have nots killing me for what I have. But that would be the world we would create by following the path of "I've got mine. Screw everybody else".

Man is a social animal. Personal greed may be in vogue right now. But that is not natural and will not build a sustainable world.

 

At last a glimmer of truth. Understand that all wealth comes from business. Every single dime - regardless of the amount of regulation. NAFTA, of course, was truly stupid but it can be corrected.

Let's take a look at the protectionist concept of raising import duties because I rather like the idea. NAFTA didn't allow manufacturers to move production overseas. Manufacturers would have done that anyway. It is their purpose to maximize profits and they did what they should have done, despite the fact that it was bad for our economy.

Our trading partners - particularly China - put insurmountable trade restrictions and duties on imports from us. The trade balance is so out of whack that it is literally killing our economy. We do not do the same. If we were to put a 30% import duty on everything imported from China we would create a trade war. However, we would win the trade war. How? Chinese imports would become 30% more expensive for consumers (actually more with markups) and that would make manufacturing in the U.S. more competitive. The consumers would lose because Chinese imports wouldn't be as cheap. But the long term improvement in our economy would be so valuable that it would be worth the investment. So now how do you convince consumers that paying more for products is in their best interests? Personally, I don't think you can do it. That's the personal greed you were talking about. Cheap imports will continue and we will send even more of our wealth abroad.

 

Try reading "It's not the Big that Eat the Small, It;s the Fast that Eat the Slow". Big companies don't get benefits from economy of scale any more.

A competitor can't be bought off for less than the full (and then some) price for his business. Politicians and regulators are much cheaper.

A competitor stays up with the technology to stay alive, and knows which are academic, and which are practical. A regulator studies up when there is a problem, so is always out of date.

A competitor won't let the executives draw $100M salaries and give out huge bonuses.

We didn't have to give up our manufacturing? They could compete globally, paying a living wage?

I ask again, would those jobs still exist without NAFTA?

Who's responsibility is it to be sure a person is employable at a living wage? The employers? The governments? Mine?

There is only one person that bear that responsibility, the employee. Because they are the only person that knows what their skills are, what they are capable of doing, and what they accept as a living wage.

To me, I was more willing to educate myself, to relocate, to work the long hours, than to earn the average wage.

Are you willing to pay 2 to 3 times more for products and services than they are worth, to provide a living wage for someone unwilling to change with the times?

People are willing to take up arms and revolt, but not willing to pick up a book and learn?

You accuse me of the attitude "I've got mine. Screw everybody else". What about your attitude, "I lost mine, I'm won't try anything else, so screw everybody"?

?!? Greed is inherent in all living things. They fight over territory, over mates, over food, with the strongest wins all. The rest get the scraps.

Adam Smith realized greed counters greed, so capitalism is the best economic system. Read his book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". The "Wealth of Nations" was not written in a vacuum.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said. But about manufacturers moving off shore; it was our trade policies that allowed this.

If congress cared about the welfare of the average citizen laws would penalize companies who import goods formerly made in the U.S. But it's apparent that congress cares about the welfare of their campaign contributions to the detriment of the nation.

 

NAFTA: economists for the Institute for Policy Studies found that one year after NAFTA went into operation it caused a net loss of 10,000 U.S. jobs.

So it would seem that all those jobs would exist without NAFTA.

Why would you think I have lost anything because I care more about the welfare of the less well off than I do about those with more money than they can spend? Is this a foreign concept in your world?

Actually I am a member of the last generation who has done better than their parents. But I see lots of folks who will have a tough time when they are too old or sick to work.

 

No. Bigger government is not an end in and of itself. Liberals don't believe in "big government" as a goal the way conservatives believe in "small government." "Bigger" government is only valuable when it achieves something.

Kind of. Democrats focus on taxes on the rich for the same reason Republicans focus on cutting programs that help the poor. Raising taxes on the middle class (or cutting their entitlements) is political suicide.
This isn't ideology so much as party strategy.
And it's not so much to gain votes as much as to avoid losing votes.

Basically. Increased revenues are a means to paying for programs that are believed to be useful.

Yeah. Conservatives are ideologically enthralled by the concept of "small government." For them, shrinking government is an end in itself.

This is what they seem to think. Of course, taxes are not punitive, but oh well.

As great as your caricature-based anecdotal "evidence" is, I have to wonder how much they dislike contributing to the country if hey are calling for higher taxes on the rich and are themselves rich.

They use cultural conventions.
Social issues and nationalistic overtones. Also they politicize economics as a "values" issue rather and focus the lower classes on the "lazy" people of lower classes (which is a form of class warfare, which they profess to be against). People generally choose a political party early on based on "values" issues and stick with it unless something big changes.
On the other side, Democrats often use their own caricatured heroes and villains, but Republicans seem to believe they don't engage in "class warfare."

 

In 2000 revenue was 2025 Billion (1995B in 2001) and in 2009 (when Obama stepped into power) it was 2105 Billion.

Your 500 Billion number is way off. In constant dollars the revenue is actually less when Obama took office than when Bush took power.

10 years and zero revenue growth. 3% a year= 30% over 10 should be minimum.

Look at past decades:

1990 to 1999 revenue grew from 1 Trillion to 1.82 Trillion 82% over 10 years
1980 to 1989 517 Billion to 991 Billion 90%
1970 to 1979 187 - 463 Billion over 100%

The Bush legacy ?

2000 to 2009 2.025 to 2105 Trillion 3% over 10 years

What a joke !

when you look at outlays (spending) the picture becomes even more clear.

1990 Income (1 Trillion) Outlays (1.25 Trillion) Outlays greater than income

By 1999 Income (1.827 Trillion) Outlays (1.7 Trillion)

Notice that by 1999 outlays were significantly less than income. Spending less than income.

No other President has walked into a better fiscal position than Bush.

What does Bush do ?

2000 Income (2.025 T) .. Outlay (1.789 T) Life is Good
2009 Income (2.105T) Outlay (3.510 T) What the frick happened ?

Bush happened .. thats what.

 

Did anyone look 2 years later, 10 year?

Then your income is low enough that you pay no taxes.

I care about the welfare of the poor, and want effective safety nets.

Why does unemployment end if you are going to school to learn a new trade?

Why do the poor lose benefits (worth ~$30K/year) when they get a low paying job? Why not reduce benefits based on income, so they never go cash negative?

Why delay the work damage's entry to SSI, yet let those with good income draw it based purely on age? ​

All of these changes would lower costs, and improve standard of living for the poor. That is a foreign concept in my world.

I see a lot of people that have given up, because they don't see a path to employment. Once you give up, the normal pains of life become all consuming.

Youth is more a state of mind. Being in demand, and in control (rather than giving control away to someone that doesn't care), energizes people.

 

Boy is this pitiful.

Conservatives run up a debt in the trillion on foreign wars and tax breaks for Paris Hilton, and when Democrats suggest that the rich pay for this, you come up with this nonsense.

It must suck to be a disingenuous **********.

 

I get the sense that it's actually kind of enjoyable.

 

In my experience bigger government only achieves bigger government. The problem is that some of us consider the federal government to be wasteful, corrupt and incompetent. Less corruption and incompetence is a meaningful goal in our opinion. It is better to have more of our national wealth in private hands rather than public hands because of this corruption and waste.

Conservatives like me want to cut most programs no matter who they help for the reason stated above.

No argument there. We all know policians do what they do out of self interest rather than the common good.

It is an end in itself as I mentioned above. However, most conservatives would be less vicious if the government would balance its budget and eliminate its debt. The current anger results from out-of-control spending both from the current and former presidents. It is a question of dollars and cents, of national growth or failure. Just like a family overspends its income, the government doing so causes immense problems that affect everyone as we are witnessing. It isn't simply a social issue. It is a financial issue, plain and simple. We just can't have what we can't afford. If you want government social programs, have them. Just do it with a debt free balanced budget.

Honestly, I think this describes things as the leftist press would describe it. I think this class warfare attitude exists in political parties and not so much in the general population. Most conservatives I know have no problem with helping those who can't help themselves. They don't have a problem with paying taxes so long as those taxes aren't wasted. We believe the majority of the taxes are wasted on the political careers of members of Congress and we don't like that. I don't think conservatives view any class of people as lazy. That paints with a broad brush. They do make a distinction between those who can and cannot help themselves. Take care of those who cannot. Motivate those who can. Help them help themselves.

 

Democrats see making the government bigger as a means to an end, not an end itself. If there was a way to achieve the same results without increasing the size of the government, we would be fine with that too. The problem is that there is no other effective way to achieve our actual goals of a just and fair society.

Raising the taxes on the rich isn't really a way to buy votes for the poor--we can do that just as easily with deficit spending, like Republicans do. The idea that Democrats design their programs to buy votes is absurd. Democrats and Republicans buy votes in the same ways--by bringing business and government projects to their home districts. Not by how they structure national programs. As with the first point, Democrats see vote-buying as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

The third point is closer to the mark, but we're actually more interested in securing the stability and fiscal sanity of the US government. Tax-and-spend is the only fiscal policy that has ever been an option and the only one that has ever worked. The Republican fiscal policy of borrow-and-spend is a disaster. Democrats feel that the value of government programs exceeds the cost of increased taxation at this point in time (that's not to say that their support for increased taxation would remain constant to absurd degrees--no modern Democrat would support a 70% top marginal tax rate, for example).

Democrats value government programs, and see how they benefit the people and businesses of the United States. We look for the least destructive way to fund those programs (rather than borrowing money to pay for them), and inevitably the rich make an inviting target. They pay proportionately less than many working Americans, have tremendous amounts of excess capital, and receive huge benefits from government programs. They make a natural target for tax increases. Why tax the poor, who recieve the least from society, when you could tax the rich, who recieve the most from it?

This also partly stems from the idea that people ought to be taxed fairly in proportion to their stake in society. Those with a larger stake in society, who receive more benefits from society, ought to be the ones to pay the most in taxes. The rich receive far more benefits and support from society than the poor would ever think about getting. A welfare system that provides barely enough to live on is nothing compared to the vast amounts of wealth handed out in wealthfare for the rich. Every company that gets bailed out is a bailout for rich investors. Every tax credit for a factory is a tax credit mainly for the owners of it. Every investment in infrastructure benefits business and its owners more than the people who work there. Etc, etc. Why shouldn't the people who get the most in benefits pick up most of the costs?

Democrats also don't see taxes as punishment. We prefer not to use the tax code to promote or hinder activities. It's Republicans that usually try to sneak in tax credits. The only real exception to that are times when Democrats are trying to convince Republicans to vote on a measure that includes actual government spending (rather than non-collection of revenue). They'll sometimes include tax credits then, just to get the Republicans on board.

The Republicans like to insinuate that Democrats are responsible for the arcane and convoluted tax code, but the vast majority of the complexity in the tax code has come from Republican attempts to provide deductions and credits to favored groups.

While there is a tendency for working people (Democrats) to view the rich as distant elitist snobs, that's not the only viewpoint, and not the primary motive behind our fiscal philosophy.

They have created a system of twisted perspectives. They have convinced many people in the poor and middle class to vote against their own interest in favor of the rich, through the combination of three beliefs.

First, the have convinced many poor and middle class voters that the rich have an inherent superiority and deserve special protection and reverence. They have falsely associated success and happiness with being rich, and incompetence and savagery with being poor. They are quickly approaching a point where they'll simply start stating outright that the richer a person is, the more moral they must be, because clearly god has favored them to provide such a bounty. And they'll imply the corollary that the poor deserve their fate for being immoral, unproductive, and dependent. That self-loathing is severely disempowering for the poor and middle class who buy into the conservative point of view.

Second, they have persuaded many working voters to abandon direct pursuit of their own interest in favor of potential deferred benefits. In other words, they've convinced people of the lie that wealth trickles down. They get working people to believe that by making management richer, that a portion of that wealth will flow down from the owners to the workers. It never actually works like that in practice, but that's the lie. This particular belief that what's good for the wealthy must be good for the poor has caused so many in the poor and middle class to stop fighting for better compensation for themselves directly. It's the root cause of much of the reduction in union membership, as well as the corresponding decrease in real wages and rise in income inequality. This lack of self-interest among the conservative poor and middle class is accelerating the economy-crushing effects of conservative fiscal policy.

Third, they have gotten the poor and middle class to buy into the notion that "it can happen to you too," that someday they'll be rich, and if that happens then they wouldn't want such negative policies directed at themselves. This almost never actually happens. Upward social mobility is at an all-time low in the United States right now, and is far, far below rates of upward social mobility in all of the first world and much of the third world. Almost no one can actually climb more than one quintile above their parents' in the United States. And paradoxically, many of the few who have done so later come out strongly in support of reforms against the wealthy.

 

We should be collecting from the rich more than from the layman. It should be a flat tax that is a percentage of their earnings for that year. In theory, and without loopholes, the system works.

But the rich accumulate wealth over time and it is unfair to tax their accumulated wealth year after year. The solution is to close the loopholes and make the rich contribute the same percentage as everyone else.

The problem lies in the loopholes that the rich exploit to evade paying taxes. And this has nothing to do with political affiliation, it's fairness pure and simple. (And the same applies to corporations too.)

We all know that all told, the government gets 50% of our income- once you put all the taxes upon taxes on the table. If we collected 50% of what everyone earns, we will end up with a surplus of money and a government that has money for all sorts of social programs to ensure all Americans are taken care of... Obamacare would make sense then.

As such, with these tax loopholes, social programs suffer.

 

So you're going to tax gross income? That makes no tax or accounting sense. I want deductions. Indeed, deductions reflect economic reality. Get rid of deductions and we'll all go bankrupt when the next tax bill comes. You cannot tax gross receipts. It takes money to make money. Hence deductions are used to determine taxable income, which is far different from gross income. Deductions are good things, not bad things. And in fact the rich get less deductions than the rest of us due to AMT. Which is appropriate.

 

Depends, I guess.

 

No. You can't have the same privileges as the rich. Otherwise we'd be a perfect utopia.

 

Here is the biggest piece of misinformation you people inhale unquestioningly...the Democrats want bigger government...for bigger government's sake. This is patently false. Democrats have seen and learned from the mistakes of the past, and know that, left to their own devices...the wealthy and the corporations will screw anyone for a buck. They will not invest in America just because of some sense of patriotism. Someone has to care for the WHOLE COUNTRY...not just the interests of the wealthy.

That's Democracy Dear...There's an old saying..."You snooze, you loose."

DO YOU NOW??? Well GOOD!!! And, as a staunch opponent of "entitlement programs...tell us all how YOU are willing to give up YOUR entitlements and retire without them. Comon...tell us all about your PRINCIPALS!

What Democrats "see" is a debt and deficit that is insane...made by both political parties. They also "see" that this financial crisis requires 2 things...cuts in spending, and increased revenue. BUT...since we ARE in a recession, and since the wealthy haven't been affected hardly as much as the rest of us, and since GW DID lower their taxes and then start 2 wars, perhaps they could contribute for a while till the lower classes are back on their feet.

Unfortunately...you've bought into the propaganda. That makes you what?

 

So no even playing field.

Why are you pretending then? I think we all know.

 

He brought up the level playing field. I didn't mention utopia.

Sounds like now he's against a level playing field -- except when it means lowing taxes on the rich. Bizarre.