TakeYouToTasker Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 BTW whenever you get around to it this will probably be a campaign issue, this bill. So I am being serious when I say if there is some great point I should consider I haven't...I'm all ears. Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to honestly engage. I'll re-present my two basic assumptions and follow-up question for you: The spending necessary for social democratic policy requires a Keynesian economic system. A Keynesian economic system requires the exportation of inflation to maintain any downward pressure on prices. Do you know the two ways in which inflation can be exported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to honestly engage. I'll re-present my two basic assumptions and follow-up question for you: The spending necessary for social democratic policy requires a Keynesian economic system. A Keynesian economic system requires the exportation of inflation to maintain any downward pressure on prices. Do you know the two ways in which inflation can be exported? Tie this to tax breaks to companies that bring jobs in, and not taxes on exporting companies but just the elimination of tax breaks to those companies. Then maybe I can take a guess. Or you could just cut to the chase and tell me how this ties in, in your opinion. B/c...I'm not really talking about Keynesian economics. If I should be and am not....tell me why. B/c I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Tie this to tax breaks to companies that bring jobs in, and not taxes on exporting companies but just the elimination of tax breaks to those companies. Then maybe I can take a guess. Or you could just cut to the chase and tell me how this ties in, in your opinion. B/c...I'm not really talking about Keynesian economics. If I should be and am not....tell me why. B/c I don't know. Because it's our system, and everything that happens has to happen within the framework of that system. As far as real application, and every-day/every-action application: our economic system is many degrees more applicable to anything and everything than any political system could ever hope to be. And, to be honest, you are talking about Keynesian economics. I'm still hoping you'll answer my question. If you need more information to answer the question, and wish to engage, I can either answer in PMs or in thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I'm going to be honest you are proving to be everything I suspected you were trying to be initially. Retarded. I'm not trying to be offensive...but I type what I think. You can type in response whatever you want and convince me otherwise. You are a free poser. And just to be clear why I say that from my point of view I say: "trade the outsourcing bill and maybe a compromised disclose act for the tax issue" and you say "how do we export inflation and we are a Keynesian nation now" and then don't elaborate. So that's what I see. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm here to discuss. But discussion requires some sense of linear discussion. Edited July 26, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I'm going to be honest you are proving to be everything I suspected you were trying to be initially. Retarded. I'm not trying to be offensive...but I type what I think. You can type in response whatever you want and convince me otherwise. You are a free poser. Rather than assume I'm attacking you in some way, read what I've stated and what I've asked. If you need clarification in any area, I'm willing to provide it. If you don't understand my question, and need more background information, that's OK as well. I'll provide it. EDIT: you've posted a second paragraph. I understand your point, but am asking you to indulge me with the honest understanding that I've been trying to interject my point into this conversation for some time. Edited July 26, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Go. I don't know how it hasn't been clear. I don't understand what you are talking about or how it relates to what I'm am talking about. Explain. To be clear I am asking you to explain yourself so we can debate what is at issue...the outsourcing/insourcing tax policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Go. I don't know how it hasn't been clear. I don't understand what you are talking about or how it relates to what I'm am talking about. Explain. To be clear I am asking you to explain yourself so we can debate what is at issue...the outsourcing/insourcing tax policy. Central to tax policy are economic policy, and spending policy. Spending policy dictates how much money you will need, and helps define budgetary issues. economic policy is also central to this, as it dictates what other sources of revenue a government might tap into if tax revenues can't be feasibly large enough to pay for all of the governments expenses and obligations. Our social-democratic system of government currently spends more than 70% of what it's citizens earn on an annual basis. It's obvious to any observer that a government can't have a tax rate that high an expect it to produce anything but abject poverty, so the balance of the spending over the existing tax rate is paid for by borrowing. This sale of US debt is one of the two ways in which inflation is exported out of the US's domestic economy. The other side of our social-democratic policy is regulatory. This regulation places heavy inflationary preasures on goods and services as well, as labor costs, enviromental concerns, saftey measures, ect. artificially increase the cost of production. The way that this inflationary preasure is exported is via outsourcing. Combined, these two measures help put a bit of downward preasure on prices, which is necessary when global commodity inflation is running at a staggering 27%. Which brings us to my overarching point. If you want any sembalence of prosperity in a social-democratic system backed by a Keynesian economy, you require this exportation (IE. the sale of our children's future to China and the outsourcing of American labor) unless you feel like paying $25 for a !@#$ing head of lettuce. Is this making any more sense to you now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 27, 2012 Author Share Posted July 27, 2012 So if we don't give tax breaks to companies that set up shop here and stop giving them to those going over seas we have $25 lettuce. I get it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 So if we don't give tax breaks to companies that set up shop here and stop giving them to those going over seas we have $25 lettuce. I get it now. It's really is that simple. Our system creates an unfortunate reality in which you have to make a choice between repatriating lost American manufacturing jobs and being able to afford to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 NB, you seem to feel very strongly about this issue. Question for you, in lieu of having individual donors 'outed' would you be willing to accept a system where demographic statistics are released in aggregate about the donors to campaigns and PACs on perhaps a monthly or weekly basis? Something whereby say the NAICS codes (or aggregates of general 1st 2 digits of SIC codes) with # of donors, & average donation, and headquarters states / nationalities; and similar info for individuals and unions is also disclosed. That way you would know (more or less) where the money came from, but whack jobs wouldn't be able to specifically target individuals for retribution for having the audacity to use their 1st amendment rights. Obviously details would have to be fleshed out better. Just curious as to whether you'd consider something along those lines acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Forcing people to publicly disclose political contributions isn't too far removed from doing away with the secret ballot. The Democrats have been trying to do that for years with employee votes to unionize. Gotta love the "Employee Free Choice Act". The Democrats all about freedom to vote the "correct" way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) The Democrats have been trying to do that for years with employee votes to unionize. Gotta love the "Employee Free Choice Act". The Democrats all about freedom to vote the "correct" way. Really? http://www.examiner....ate-to-campaign Better: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/28/coal-miners-say-they-were-forced-to-attend-romney-event-and-donate/ “Yes, letters have gone around with lists of names of employees who have not attended or donated to political events.” Edited August 29, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Really? http://www.examiner....ate-to-campaign Clearly the same thing as trying to enact federal legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 NB, you seem to feel very strongly about this issue. Question for you, in lieu of having individual donors 'outed' would you be willing to accept a system where demographic statistics are released in aggregate about the donors to campaigns and PACs on perhaps a monthly or weekly basis? Something whereby say the NAICS codes (or aggregates of general 1st 2 digits of SIC codes) with # of donors, & average donation, and headquarters states / nationalities; and similar info for individuals and unions is also disclosed. That way you would know (more or less) where the money came from, but whack jobs wouldn't be able to specifically target individuals for retribution for having the audacity to use their 1st amendment rights. Obviously details would have to be fleshed out better. Just curious as to whether you'd consider something along those lines acceptable. The more speech the better. The more information the better. I really don't see us as a nation of whack jobs out to kill political contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The more speech the better. The more information the better. I really don't see us as a nation of whack jobs out to kill political contributors. I don't expect the whack jobs to try to kill someone for actually speaking their mind, but I could definitely see someone catching hell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) I don't expect the whack jobs to try to kill someone for actually speaking their mind, but I could definitely see someone catching hell for it. I honestly believe that the more speech the better but you should catch any and all hell you have coming to you if you speak. If you say something that some people don't like...then you catch hell from those people who don't like it. And you can say anything you want. Edited August 29, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I honestly believe that the more speech the better but you should catch any and all hell you have coming to you if you speak. If you say something that some people don't like...then you catch hell from those people who don't like it. And you can say anything you want. So, no issues with a person supporting a politician supporting public union reform having (literally) a truckload of protesters on their front doorstep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 And for the record there are a number of different ideas I've thought about that I've heard on this issue..many of which I support that are contradictory but all improvements in their own right. Yours from the brief bit I gather doesn't sound unappealing. Neither do a bunch of other ideas some of which go against what I've said above as...improvements. But ultimately...everyone say whatever they want and put their name on it...that's the solution I favor. So, no issues with a person supporting a politician supporting public union reform having (literally) a truckload of protesters on their front doorstep? That's where the law comes in...they shouldn't be at the door step and they don't have to be if local laws are written and applied well. But if you are saying in the sense of the proverbial "doorstep"...well...no. No problems. Anyone says something, say it and take what comes and hopefully continue saying it despite public pressure for whatever group doesn't like it. Nazi's march. Union busters, try and bust. Unions, try and bust the busters. This is America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 And for the record there are a number of different ideas I've thought about that I've heard on this issue..many of which I support that are contradictory but all improvements in their own right. Yours from the brief bit I gather doesn't sound unappealing. Neither do a bunch of other ideas some of which go against what I've said above as...improvements. But ultimately...everyone say whatever they want and put their name on it...that's the solution I favor. Fair enough. When I was younger, I was very much in favor of your position. Where we are today with technology, I think it would end up chilling free speech more than understanding where the money is coming from would help the system. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Fair enough. When I was younger, I was very much in favor of your position. Where we are today with technology, I think it would end up chilling free speech more than understanding where the money is coming from would help the system. JMO. Other speech chilling speech...people not wanting to take public responsibility for their public remarks...not a problem as I see it. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not freedom from adverse reaction to your speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts