• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama to speak @ 1pm EDT

DeacMan said:
Sure. There are lots of ideas that have been floated in the press just over the last few days. These are but a few:

1 - Incent companies to drill for oil

2 - Incent the production of ethanol

3 - Loosen depreciation rules on capital equipment

4 - Decrease tax burdens associated with bringing cash back to the United States from foreign subsidiaries

Quit thinking that the government is the only party that can spend money and drive growth. Rather incent the private sector to do it. They'll react faster and more efficiently.

Stop talking about free trade agreements and things that will take years to implement. They are fine to pursue, but they won't get anything moving immediately.
Click to expand...

So basically handouts to big oil, Iowa, and tax breaks for the rich. The private sector drives growth when they believe it's prudent to do so. If the government provides little bonuses to the private sector to coax them to do something they may or may not do, that's basically the government spending money to drive growth. You're not keeping the government out at all.

The other problem is that you seem to get in your previous post that the private sector has the capital to drive growth. They're just not doing it. If the government starts providing more artificial floors for the private sector so they can safely investment, we're just passing the problems on and probably starting more government-enhanced bubbles. We're just going from an economy built on people buying houses they can't afford to people "buying" employees they either can't afford or don't want. It just doesn't seem like a real solution.
 
Last edited:
bobknightfan said:
It's easy to see where you are going with that question....but when a 72-year old candidate picks Sarah Palin to run with him and potentially be one heartbeat from the presidency, it kind of shoots that argument out of the water, now, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What are you willing to put down against McCain surviving to the end of the Obama presidency?

That argument was crap from the start and continues to be so. If you had a problem with him picking Palin, then you did. But this "one heartbeat from the presidency" malarkey doesn't fly.

This is all academic though, because you wouldn't have voted for McCain if the Dems were running Eugene Debs.
 
PhDeac said:
So basically handouts to big oil, Iowa, and tax breaks for the rich. The private sector drives growth when they believe it's prudent to do so. If the government provides little bonuses to the private sector to coax them to do something they may or may not do, that's basically the government spending money to drive growth. You're not keeping the government out at all.

The other problem is that you seem to get in your previous post that the private sector has the capital to drive growth. They're just not doing it. If the government starts providing more artificial floors for the private sector so they can safely investment, we're just passing the problems on and probably starting more government-enhanced bubbles. We're just going from an economy built on people buying houses they can't afford to people "buying" employees they either can't afford or don't want. It just doesn't seem like a real solution.
Click to expand...

You want jobs or not?

For instance -

1 - Companies with cash overseas are not bringing it back here to be deployed anyway. By offering some sort of tax break on returning the funds, you'd raise some revenues (because you won't let it be returned for free) you aren't getting today and you'd have better odds the funds returned would be spent - i.e. raising more revenue for the government. Right now the money is just sitting idle in some foreign account. Who does that benefit? A: No one.

2 - Changing depreciation schedules. You can't depreciate something past zero. So being more flexible about how you get to zero doesn't change the end game. Again, right now there are companies that might invest in capital equipment but for how it will look on their financials long or short term. If you are more flexible in how the equipment depreciates, you may encourage some spending that otherwise would not occur. That too results in more revenue that can be taxed (for the company who sells the equipment). It also means someone has to use the equipment which may create more jobs. You'd rather we just have companies hoard the cash?

3 - Why do you care so much what companies or states benefit from some of the ideas? Does someone who works for a big oil company not have a family, kids, etc. There are lots of "regular folks" who work for big oil companies and plenty of good people in Iowa, New Mexico, California and Maine.

Finally, as for this notion that these solutions aren't real. Who are you to decide what is real and what isn't. The government could provide all sorts of incentives to the private sector. My company doesn't "need" another accountant in the finance department. So we would never make that hire regardless of what might be on offer. But there may well be other companies that aren't filling needs because the numbers don't work or other factors. If there were incentives that made it more affordable or attractive for them to do so, they'd go out and make the hire. Since when are you the arbitrar of what is and is not "real". To the person who gets a job, the paycheck is real and it spurns on more activity.

Finally, just "taxing" corporate profits more isn't going to result in more jobs unless you think another government funded stimulus is about to break out anytime soon - which is unlikely. The private sector will act more efficiently and more quickly than the government anyway to the extent there is any pent up demand waiting for the right conditions to be fulfilled.

ETA - I could go on and on about the personal credit bubble and how that doesn't equate very well, if at all, to any of the ideas proposed above, but most people will grasp that more or less immediately. It isn't worth the effort. And the ideas above are just examples of things that could be done.
 
Last edited:
3 is an excellent point. it's also lost in all the wall street / main street bullshit that ph likes to toss around.

big banks employ a lot of people. big oil employs a lot of people. just because someone like ken lewis is a greedy bastard doesn't mean that the other 250,000 BoA employees are a bunch of crooks. makes no sense.
 
We have 100% bonus depreciation right now. How much looser can those rules be?

While I do think US corporate taxation needs to be reformed and I am not against repatriation, I don't think it is going to spur the economy much.
 
Last edited:
What would happen if we cut the capital gains rate to 10% for the next year?
 
Milhouse said:
3 is an excellent point. it's also lost in all the wall street / main street bullshit that ph likes to toss around.

big banks employ a lot of people. big oil employs a lot of people. just because someone like ken lewis is a greedy bastard doesn't mean that the other 250,000 BoA employees are a bunch of crooks. makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the Wall Street vs. Main Street crap. You look at a city like Minneapolis. How many everyday residents work at publicly traded companies in this town:

Target
Best Buy
3M
Honeywell
US Bank
Cargill
General Mills
United HealthGroup -
SuperValu
Medtronic
St. Jude Medical
Ecolab
Toro
Valspar
Pentair
Regis
Alliant Tech Systems
Polaris

Those are just a few of the large scale employers in town. They are all greedy awful bastards. And how many more people rely on these companies and all their employees for their livelihood by selling them good and services.
 
DeacMan, you pretty much ignore all the points in my post, particularly how you're just using indirect government money to artificially prop up a private sector that doesn't need propping up. The money is there. Government intervention that makes it less risky to hire is only government intervention. By all reports, this isn't a capital problem. It's a demand problem. If the demand was there, they'd hire. You're just describing another way these corporations can add revenue without hiring a single person. What's the incentive to hire then?

As far as Wall Street vs. Main Street, I gave Milhouse a direct example of it with the reports on racial wealth disparities. It's about the rate of growth on Wall Street having less and less to do with Main Street due to globalization. So what if companies hire some people in Minneapolis? What percentage of their employees are in the US? Have they been laying off workers to the benefit of shareholders? Are real wages increasing? In effect, is Wall Street growth being matched on Main Street? And sure "people rely on these companies and all their employees for their livelihood", but do those companies rely on those people?
 
DeacMan said:
Sure. There are lots of ideas that have been floated in the press just over the last few days. These are but a few:

1 - Incent companies to drill for oil

2 - Incent the production of ethanol

3 - Loosen depreciation rules on capital equipment

4 - Decrease tax burdens associated with bringing cash back to the United States from foreign subsidiaries

Quit thinking that the government is the only party that can spend money and drive growth. Rather incent the private sector to do it. They'll react faster and more efficiently.

Stop talking about free trade agreements and things that will take years to implement. They are fine to pursue, but they won't get anything moving immediately.
Click to expand...

Ethanol is dumb.
 
PhDeac said:
DeacMan, you pretty much ignore all the points in my post, particularly how you're just using indirect government money to artificially prop up a private sector that doesn't need propping up. The money is there. Government intervention that makes it less risky to hire is only government intervention. By all reports, this isn't a capital problem. It's a demand problem. If the demand was there, they'd hire. You're just describing another way these corporations can add revenue without hiring a single person. What's the incentive to hire then?

As far as Wall Street vs. Main Street, I gave Milhouse a direct example of it with the reports on racial wealth disparities. It's about the rate of growth on Wall Street having less and less to do with Main Street due to globalization. So what if companies hire some people in Minneapolis? What percentage of their employees are in the US? Have they been laying off workers to the benefit of shareholders? Are real wages increasing? In effect, is Wall Street growth being matched on Main Street? And sure "people rely on these companies and all their employees for their livelihood", but do those companies rely on those people?
Click to expand...

would you rather companies hire some people in costa rica?
 
i'm actually going to take off my asshole hat for a bit.

ph, when you hear "Bank of America," (or Wells Fargo, Citi, etc) what is your first impression? big evil bank? root cause for the financial crisis? scapegoat? wall street? main street? both? neither?

i'm genuinely curious
 
Milhouse said:
i'm actually going to take off my asshole hat for a bit.

ph, when you hear "Bank of America," (or Wells Fargo, Citi, etc) what is your first impression? big evil bank? root cause for the financial crisis? scapegoat? wall street? main street? both? neither?

i'm genuinely curious
Click to expand...

All of the above.
 
Ph - Have you worked a single day in the private sector in your entire adult life?
 
PhDeac said:
DeacMan, you pretty much ignore all the points in my post, particularly how you're just using indirect government money to artificially prop up a private sector that doesn't need propping up. The money is there. Government intervention that makes it less risky to hire is only government intervention. By all reports, this isn't a capital problem. It's a demand problem. If the demand was there, they'd hire. You're just describing another way these corporations can add revenue without hiring a single person. What's the incentive to hire then?

As far as Wall Street vs. Main Street, I gave Milhouse a direct example of it with the reports on racial wealth disparities. It's about the rate of growth on Wall Street having less and less to do with Main Street due to globalization. So what if companies hire some people in Minneapolis? What percentage of their employees are in the US? Have they been laying off workers to the benefit of shareholders? Are real wages increasing? In effect, is Wall Street growth being matched on Main Street? And sure "people rely on these companies and all their employees for their livelihood", but do those companies rely on those people?
Click to expand...

Actually, I did address all of your points. Your points are all bogus.

1 - It isn't using indirect government money if it money isn't coming to the government anyway. If a company isn't moving cash back to the United States in order to use it here, then the government is not seeing any revenue from said money. If you incent companies to return money to the United States, the government actually can get some of said money in revenue. Offering an incentive for someone to do something is a good idea if it produces the desired outcome. Because the alternative is the status quo - which we all agree is lousy.

2 - By all reports it is a demand problem. We agree. Your solution is to do NOTHING to spark demand. My solution is to encourage more demand. In turn, more demand sparks more revenue for the government.

3 - So what if some companies hire some people in Minneapolis? Uh, I believe that is the idea. Put people to work.
 
The last time there was a "tax holiday" for foreign dollars nine of the ten biggest companies fired over 5000 workers within the first twelve months and 90% of the repatriated money went to bonuses dividends.

It's 100% a scam to say these companies would use the money to hire people.

Make them an offer-Bring back the money for free if you use 35% of it to hire people. Anyone you fire during the first two years, you have to pay their entire salary for two years.

No strings means the senior management will benefit but not the public.
 
Liquid Karma said:
What would happen if we cut the capital gains rate to 10% for the next year?
Click to expand...

A year from now we'd have a two week debate about how letting this tax expire is the Democrats raising taxes.
 
DeacMan said:
Actually, I did address all of your points. Your points are all bogus.

1 - It isn't using indirect government money if it money isn't coming to the government anyway. If a company isn't moving cash back to the United States in order to use it here, then the government is not seeing any revenue from said money. If you incent companies to return money to the United States, the government actually can get some of said money in revenue. Offering an incentive for someone to do something is a good idea if it produces the desired outcome. Because the alternative is the status quo - which we all agree is lousy.

How does that apply to incenting companies to drill for oil or produce ethanol? Wouldn't that money come from the government (actually it would add to the debt)?

And you still haven't explained how that's going to create jobs.

2 - By all reports it is a demand problem. We agree. Your solution is to do NOTHING to spark demand. My solution is to encourage more demand. In turn, more demand sparks more revenue for the government.

How do your plans spark demand? You're talking about increasing the supply of oil and ethanol and bringing corporate revenues into the US.

Pretty much by definition an "incentive" is getting someone to do something that not a good idea for them to do otherwise. Your approach is basically handing out coupons.

And how do you figure my solution is nothing? I've explained my ideas plenty of times on these boards. We're talking about your ideas.


3 - So what if some companies hire some people in Minneapolis? Uh, I believe that is the idea. Put people to work.

Address my other points below that. You and Milhouse are doing a good job dodging.

What percentage of their employees are in the US?
Have they been laying off workers to the benefit of shareholders?
Are real wages increasing?
In effect, is Wall Street growth being matched on Main Street?
And sure "people rely on these companies and all their employees for their livelihood", but do those companies rely on those people?
Click to expand...




Liquid Karma said:
Ph - Have you worked a single day in the private sector in your entire adult life?
Click to expand...

Nope. I entered college with a specific idea of what I wanted to do for a living and worked toward it. Now I make good money doing exactly what I want to do in a sector that's relatively safe in down times. I don't make Wake money, but I do well to provide for my family and I actually have time to spend with them.
 
DeacMan said:
Sure. There are lots of ideas that have been floated in the press just over the last few days. These are but a few:

1 - Incent companies to drill for oil

Why should the government subsidize the most profitable businesses in America? This makes no sense.

2 - Incent the production of ethanol
costs more and is less efficient

3 - Loosen depreciation rules on capital equipment

4 - Decrease tax burdens associated with bringing cash back to the United States from foreign subsidiaries

As shown on antoher post this is a total scam. the last time this was done 9 of the top 10 beneificiares cut 5000-25,000 jobs within twelve months. Most of the money went ot bonuses and dividends. It was HUGE SCAM

Quit thinking that the government is the only party that can spend money and drive growth. Rather incent the private sector to do it. They'll react faster and more efficiently.

Stop talking about free trade agreements and things that will take years to implement. They are fine to pursue, but they won't get anything moving immediately.
Click to expand...

......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top