Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It's not that one gets rich, i'st how they get rich. Corporations really have controlled government regulated monopolies...

You started talking about individuals and now you're talking about corporations. Which is it?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

You started talking about individuals and now you're talking about corporations. Which is it?

My last post I believe is 64, I mention corporations, but the individuals that lead them are the class that is becoming rich.

In fair regulated competition I'm for people getting as rich as they possibly can, not corps that buy regulation.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Fine. Go pull John Williams' Shadow Stats unemployment data and plot it against tax rates. My point still stands and you're still wrong.

Iit sounds like YOU don't understand the labor measures of unemployment. You know about U6 unemployment and the birth/death adjustment ratio. Bully for you. But don't presume to lecture me on it - I get paid to deal with this stuff. It boils down to: you will not be vindicated by the fact that the U3 data understates unemployment - you will still be completely wrong, but by magnitude of "a lot" vs "a whole lot". Inverse to no correlation is still inverse to no correlation, regardless of the underlying data points!

Tax rates have no bearing on employment. You have not and will not disprove that. Partisan narratives don't trump hard data.

Yet nothing is proven with the graphs you provide as "evidence". I actually took the time to read some of what this guy (John Williams)talks about. If you read carefully, he is not concluding what you read into it. Or at least I haven't seen this conclusion because of what is left out of the scene. One thing you ignore(willfully?) is that not all taxes are equal, nor are they the same across all states. And there are various taxes that some states don't even apply. This changes the whole aspect of what you're trying to prove with those graphs.

State taxation, property taxes in various localities, State income and state corporate taxes all affect businesses differently. Plus the graphs you show don't actually show how it may take 3...sometimes 4 quarters before businesses makes adjustments relative to things that affect their expenses such as taxes. Businesses often make adjustments prior to changing their workforce numbers. Sometimes they don't.

The company I work for is a classic example of what happens when taxes increase or remain high. Many businesses confirm it by leaving the high tax state of California. My company's HQ lease was excessively high...due in large part to the landlords property tax situation. Local and state governments in California demand extremely large shares of the pie. That was a known. And so paying the lease was a huge expense. One factor in determining cost of rent or lease is tax. That's also a given. Not too hard to see or understand.

Another factor is the fact that the sales tax on every purchase in California is 8.75% tax on every purchase made. That makes every subcontract, or goods and service provided within the state excessively expensive due to high taxes. this affeects the bottom line. Ultimately, these 2 taxes alone increased our operating costs to a point where an adjustment had to be made. And it was. The job losses could have been higher, yet our company laid off 80 here in California, streamlined the efficiency in various admin areas in the last 6 months, and rehired 53 in another state. A net loss of only 27 jobs(53 gained in low tax state), yet 80 California (high tax state job losses). That directly affected employment in both states yet the ratio is low.

I can even correlate that to some degree in your graph, yet it's splitting hairs. Of course I couldn't factor in the quarterly business cycles or balance sheet ratios into those graphs. And because of that...they are worthless to try to conclude what you're seeking to conclude.

The big question is, why do you think places like Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana (lower tax states)are seeing business gains while California (Big Dem/high tax)businesses have been downsizing or leaving? The big factors are usually over-regulation and costs associated with them, including taxes. Taxes (and all other expenses)absolutely correlate to employment or business adjustments. And I just showed you how. It's actually quite intuitive to most people that capital being seized by government, means less resources to grow business or sustain employment. Because of what your graphs don't show, they don't disprove anything.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Because of what your graphs don't show, they don't disprove anything.

Good post, but this isn't about equal and air treatment under the law. This is about sticking it to the, how did Mookie put it?, the "poor oppressed country club and yacht set".

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9398261.stm

Pessimists may agree with this:

What is interesting about the declinists' case is that it has little to do with the obvious foreign threats to the power of the United States.
The real problem is an inability to get the nation, as they see it, to wake up to impending disaster and mend its ways.
There is an interestingly moral tone to their argument. The point is that the US debt - her accumulated deficits - cannot easily be addressed without serious and painful changes to society, probably including tax rises and an end to some entitlements.
Barack Obama's budget hinted at what has to be done but in truth would do little to address the fundamental problems that cause the US to function, or fail to function, as it does.

While optimists may favour to focus on things like that:

"I don't think we're the only nation that can invent great technologies, I don't think we have a lock on intelligence or education," she says.
"But that cultural characteristic of welcoming, indeed requiring, the challenging of authority - in a world where knowledge, ideas, innovation is the currency - we're very well placed.

And realists like me?

We would probably think that it may go the way pessimists point out, but that the optimists' arguments may describe factors that may help to delay the decline a bit and reduce its momentum by more or lesser degrees.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You really think 10% of people that now control over 90% of wealth, mostly corporate america did so fairly, based on fair trade law, competition, tax code and proper regulation? That all the billions of corporate PAC's,,are just interested in social causes.

Naw, your right, they don't seek to buy congressional seats

And look where it's got us, now that small percent can't substain our government or debt load.

Don't worry, next generation or so when your kids here in america are working for a few bucks with no benefits or protection in sweat shops, have no health care, maybe corporate america will come back to work in america.

But that the way they want it. They bend over backwards trying to paint the UAW (for example) as some evil union that went to far, While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers. In the good days of the auto industry (before the 1989 layoffs) Someone could get a high school diploma, go to GM and put in hard work, work his way up and retire at a decent age. Thats what i call the American Dream.

But where is that now? Corporations In america are slashing costs by taking it out on workers, while paying executives historic compensation. You see Toyota and Subaru making noise about "oh we love america too" but their employees have substantially less benefits. I think It's like that in just about every other industry in america, UAW plants are the outliers, the holdovers when companies actually paid for benefits.

The Squeeze for Americans to work for less is on. As it has been for some time, as corporate america gets richer. I wonder why that is?

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers.

Yeah and you may not like it but corporations are just doing their job too, which is maximizing the return on their shareholders investment, not providing a high paying job for life to some high school graduate. Publicly traded corporations are controlled by very demanding and impatient stockholders who really only care about the size of their dividends. If a CEO makes big coin it's because he is doing right by the people who pay him.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You still think corporate american cares about america and probably believe in trickle down. This fiscal mess was created when Bush was in office, as were non ending wars. Corporations are now working globally minded, thinking a global future. They once worked well for america and made money, now they're only interested in a global economy, not what works for america..

I was going to avoid respond with any more of my emotionally charge dribble, but i have to say The above quote is dead on. Nail on the head. I work for a private corporation thats gone global. The powers that be ONLY think of global projection of the company, and the bottom line. We had a merger a few years back, and the first thing they did was fire all the windows based programmers. In house development now is done at an offshore office where its cheaper. Did i mention im amazed I haven't been laid off yet? I've considered myself dead man walking for 3 months now.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

But that the way they want it. They bend over backwards trying to paint the UAW (for example) as some evil union that went to far, While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers. In the good days of the auto industry (before the 1989 layoffs) Someone could get a high school diploma, go to GM and put in hard work, work his way up and retire at a decent age. Thats what i call the American Dream.

But where is that now? Corporations In america are slashing costs by taking it out on workers, while paying executives historic compensation. You see Toyota and Subaru making noise about "oh we love america too" but their employees have substantially less benefits. I think It's like that in just about every other industry in america, UAW plants are the outliers, the holdovers when companies actually paid for benefits.

The Squeeze for Americans to work for less is on. As it has been for some time, as corporate america gets richer. I wonder why that is?

Corporate america doesn't work for America, it's globally minded and why they increase in mass profits, they're driving down US wages, exporting jobs and buying congressional seats to pass any regulation they want.

But I'll also have to pass on unions, at least to a degree. What corporations do to unions, unions do to the private sector. If you have a good profitable product then you can pay the high wages, benefits and retirement. To do this you need fair regulation. The GOP wants to under regulate, the Dems more, unless it suits a social need, then they'll regulate it however it best suits to get them voted, like the disaster of deregulating the housing markets to get as many in homes as possible that couldn't afford them.

I believe in strong proper regulation that evens the field for all players, forcing them to work based on competition and for america. I cringe at the GOP so called conservatives that say...If they get rich, good for them, even if it doesn't work for Americans. This is why were heading for 70% Americans in the next generation will be living in poverty. No amount of taxes the few rich pay in will substain a strong US. Our military will go the way the Soviets did, health care for a lucky few, the US dollar will soon be replaced....when that happens, all those that love working for corporate America will see wages and benefits drop to unlivable levels.

If you compare America to the great empires of the past, ours will be a rather brief moment of power.

The government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out unions or corporations.

[Ducimus]

BTW Armistead, thanks for the link, it's an Interesting read and had a few details about wallstreet i wasn't aware of. (that and supporting articles that reaffirm for how one feels about an issue is always nice. )