I don't know very much how does that separation and cohabitation between the congress and senate works in the USA since I'm used to a single parliament - But I'm guessing that basically means the US is fucked.

(November 6, 2014 at 8:10 pm)Blackout Wrote: I don't know very much how does that separation and cohabitation between the congress and senate works in the USA since I'm used to a single parliament - But I'm guessing that basically means the US is fucked.

The US isn't anymore "fucked" than we were in 2010. If anything it is less "fucked". Why because in 2010 if Obama wanted to do something...he had to get both the republicans and democrats to go along. In 2014 if Obama wants to do something....he just has to get the republicans to go along.

Obama actually has it easier now but he is just too stupid and stubborn to realize it.

(November 6, 2014 at 8:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Obama actually has it easier now but he is just too stupid and stubborn to realize it.

That's a pretty rich position to take, given that it wasn't Obama's political allies who decided to base their policy around blocking and hindering anything the opposition attempted to pass.

You're talking to Woodie, remember? Fuckhead First Class.

(November 6, 2014 at 7:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Real wealth is stuff.....not 0's on a ledger. The truth is the poor and middle class in America have more stuff or wealth than they ever have had. If you compare a typical present day citizen's life style to Bill Gates versus a typical a typical 19th century citizen's life style to Cornelius Vanderbilt, you would find the life style gap has closed....not gotten wider as the left wants you think.

Sonnyboy, you're talking to an MBA from one of the top business schools in the nation who's run a business for over 20 years. Don't lecture me on business or economics with your straw man assertions of what "the left" wants people to think. You're only going to get schooled like the ignorant, talking-point spewing jackass you act like.

First of all, the "0"s on a ledger are reflective of wealth and economic stability. That's why we bother having accountants. In business school, we would analyze corporate ledgers in order to tell the professor exactly what was happening behind the scenes and causing the shift in the numbers.

Second, I almost busted a gut when you invoked the 19th century for comparison. You could also tell blacks they have it so much better then they did as slaves in the 19th century or women how much better they have it than they did when they had no property rights or voting rights. That would be true but it would not suggest that there aren't still injustices that need correcting.

Third, my point was about "trickle down economics" and not the fact that worker productivity has skyrocketed since the 80s but worker wages have remained flat. Now, this may surprise you but business owners don't just hire more people because they got a big tax cut and don't know what else to do with the money.

As a business owner, I recognize that hiring people is an investment. If you have to train them, then they are a long term investment. The idea is that you pay them for their labor and gain a return on that investment by selling the products or services based on that labor to consumers. In sum, you pay out to newly hired workers (investment) in order to gain income based on on the sales of the product or service based on the newly hired labor (return on investment).

Having taught you such a basic business lesson, you should be able to figure out that:

• If consumer demand increases, a rational business owner will strive to meet that demand to gain increased sales, hiring more labor to do it, finding the money by hook or crook, tax cuts or no.
  
• If consumer demand is not there, there is no expected increase in sales and therefore no motive to expand the workforce or production, tax cuts or no.
  
• If consumer demand falls, this is the only rational time to lay off workers. Workers produce the products and services that you sell. If you lay off workers while demand is steady, you cut your own throat. Your workers will be overworked, quality will fall, service will become crappy, delivery will be late. More shrewd business owners will hire the layed off workers to boost their production to meet the demand of your angry customers that leave your business to go to them. Any business that lays off workers because, boo hoo, taxes or the minimum wage went up, will be driven out of business by the business owners that are not that stupid.
  

Demand generates business. Supply will rise from you or someone else to meet demand. Laying off workers cuts your ability to supply. Tax cuts have no effect because there's no reason to hire without increased demand. Better to spend that extra money in the stock market or some other investment opportunity where you will get a better return on investment.

Poor people and the middle class spend money (producing demand). When they are doing better (higher minimum wage) they spend money creating more demand. More demand means business want to supply, which means more employment.

Are you starting to get why raising the minimum wage is proven to help, not harm, the economy? Are you started to get why cutting taxes for the rich doesn't help the economy but giving food stamps to the poor does?

Quote:The left wants you to think your slice of the pie is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

Who says this?

The 1% are gaining a greater share of that pie and this is not good for business or a healthy capitalist economy. The American style of capitalism is that anyone can go from rags to riches on the basis of their own work and innovation while the incompetent and lazy are crushed. Unfortunately, social stratification vs. social mobility is getting worse, not better. The rich are getting richer and the rest are being shut out from the opportunity to make it big.

Quote:Its not trickle down economics. Its growing the size of the pie economics......and it works bitches.

I'm all in favor of growing the size of the pie. The problem is, you don't do that with tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The money doesn't trickle down. Jobs aren't created. You get far more "bang for the buck" (government spending to generate economic activity) with food stamps than any other government program or tax plan that I've seen.

Consider that W Bush made Ronald Reagan look like Robin Hood. W had the worst job growth rate since WWII.

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. The 90s were a great economic time.

I'll take the 90s over the 2000's.

---

(November 6, 2014 at 8:10 pm)Blackout Wrote: I don't know very much how does that separation and cohabitation between the congress and senate works in the USA since I'm used to a single parliament - But I'm guessing that basically means the US is fucked.

Quick Primer for those used to Parliamentary Democracy:

Since America stormed out of the house sooner than her siblings, our system is based on an earlier stage in the evolution of British government. Like most rebellious teens, we tried to reinvent the wheel, failed miserably (John Handcock was actually our first president but we don't like to talk about that embarrassing time) and within 10 years had become just like the parent we were so rebellious toward. We asked, "OK, how does mother England do it?" We then copied just about everything, changing the names to cover our copyright infringements.

As a way to reduce the power of the president, we spun the judiciary away from the president into it's own branch, creating three rather than two. So consequently:

Powers of the King of England in 1776 = President plus Supreme Court
Powers of Parliament in 1776 = Congress.
Prime Minister in 1776 = House Speaker (currently Boener)

And so the old struggles between King and Parliament in England in times of old are now reflected in America between President and Congress. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Now that the President faces an opposition Congress, there's some careful negotiation that needs to be done or nothing will get done for 2 years.

The whole Senate vs. House thing might be confusing to foreigners. It was a compromise between large states vs. small. Representation is based on 2 per state in the former and population in the latter, so small states swing a heavier bat in the Senate.

The Senate does have certain important functions the House does not, including ratifying Supreme Court and other presidential nominees and ratifying treaties with foreign governments. In the event of an impeachment of the president, the House decides to call for impeachment, starting the procedure, and the Senate conducts the trial, finishing it.

I used to think legislation and spending bills had to originate in the House of Representatives but since the do-nothing Congress under Boener, I've seen the Senate take the lead on occasion, particularly during our recent disastrous shut down. Having double-checked my Constitution, it seems that that power was never spelled out as a power specific to the House. Perhaps I was just used to that since our Prime Minister analog leads the House of Representatives and therefore might have had a stronger hand in proposed legislation and budgets.

So there you have it. Not the end of the world for Obama but it will make the next 2 years interesting.

Bit of American Trivia:

With the exception of 2002, every sitting president has lost control of Congress within 2 years of the presidency. If we have a Parliamentary System of Democracy, we'd rival the Italians for how often our government would collapse. So this really is kind of par-for-the-course for us.

(November 6, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 6, 2014 at 8:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Obama actually has it easier now but he is just too stupid and stubborn to realize it.

That's a pretty rich position to take, given that it wasn't Obama's political allies who decided to base their policy around blocking and hindering anything the opposition attempted to pass.

The democrats blocked everything the republicans tried to pass. The only things that have passed are the few and far between compromises between Obama, the democratic senate, and the republican house.

Now potentially all Obama has to do is compromise with the republicans since they control both houses. This should be apparent unless you assume that the democrats are mindless zombies who vote at the beck and call of Obama, or that Obama is a puppet of the congressional democrats.

---

(November 6, 2014 at 8:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Sonnyboy, you're talking to an MBA from one of the top business schools in the nation who's run a business for over 20 years. Don't lecture me on business or economics with your straw man assertions of what "the left" wants people to think. You're only going to get schooled like the ignorant, talking-point spewing jackass you act like.

You are now making an argument from authority. If I am to take this argument seriously I need to examine your authority.

What is your real name and the names of the businesses you have run...and your position in those businesses?

(November 6, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are now making an argument from authority.

No sonnyboy, I have schooled you on how business works. My credentials were only the introduction. Refute my arguments if you can.

Argument from Authority is using credentials in place of an argument, not on the side of an argument (much like not all insults in arguments are Ad Hominems).

Do I need to school you on logical fallacies as well?

(November 6, 2014 at 10:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 6, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are now making an argument from authority.

No sonnyboy, I have schooled you on how business works. My credentials were only the introduction. Refute my arguments if you can.

Argument from Authority is using credentials in place of an argument, not on the side of an argument (much like not all insults in arguments are Ad Hominems).

Do I need to school you on logical fallacies as well?

You touted your authority as a reason why I should believe your arguments. If you are unwilling to give us details of your authority I have no reason then to believe you have an MBA or have ever run a business.

To be honest...I didn't read past the first paragraph because your post was simply too long for my limited attention span(that is a fault of mine....I don't like reading long winded posts).

(November 6, 2014 at 11:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: You touted your authority as a reason why I should believe your arguments.

Nope. It was only an intro. The meat of the arguments function independently. Refute my arguments if you can.

Quote:If you are unwilling to give us details of your authority I have no reason then to believe you have an MBA or have ever run a business.

Nope, not giving you details of my personal life and give up the protection of anonymity, especially since I live in a deeply Christian red state area. My demonstrated knowledge of business should be sufficient. Otherwise, deal with it. Either way, refute my arguments if you can.

Quote:To be honest...I didn't read past the first paragraph because your post was simply too long for my limited attention span(that is a fault of mine....I don't like reading long winded posts).

A shame. I offered you a free education, sonnyboy. I encourage you to muster the energy especially since I broke it down into easy to read paragraphs and bullet points. Maybe if you'd read more instead of listening to vapid Fox Noise talking points, you might learn something of what you're talking about and embarrass yourself less.

Otherwise, you can just concede I won that exchange.

(November 5, 2014 at 1:50 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 12:58 am)PhiloTech Wrote: Democrat this and Republican that. Seriously, I stay out of politics. It makes no sense and I see no results.
Where is the free government Playstations and public libraries. All I care about.

Also who is that cute black guy who is president now? I hope he is single and not married to that grinning ape anymore.

I sure am glad you didn't vote, we've got enough idiots in the booths as it is.

I actually did vote lol