Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half

[Disinformant]

in economics they often talk about incentives, a means to encourage you to act the way the government wants based on financial rewards and punishments. This system imposes too much on the market place, creates bizarre unnatural standards and the cheating of the system corrupts it quickly. But there isn't anything enforced on a market place when people aren't incentivized but instead their inspired. You know, if Obama flew into East LA and worked there for a month getting people involved in upping the standard of the community, with NO COST to the government and no market influence a man like that could do amazingly good things for those people just by organizing them. But Obama isn't telling you to organize with your neighbors, he's telling you to join the civilian volunteer core which runs like an army.

[grandpa]

Every industrialized nation has classes.
Classes are an integral part of the process which makes
a country rich.
Perhaps we should aim to make class distinctions less extreme,
but the coercion required to do away with classes all
together would interfere too much with market efficiency.

Every other first world country has adopted significant measures to reduce class conflict. And most of them have actually involved decreasing coercion.

Youre premise that force is required to make a classless society is simply nonsense. Classes exist because of force. Without legal monopolization of resources, it's much harder for one to get rich from the work of some underclass. If we want to make class distinctions less extreme, we should challenge the government, which is merely a tool for the ruling class. The existence of a wealthy class of parasites has nothing to do with market efficiency.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

in economics they often talk about incentives, a means to
encourage you to act the way the government wants based
on financial rewards and punishments.
This system imposes too much on the market place, creates
bizarre unnatural standards and the cheating of the system corrupts
it quickly.

The ruling class has rigged the game. So if you disobey them you will be a loser. That's what their economic punishments are for. If any elite group is to rule it, we cannot have a free and egalitarian society.

Grandpa h.

[Yarn]

Deadeye:

But to have demand one must have something to demand. For years the Soviet people had gobs of money to spend, but nothing to spend it upon. Demand plays off of supply. No Supply, no Demand. (What brought down the Soviet Union was that the people demanded things that the government could not supply. The only way they could get what they wanted was to removed the government, which was putting up an artificial obstacle.)

The arguement is not that we don't need investment. The arguement is that we also need demand. Demand is just as neccessary to supply as supply is to demand. And demand is boosted by lowering taxes on the poor. By engineering what eventually became a regressive tax code the neo-cons, if their motives weren't corrupt, pursued a strategy of mainly trickle-down economics. This is plain because their tax cuts invariably favored the wealthy over all others. Trickle failed. The money didn't trickle down.

When you stand in Washington DC and look at those huge buildings that house tens of thousands of bureaucrats they don't produce a single thing that you can eat or use. They create red tape, that strangles investment and productivity. Money spend upon government agencies is largely wasted money.

The mass majority of federal money is spent on defense, medicare, and social security. All of those have very tangible benefits.

In more local budgets, education figures greatly. Universal education is not something the market will provide. How it should be provided for by the government is debatable (vouchers versus direct provision). Our public school system is spotchy, but public school systems of many countries have a proven track record. But every country is different. Through education the government makes profitable investments in future generations that the private sector would not make.

A lack of regulation is what got us into this crises to begin with. No doubt, in many cases regulations are ill devised, unreasonable, and counter productive. Be that as it may, regulations are neccessary.

Why then is the private sector tanking? It's because of poor business regulations required of the lending institutions by government agencies, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks were required to make sub prime loans. Something they would not have done if their tried and true lending rules had remained in place.

The general concensus from what i've read is that the community reinvestment act did not make up anything more than a small minority of the domestic portion of the problem, if that. Our more regulated financial institutions made less bad loans, suggesting the government's influence was overall positive in sectors that fell heavily under its juristiction. Banks all over the world made the same kinds of bad loans ours did. They weren't concerned with charitably proping up the Bronx, yet a ton of their bad loans are embedded in our economy.

Grandpa:

Every other first world country has adopted significant measures to reduce class conflict. And most of them have actually involved decreasing coercion.

Taxation is coercion, most other industrialized nations tax their rich, relative to their masses, more heavily than we do. Various labor laws play in the favor of labor at the expense of business.

[Deadeye]

in economics they often talk about incentives, a means to encourage you to act the way the government wants based on financial rewards and punishments. This system imposes too much on the market place, creates bizarre unnatural standards and the cheating of the system corrupts it quickly. But there isn't anything enforced on a market place when people aren't incentivized but instead their inspired. You know, if Obama flew into East LA and worked there for a month getting people involved in upping the standard of the community, with NO COST to the government and no market influence a man like that could do amazingly good things for those people just by organizing them. But Obama isn't telling you to organize with your neighbors, he's telling you to join the civilian volunteer core which runs like an army.

Yes, he wants his civilian volunteer core to run like an army and also hate the upper classes. Will he issue his followers an arm band? Will they learn the extended arm salute? Will we be able to control his band of organized followers?

Why is Obama doing this to us? He could end this mess by lowering capital gains taxes, income taxes on corporations and drill for oil where ever it is. The market and the people who actually invest in this country have no faith in Obama. He, I guess; believes that his stimulous program will work and apparently he listens to only those who agree with him. This man is beginning to frighten me.

He doesn't care! He wants power in his hands and in his government's hands, a government that he controls. This is truly frightening.

[Yarn]

Deadeye:

Why is Obama doing this to us? He could end this mess by lowering capital gains taxes, income taxes on corporations and drill for oil where ever it is.

No to "More Production"?
It’s also true Obama is against lifting the ban on increasing drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, and it's worth noting that both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As for the Outer Continental shelf, more drilling could indeed produce more oil, but not right away. The Energy Information Administration [a government agency which concerns itself with this sort of thing] says that there are "substantial resources of crude oil" offshore. However, it also notes that both time and money would be required to produce any oil from areas that are currently off-limits. Specifically, it estimates that no production would begin until 2017 and that it would take until 2030 to reach peak production, increasing total domestic production by 3 percent.

And even then, the EIA study says, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

[B]Any notion that drilling could start more quickly than EIA estimates should be weighed against the fact[/B ]that there is a shortage of drill ships. According to a New York Times article published last month, existing rigs are booked solid for the next five years. While shipyards have begun work on new ships, it will be some time before there are enough to accelerate the pace of offshore exploration, whether or not new areas are opened.

- FactCheck.org: A False Accusation About Energy

The market and the people who actually invest in this country have no faith in Obama. He, I guess; believes that his stimulous program will work and apparently he listens to only those who agree with him.

You can accuse Barack Obama of not heeding the advice of Republicans, but you can't accuse him of not listening to them. That he listened to them is a well established fact, proven by film footage and hundreds of direct witnesses. Further, anyone, Republican or Democrat, who claims to be sure of exactly how many jobs the stimulus will create is being dishonest. The fact is there is a ton of uncertainty involved.

[grandpa]

Taxation is coercion, most other industrialized nations tax their rich,
relative to their masses, more heavily than we do.
Various labor laws play in the favor of labor at
the expense of business.

I'm not in favor of taxation in general, but here's where you are missing the point: In America we still pay massive taxes, but get more class warfare in return. The media do their damnedest to make sure people don't know it exists, but it's hard to deny the inequality of wealth and legal rights which make up our class differences. This differentiation extends throughout the web of labor, largely because the ruling class has such a monopoly on legal rights. And, as I've noted already, policies that don't let businesses and individuals operate at a loss are generally much more "at the expense of business" than increased taxation. Let me put it this way: Which is hypothetically worse: Paying lower taxes while one is risking liquidation, foreclosure or eviction; or paying higher taxes when one is still able to operate at a loss, and could thus possibly recover from an economic downturn (which may have more to do with the overall economy and consumer confidence than individual business decisions or product quality)?

To me there is only one sensible answer, provided that taxes are a given.

Grandpa h.

[Yarn]

grandpa:

The US government takes in a smaller percentage of total GDP than do the governments of most other industrialized nations. That is a significant part of why we don't get as much as they do in terms of social services. Social services provided by the federal government redistribute wealth more or less equitably thus benefiting the have nots at the expense of the haves.

it's hard to deny the inequality of wealth and legal rights which make up our class differences.

Which legal rights are you refering to?

Where the buck begins, profits are maximized by using money as efficiently as possible when using it for production and sales. But then once you have the profits, what do you do with them? The owners get to decide this. What they decide to do is expand operations and give themselves money. Their jobs are directing and investing.

The way I see it the market operates very well, very efficiently, until you get close to where the buck stops.

Middle and lower class workers get as little money as the company thinks is in its best interest to give them. This amount is usually somewhat well-determined because the lower classes have generic jobs that are numerous in the total economy. The company knows, roughly, how much incentive it must provide in order to obtain, maintain, and motivate these people holding specific types of jobs. Their labor is treated as nothing more than just another common commodity*.

Contrastingly, owner compensation is, unsuprisingly, considered by owners to be an end in itself. Owners are not paid as little as they need to be in order to keep doing their jobs. They are paid whatever they decide they will have within the limits of what they can afford themselves. That is what they get, whether they deserve it or not, whether they are doing a good job or not. The golden parachutes are among the most conspicious evidence that the market isn't working at the upper reaches. The problem is that directors consistently work against the interest of corporations.

The upper class is paid more than its market value is worth because the market rules of efficiency, within often broad limits, do not govern upper class compensation. Nor for that matter job security. Many in the upper class who should be fired hang on to their positions because boards decide their own members.

Where the buck ends, self-interest ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice.

[Disinformant]

Yes, he wants his civilian volunteer core to run like an army and also hate the upper classes. Will he issue his followers an arm band? Will they learn the extended arm salute? Will we be able to control his band of organized followers?

Why is Obama doing this to us? He could end this mess by lowering capital gains taxes, income taxes on corporations and drill for oil where ever it is. The market and the people who actually invest in this country have no faith in Obama. He, I guess; believes that his stimulous program will work and apparently he listens to only those who agree with him. This man is beginning to frighten me.

He doesn't care! He wants power in his hands and in his government's hands, a government that he controls. This is truly frightening.

that he controls? yeah freaking right. And Bush was smart enough to run the country? I don't think so. Its bankers, they own everyone Bush and Obama. If you can't see this yet, America is doomed.

[Deadeye]

grandpa:

The US government takes in a smaller percentage of total GDP than do the governments of most other industrialized nations.

Right! This is also why Americans have thrived and Europeans have not. The more money left to workers the better off the economy works. Our economy is driven by consumer spending, not government giveaways.

Obama, I believe whats to change this and make the government the largest distributor of goods and service. If that happens nothing will work, waste will overflow our economic toilets and we will flounder.

[Deadeye]

And Bush was smart enough to run the country? Its bankers, they own everyone Bush and Obama. If you can't see this yet, America is doomed.

President Bush never wanted to "run the country". That's a Democrat concept. Nor are the bankers in control, rather businessmen and their workers are.

Democrats have been doing a good job of ripping control of this country from the people by rigging elections, creating Liberal thinking universities who hate the US and causing people to become dependent upon government and not by the sweat of their brow.

Democrats want to replace private bankers with government bankers. That'll be good, yeah that'll work great, just like the Post Office and the FAA works great.

Government does very little right. So lets make it run everthing! Good thinking.

[Deadeye]

Deadeye:



Demand is just as important as investment, and demand is most efficiently produced by giving money to the lower classes.

You are missing several very important elements that you apparently do not understand. First the lower classes don't pay any taxes today at all. None, except for non-tax fees such as car registration, insurance premiums (really a lawyer tax), and Payroll taxes, which are really Liberal taxes.

The poor pay no income tax, but they do get a tax refund, on a tax they didn't pay....what a good idea!

No one ever got a job from a poor man. Therefore, the best way to stimulate the economy is to stimulate investiment. If entrepreuners invest and build businesses then poor people (and rich ones too) get a job. Investors, after all need workers.

You have got it backways and are putting the chicken and the egg in the wrong order.

Investment creates jobs. To get investment then cut taxes upon the rich. Obama says he's going to give a tax break the the lower 95% of tax payers. They don't pay any (much) tax now! The top 5% pay something like 90% of taxes.

Remember! The more rich people there are the fewer poor people there are! You need to understand this.

The inverse is also true. The fewer rich people there are the more poor people there are. Your solution is to pay poor people money for doing nothing, which does not cause investment and does not create jobs. Do poor people build factories?

Doing it your way would give people money; okay, but what would they do with it? Build cars? Build bridges? Nope, they'd spend it at the local 7/11 and since more money would be chasing a given about of goods and services inflation would loom and eat into all of that free money you are giving away, and further eroding savings and money the remaining rich have to invest in job creation.

Your solution says, I think; that government can provide jobs, but doing what? I suppose you'd like a government shoe factory, and a government car factory, and a government airline. It's been tried before an you get lousy shoes, crappy cars and an airline that flies planes into mountains.

You need to fully understand that government doesn't do anything right, and it never has and it never will.

The solution is to removed all government except that which is absolutly necessary and encourage individuals to invest in capital goods. Nothing else will work and nothing else ever has.