Magox

It's not picking nit's, and it would seem as if that they are almost one in the same. But they're not, for the aforementioned I provided earlier which is that a company can decide to pack it in and move his home base to another country if they find the restrictions to be too much of an obstacle for them to want to overcome. In regards to what incentives could possibly make a difference. Well, I am a strong believer of innovation and it's positive effects on the economy. So I would focus on creating an enviroment for corporations to innovate. How do you achieve this? simple... If you are company X and your company were to have a net profit of $10Million then you would have a certain amount of capital to help you innovate. If your company the following year had $20Million of net profit then the likelyhood of your company being able to innovate more so than the previous year would be higher or lower? Of course we know the answer to this. My point is that allowing corporations to have higher profits (as ghastly as that may seem to some) is usually a good thing for everyone. Higher profits, usually means more innovation, more jobs, benefits etc. So adjusting the corporate tax rate I believe is central to keeping us more competitive in the global markets. The other thing we can do is improve our trade relations with the countries that offer the most growth to buy our stuff. If I were advising the OBama administration I'd be damn sure I'd have trade envoys over there every single day of his presidency striking deals, allowing concessions etc in order to improve accessibility to their markets.

I'm not talking about that. It's tough to overcome the cheap labor obstacle, which is why that there is an even greater need to provide additional incentives for companies to invest here, rather than place additional restrictive measures.

That sounds too restrictive, and as a result a company can relocate its business elsewhere and these sort of "laws" that would make it more difficult to produce elsewhere would be all for not. What would work better is creating incentives for companies to produce over here. Incentives are much more motivational than punishing measures. Incentives Incentives Incentives

The threads have evolved into the "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you" status...

I'm confused, does left field mean it was expected?

It appeared to me that his main criticism of Reagan was his defense spending and how he simply rubber stamped any funds requested from the Defense department. Then again, we were still in the COLD war era and he indeed did help expedite the Russian downfall, even though I do agree with Stockman's view that Russia's communist government was a big "house of cards" that was destined to fall. But lets be real here, Reagan's tough stance and Star Wars program did help quicken the process... If you look at Defense spending after the Cold War, it went down dramatically all the way through Clinton's presidency and one can make the argument that it had to do with the Cold War's end. Also Stockman I dont believe is a "big govt lib", actually he's quite the contrary, he's a super small goverment libertarian is how I view him. Doesn't mean i agree with everything he says, but he did make some valid points throughout the interview.

Of course he will.... DUHHHH!!! I mean, Have you met Lybob?

I was against the bailouts, and I also happen to believe that they panicked, actually I'm pretty feckin certain that they did, they did indeed change the original intent of TARP of buying the "toxic assets" to recapitalizing them at the last moment..At the end of the day it was the FED's actions of the CPFF that was the main tangible stabilizing force that calmed the markets and prevented a future meltdown.. Anyone that has observed me knows that I am no fan of the Federal Reserve but I would say this was probably the bernankes best moment. Recapitalization of the banks wasn't the main driver in calming the markets, it was the liquidity provided by the FED to continue the natural flow of the commercial paper markets which is the heart of the banking system.. Without it there is nothing, everything dries up. Things come to a screeching halt, which is exactly what happened, no banks trusted another, they were uncertain of all the liabilities they may have had, and it appeared that there was no bottom in the prices of the assets they were holding. Which is why Paulson did a 180 on the original intent of TARP of buying the assets, simply because there would be little demand for those assets and the price that would have had to of been paid would of been much much larger than the $700B earmarked. It was the Fed who was the buyer of last resort of all this paper... All TARP did was give a psychological boost of the government backstopping the banks with the $700B which basically did nothing.. But when I read your description of how you perceive things bobby, Sarah Palin comes to mind. Except that you are PPP's flame throwing nimrod from the left. This isn't about "redistributing money from the poor and middle class" to the banks. Please, take the partisan crap out and save it for the suckas that buy into this phony B.S It's about the moral hazard that the Government has created in bailing out the banks when mainstreet is still suffering. Perception is everything, even though any RATIONAL person understands that in order to have a productive free flowing economy the banks MUST be healthy, the perception is that those "evil bankers" get bailed out, (in which they do) and that the rest of us are here stuck with crappy mortages are unable to get loans. So this moral hazard creates a loss of confidence from the public in governments ability to move forward more effectively. This does have a tangible negative impact. But its very difficult to quantify and recognize specifically how these impacts are felt. Some on this board are unable to see the impacts of TARP, and are only able to measure the success or failure of this program from within a box. Saying things such as "Well it did turn a profit". This is a very short-sighted way of measuring TARP's overall success...

*crickets chirping*

I suggest you read it in full before you opine or you come out looking rather foolish. There should be some exemptions, on food, water and other necessary essentials. Many people are struggling as it is, to place an added tax on their lives creates an even larger burden and it would be quite regressive. I am in favor for a flat tax, but as I said exemptions on necessary essentials would HAVE to be included. Now of course I understand that defining "necessary essentials" could be tricky but still, it would be much more simple than the idiotic tax code we have today.. Also, it's quite ludicrous that GE is'nt paying anything in taxes. Yes, they do provide jobs etc, but come on! Man, you are One mindless meat puppet.

I painfully read through his post and couldn't find one

Corporations for the most part aren't hiring for a bevy of reasons, one there isn't the domestic demand for goods and services that we had seen before. Two, technology is improving and there really isnt a need from many companies to hire more workers, specially considering that the bottom line and worker productiviy is all improving, and I dont blame them. Also, there is still quite a bit of fear out there, and justifiably so, the unknowns of the possible outcomes of our National debt and future inflation are great, and some companies are just fine where they are right now. The best solution to these problems is INNOVATION and selling goods and services to emerging markets. In order to do this, lowering the corporate tax code would be a good solution. One, it makes us more competitive to compete with other countries for access into selling goods into these countries, and two, lowering the corporate tax code allows corporations to have more money to innovate. Less money = less innovation. Another factor that is hurting the job market is nonsensical regulation. I understand that when sh1t occurs that our highly esteemed elected leaders need to act as if they care and give the appearance of doing something. Most of these populist measures are nonsensical and do more harm than good. The Oil drilling issuance of permits is one good example and so is the Durbin amendment which I brought up to this board about a year ago when no one was talking about it. Now Durbin feels the need to criticize the WSJ through the Chicago Tribune and makes mentions of them 23 times in his piece and then equates the name WALL STREET Journal and WALL STREET are synonymous with one another because they both have the word WALL STREET in it. Talk about preying on the minds of the weak.

First we have to get away with this word "giving". Lets set the record straight here, The U.S has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the more appropriate word is allowing corporations to keep more of the money they earned. That is factually more true than your characterization. Second, Yes there is a huge difference. The government providing money to the banks, insurers and auto companies was a government bailout/gaurantee/handout. Allowing corporations to keep more of their earned money isn't the same whatsoever, sorry Dan, that is about as simple as I can make it, if you dont understand the difference than I can't help you any further regarding this portion of our discussion. Not the same at all. Second, yes, "trickle down economics" has always been about an across the board tax cut for all businesses and corporations. Some of these policies are just for businesses some are for individual tax rates, but in either case always across the board. The Bush tax cuts, guess what? They were for everyone. Reagans tax cuts, take another guess. Reagans was a 25% across the board cut for everyone. Did you know that? It wasn't a tax cut just for the "rich" it was for everyone in both cases. Sorry Dan, if you are gonna argue with me regarding this topic you are going to have to bring up facts to support your case. And I call your investopedia for my full wikipedia flush

Through creating a culture of people who desire to achieve more in life. This is not meant to be partisan, it is through pure logic. If you create a society that depends on others for survival then the desire and need from those who dont have becomes less. This is just logical. So we need to create internal inertia. Which is not an easy thing to do.

That's still not "trickle down economics". "Trickle down economics" is about people and corporations keeping more of their own money that they EARNED, not about government handouts. We need to stop this misinformation, lowering tax rates is NOT a government handout. A properly delivered tax cut does increase wealth for the overall population, I believe any sensible person understands this. That is what "trickle down economics" is about. By the looks of your post, you are one of the many people that believes the caricature that has been created by opponents of the left of supply side economics. Which is the government gives money to the upper income earners that leads to a further erosion of wealth in the lower-middle class folks. It's a partisan nonsensical argument. I am going to let you guys in on a little secret. The main reason why people from the lower to middle class are not advancing as quickly as we'd like to see is..... Wait for it.... Technology and Globalization. Which there really isn't much you can do about it. So in order for people from the lower to middle class to advance themselves they will need some internal drive to get them to higher economic situation, if that is what it is they are looking for. Speaking for myself, I came from straight up middle class, father was in the marine corps, I didn't receive jack **** other than some moral support from my parents and I now have my own biz, work 9 months out of the year, make my own hours, I'm in the top 5% of income earners and I'm 36 years old. If I can do it, then so can others.... So please spare me the BS people that the cards are stacked against those who dont have. Just about anyone can succeed financially (if that is what they want) if they have the drive to do it. To elaborate a little further in why "trickle down economics" and it's unpopularity with not just the partisan putzes but also with others as well is very simple. Most people don't have that drive to get them to a higher financial level, most people are complacent, most people are satisfied enough with their own lives to continue the status quo. This is the truth. So, the easiest way for people to blame their economic woes is to blame others. So of course if there is economic system that includes tax cuts for everyone including the wealthy and it goes against the political opponents of supply side economics who rather have higher tax codes to pay for their programs, then its obvious that whenever things do start to look worse from a macro economic POV, (which would have NOTHING to do with the tax code) the caricatures are created and blaming the rich is a very easy target that works with most people. Of course, either those who lack that drive or have an agenda or just is a partisan putz that believes anything their masters tell them fall for this trap. People just need to educate themselves. In this case, "trickle down economics" is an across the board tax cut for everyone including businesses. It's not what your political masters tell you, which is its a government handout for the rich at your expense. That is 100% factually untrue. Once again, "trickle down economics" is an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut for everyone.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the theory that we are all basically the same. There is a reason why wealthier people have achieved more in life than most others, and it mainly has to do with work ethic. And please, I dont want to hear from any of the dipsh1ts on this boards come up with some anecdotal story that you believe proves otherwise. You use to be just a putz, now you have become a real partisan putz. Man, you're not just a partisan putz, you're an idiot.

Sorry Dan, but the government providing bailouts to anyone including banks is not considered "trickle down economics". Just sayin'

Economics for Progressives

If it's good enough for Ha-Joon Chang and Lybob its good enough for me.

It is a feckin joke! By the time its all said and done, there will be few people that will be required to buy health insurance, which of course will take the teeth out of the most important part of the cost control mechanism they have in the bill, which is the idea of lowering per patient cost by higher volumes of coverage. It's simple, Weeny is running for mayor, he knows that the bill sucks ass and that it will run N.Y even further into debt, so of course he is using the exemption waiver to prove how "flexible" the bill is where in reality it is sinking in rather quickly that the bill is a disaster. As I've said all along, they need to replace the stupid bill.

Arianna was a right wingeR??

I'm beginning to think that Dexter isn't someone's alt account. THe obsession meter is off the charts.

Who are you leaning on in the primaries?

just wondering, who do you want to see as the next president?