Thread: Partisanship versus reason

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

If a company can't afford to pay for their portion of employees' healthcare benefits anymore, they are likely to fire staff and ask remaining employees to work two peoples' jobs. Or they may change a portion of their jobs to part time or seasonal jobs in order to avoid the healthcare expense while still receiving the benefit of the work effort of the part time employees. That way they can at least continue to provide benefits for the remaining full time employees and their families.

Just recently my own company (Verizon) announced triumphantly that they figured out a way to keep out of pocket healthcare costs for current employees the same as last year. I have knowledge but cannot comment on details on how they accomplished this, suffice to say the process was similar to what I just described.

Many companies are doing this to prepare for their expected additional healthcare insurance rate increases (and rates are increasing) under Obamacare. The Obama administration is responsible for bringing forward Obamacare and pushing the agenda. There is a direct correlation. Specific enough for you?

Additionally the economy is in the shitter, in case you hadn't noticed. People can't spend money because they are barely making ends meet, working at part time jobs they got because they can't find full time employment. Businesses can't afford to pay full time employees with benefits. And all of it relates to this administration's management of the economy.

So do you feel the Bush administration had any role in the financial crisis of 2008?

Also, how do you explain corporate profits being at an all time high in relation to your claims that companies aren't making money?

If Corporate Profits Are at an All-Time High, Why Are Corporate Taxes Near a 60-Year Low? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Profits At High, Wages At Low - Business Insider

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...52288139,d.d2k

3rd Quarter Corporate Profits Reach Record High-Worker Pay Hits Record Low:So How Exactly Is Obama The 'Anti-Business' President? - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Why are Cash-Rich Companies Being Subsidized by Tax-Poor Governments? | The Big Picture

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So do you feel the Bush administration had any role in the financial crisis of 2008?

The Bush administration spent too much and did too little to late to reduce the damage in the housing market. That certainly didn't help matters. But of course that was 7-8 years ago.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

The Bush administration spent too much and did too little to late to reduce the damage in the housing market. That certainly didn't help matters. But of course that was 7-8 years ago.

So then you feel they are responsible for the crash?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I remember watching a show called are you smarter then a 4th grader (i think that was the name anyway). Does it surprise anyone here that the majority of people get answers wrong because i know it doesn't surprise me.

5th grader, but seen re-runs of it. Though my thought is usually "They teach that in 3rd grade now (or 4th or whatever)?!" Or that it's unfair because the kids haven't learned as much other shit on top of all that yet =p. I can't help forgetting formulas when I've had to learn other formulas that I'll never use again.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So then you feel they are responsible for the crash?

No, not really. I hold them responsible for waiting too long to stop the inevitable. The responsibility for the crash lies with those who participated in creating the housing bubble. The majority of that happened during the Clinton Administration, as we have discussed here before.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So do you feel the Bush administration had any role in the financial crisis of 2008?

Also, how do you explain corporate profits being at an all time high in relation to your claims that companies aren't making money?

If Corporate Profits Are at an All-Time High, Why Are Corporate Taxes Near a 60-Year Low? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Profits At High, Wages At Low - Business Insider

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...52288139,d.d2k

3rd Quarter Corporate Profits Reach Record High-Worker Pay Hits Record Low:So How Exactly Is Obama The 'Anti-Business' President? - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Why are Cash-Rich Companies Being Subsidized by Tax-Poor Governments? | The Big Picture

In some cases it's likely due to globalization, which takes even more jobs out of the United States in favor of cheaper labor. Yet another way companies are attempting to save money or make more money. The dollar is also very weak against most of the currencies these companies will be paid in from global sales. The profit estimates are reported in converted dollars to shareholders, meaning even more inflation of the reported profits.

Why Have Corporate Profits Been Rising As A Percentage Of GDP? Globalisation - Forbes

See Trigger, this is the slippery slope we're on now. I think that soon, liberals led by labor unions will demonize offshore operations and demand higher taxes for those operations or demand artificial workforce requirements to try and keep jobs here. Our economy is so bad right now that I wouldn't be surprised if companies simply left the United States for greener pastures from a tax perspective, keeping offices open in the U.S. but HQ in another nation. Believe me there are plenty of countries that would make a deal to get tax revenue from companies like Apple or Microsoft.

But let's say somehow most companies don't move their HQ. Eventually once that doesn't work (and it never does), we'll see some form of price fixing across industry sectors in order to control the fact that the tax bill is being passed on to the consumer (and it always is), further killing the economy and flow of money within it. More people lose jobs. Wash, rinse, repeat until eventually liberals, should they manage to retain control of the helm of our government, will insist that government must take over and manage certain key industries to ensure the economy doesn't fail.

But you know this is just my opinion and all. I could be wrong.

The answer that will fix the economy? What it always has been. Smaller government, smarter regulation in key areas and less in others, and stop spending money we don't have. AND government stop meddling in business dealings of private companies or calling companies too big to fail.

One last point - small and medium business is getting crushed right now. That's where most of the jobs are and most of the economy is anyway. It's where most of the part time jobs replacing full time is coming from too. If you think they are experiencing record profits you aren't paying attention. The gap between the haves and the have nots isn't closing. It's widening. By design.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

No, not really. I hold them responsible for waiting too long to stop the inevitable. The responsibility for the crash lies with those who participated in creating the housing bubble. The majority of that happened during the Clinton Administration, as we have discussed here before.

If I had to boil it down and say what exact person was most responsible for the crash I'd say it was Barney Frank. Can't place it all on his shoulders, of course but I'll be damned if he wasn't always the one running cover for the banks over and over again conservatives tried to regulate this thing.

A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble - Forbes

Here's Frank in 2005, completely bullshitting us that there was no bubble essentially in response to Republican concerns (remember Barney Frank was the CHAIRMAN of the House Financial Services Committee and knew better:



Here's a history of comments of people doing the same:

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

Barney Frank is featured prominently here. He and others spent years and years denying there was a problem that needed regulating. And he also spent years and years receiving money from special interest groups including Freddie and Fannie themselves. And even after the bubble burst - Frank was re-elected! We MUST REMEMBER what happened here clearly and especially at the ballot box. People like this should never get re-elected.

Finally this:



Say what you will about Fox news, but they hit this one out of the park.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

In some cases it's likely due to globalization, which takes even more jobs out of the United States in favor of cheaper labor. Yet another way companies are attempting to save money or make more money. The dollar is also very weak against most of the currencies these companies will be paid in from global sales. The profit estimates are reported in converted dollars to shareholders, meaning even more inflation of the reported profits.

The dollar is not 'very weak" historically speaking. So that pretty much kills your unfounded claim concerning that. So why aren't you demonizing companies for shipping jobs overseas, which has been happening for decades now instead trying to lay it at the doorstep of one administration?

United States Dollar | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast

Why Have Corporate Profits Been Rising As A Percentage Of GDP? Globalisation - Forbes

See Trigger, this is the slippery slope we're on now. I think that soon, liberals led by labor unions will demonize offshore operations and demand higher taxes for those operations or demand artificial workforce requirements to try and keep jobs here. Our economy is so bad right now that I wouldn't be surprised if companies simply left the United States for greener pastures from a tax perspective, keeping offices open in the U.S. but HQ in another nation. Believe me there are plenty of countries that would make a deal to get tax revenue from companies like Apple or Microsoft.

At what point, given your abysmal record on making predictions, do you stop trying to portend he future? Have you no shame at how much you really suck at it?

But let's say somehow most companies don't move their HQ. Eventually once that doesn't work (and it never does), we'll see some form of price fixing across industry sectors in order to control the fact that the tax bill is being passed on to the consumer (and it always is), further killing the economy and flow of money within it. More people lose jobs. Wash, rinse, repeat until eventually liberals, should they manage to retain control of the helm of our government, will insist that government must take over and manage certain key industries to ensure the economy doesn't fail.

See response above.

But you know this is just my opinion and all. I could be wrong.

You are always wrong. It's not even funny anymore.

The answer that will fix the economy? What it always has been. Smaller government, smarter regulation in key areas and less in others, and stop spending money we don't have. AND government stop meddling in business dealings of private companies or calling companies too big to fail.

I guess that means vote GOP, right?

One last point - small and medium business is getting crushed right now. That's where most of the jobs are and most of the economy is anyway. It's where most of the part time jobs replacing full time is coming from too. If you think they are experiencing record profits you aren't paying attention. The gap between the haves and the have nots isn't closing. It's widening. By design.

Provide the link showing this and subsequently how his data shows the current administration is responsible for this.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yes. Really. There are actions that can be taken to quickly right the ship but this President has not pushed for that at all. We can debate whether decades of shit policy from got us there before Obama was elected, but now Obama has failed to make any difference. In fact, things are much, much worse than before he came along, in no small part due to his policies. I think either you underestimate how fast economies can move, or you're just not willing to recognize the flaws in this administration's handling of the economy.

Then we can agree to disagree on the causes of our economic issues.

You said:

"The dollar is not 'very weak" historically speaking. So that pretty much kills your unfounded claim concerning that. So why aren't you demonizing companies for shipping jobs overseas, which has been happening for decades now instead trying to lay it at the doorstep of one administration?"

Then you referred to the USD Index as proof. Do you actually think that the cost of goods and services overseas and the margin that U.S. companies make on them is the same worldwide? That is quite a naive view, or maybe you just don't have any substantial business experience which would make your comments understandable. That too is a factor when I say "the dollar is weak" in the marketplace. Believe me when I say that while it appears companies are making record profits, the dollar is nowhere near strong enough in terms of buying power to make up the difference in the conversion. There is less buying power in the United States dollar than in other economies for buying goods and services because as I said, our economy is in the shitter.

Wait let me guess - it's Bush's fault, right? :-)

I'm not demonizing companies for shipping jobs overseas, nor am I doing so for companies that are laying off people and converting jobs to part time. You don't call out a Cancer patient seeking any remedy necessary to try and survive cancer, do you? No of course you don't. Because you know the cancer patient prefers living to dying, and you know that he will pursue his own self interest. And that is a good thing - when companies stop pursuing their own self interest because they are "too big to fail", or they think the government will take care of their interests for them, well that's when we have a much more serious issue. In this case and at this point in time, our government and this administration's ham-fisted approach at managing the economy is the cancer - it's directly blame for our continued economic woes.