patrick.net

tatupu70 says

You can’t be that stupid. See if you can follow along. When workers’ wages go down, profits go up. Money goes from workers’ hands to the owners hands. Rich get richer, middle class goes on food stamps.

ummmm ..... ok, here's another view :
When productivity goes up, profit goes up. Employee keeps their job.
When overhead goes down, profit goes up. Employee keeps their job.
WHen you have such idiotic issues as foced hiring of select sects of the population to match some pulled-from-an-ass ratio that satisfies a liberal/progressive/leftist adgenda THEN you erode both of those profit making systems. The regulatory crap and tax code and welfare mentailty drive overhead through the roof. Gov is hurting workersm not profit. If more jobs paid "piece work" there would be a big new bunch of complaints from one side of the isle.

In my opinion and experience, when a company makes more money so do the employees. If only by retaining a job by keeping a company competitive, a person earns more money. Maybe not per-hour, but a steady job has a value that some would suggest is more than a high paying job that is unsure.

It is time to break up unionized education. The cost is 5X the value. We are having an education fee bubble.

Bap33 says

When productivity goes up, profit goes up. Employee keeps their job.
When overhead goes down, profit goes up. Employee keeps their job

Actually, no. True, if a company goes out of business, everyone loses their job. But profitable companies lay people off all the time. The correlation between profits and hiring is weak.

A company hires worker when it cannot meet customer demand. Not when it becomes more profitable.

If Obama had praised Weiner for the way he handled his "problem," the headline would read "Obama strokes Weiner."

Obama's Weiner showed strain from all the abuse it got. Sad, sad, sad.

shrekgrinch says

No, you do not need to further expose your gross ignorance of basic accounting any further.

lol--another dodge. I expected as much. I noticed you've abandoned your luddite thread. Soon you'll probably leave this thread too. Unfortunately, you'll have started 5 more idiotic fox news propaganda threads to replace these.

shrekgrinch says

It is a FACT that workers don’t get paid out of profits. They get paid out of revenues.

Of course. How does that relate to anything I've posted here??

That's why increasing profits don't lead to increased hiring. And why cutting taxes doesn't increase hiring.

Shrek--

You're playing right?

Profits = Revenues - Expenses

You get that, don't you?

Does that graph look the same when you remove the 20 million illegal aliens?

The jobs are being created in Texas. The reason is they are a pro-business, no income tax, low regulation, low business tax state.
California businesses are moving there. The guys who work for them sometimes like to make the move, saving on their income taxes. I met some California guys who moved to Texas and had moved into much bigger houses and were much happier in that heat, for financial and other reasons.
So, taxes don't inhibit our behavior? Then why are so many taxes put onto things they want to make us stop buying (e.g. cigarettes)?
Driving around the last time I was out there I saw a billboard "free land to start a business here" in a town not far from the airport. The town was trying to attract business.
Nothing in California is friendly towards business, quite the opposite. Ask someone who is trying to run one sometime.
The state will be like this indefinitely. Do not expect a big improvement in our unemployment situation. The high tech jobs are taken and the low tech jobs are fought over with the illegal aliens. The others are government jobs. Stick a fork in California, it's done.

Tenouncetrout says

elliemae says

Just curious, how many of these jobs did you create?

Whoa 1800 tequila just poured me a shot, what can your Tequila do?

Please tell me what kind of tequila is able to pour itself out of a bottle into a glass by itself, and I'll buy it. ;)

Nomo, the argument that businesses leave Cali is ongoing. There are many that leave, but many that stay. And many that move there. This is one of those arguments that people use when they're trying to make a point.

I have a bro-in-law who opened a biz in Cali. He said that he did so because 1) he lives there, 2) he lives there, and 3) location, location, location. There are places that are more lucrative tax-wise and incentive-wise, but people tend to open businesses in the area in which they live. And the draw of sunny Cali vs the weather in the mid-west is surely a factor too.

Numbers can be skewed in any direction. Everyone that blames the economy on Obama ignores the fact that the blueprint was in place many years before. There were actions that could have been taken, both on the conservative and liberal sides, to alleviate the crisis. But they chose not to see it coming.

Now it's Obama's fault personally that the economy is still in the crapper. Elections are all about personal attacks, bragging about how you can effect positive change and winning.

If claims of "winning" were the only criteria, Charlie Sheen would be the perfect candidate. There would just have to be a mountain of cocaine on the East lawn to keep his winning ways. But on the bright side, there would be more openly discussed jobs for whores and porn stars in Washington.

shrekgrinch says

ALL currency values are converted into their dollar values when determining their worth in relation to each other.

That is no longer true. Forex is doing more and more direct currency pairs without the intermediate conversion to dollars, especially with commodity countries currencies.

I don't get it. Mississippi and Arkansas have among the lowest taxes, lowest wages, and the weakest business regulations in the nation.

How come all the Fortune 500 companies aren't relocating there?

Truthplease says

People who owned a bussiness used to care about their workers.

Was that when we had 12 yr olds mining coal? Or when we built skyscrapers assuming a 5% worker death rate?

I don't get the romanticizing of the past....

You left/right idiots are retards. Ever consider the fact that big problems like this often have 'multiple' causes?! Regan, fucked us... just like every goddamn Republican and Democrat in office for the past century. The only real difference between democrats and republicans is how they want to destroy the middle class.

I might be romantacizing because our ancestors of immigrants created the greatest nation in the world just to hand it off a bunch of self absorbed and entilted people.

I question the whole process at this point. Wait and see the 1 billion dollar campaign coffer this next election when the presidency is purchased again. You don't take that much money without shaking some hands and making deals.

At leat Reagan took down a dangerous adversary which was the whole USSR.

You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

Nomo, I am not saying we all are. I am just frustrated and have been this way for the last decade. The rich keep getting richer. You can't watch any news agency without questioning what party they are supporting or if it is real news. Greed and war have nearly bankrupted us. Not just bankers either, average Americans living well beyond their means put this country at risk.

Truthplease says

I might be romantacizing because our ancestors of immigrants created the greatest nation in the world just to hand it off a bunch of self absorbed and entilted people.
I question the whole process at this point. Wait and see the 1 billion dollar campaign coffer this next election when the presidency is purchased again. You don’t take that much money without shaking some hands and making deals.

I suggest you do some reading and learn about our ancestors. You might be surprised to learn that many of them were pretty self absorbed and entitled too.

wormwood says

Also, any thoughtful person can trace the housing crisis, if they were being honest, back to many, many leftists and many Democrat operatives from Wall Street.

Republicans were running the government 1995-2006. It was their policies that created and fed the bubble. Attempts to pin the disaster on Democrats is just partisan bullshit.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
2) http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm
3) Greenspan lowering rates to under 6% and keeping them there 2002-2003. This did not cause the bubble per se but it did get the ball rolling as early specuvestors had an easy time scooping gains as home prices adjusted to the lower interest rates of 2001-2004.
4) Bush's "Ownership Society" http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/2002-bushs-speech-to-white-house.html
5) Effective deregulation of the mortgage market (suicide lending) and MBS market (misrated derivatives). The suicide lending was a continuation of the interest rate drops of 2001-2003, in that it allowed people to temporarily increase their buying power via teaser-rate / negative-amortization loans.

6) Increase of capital leverage and lessened SEC oversight of Wall Street http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?em

The housing bubble pushed trillions of dollars of debt onto millions of Americans. The epiphenomenon -- greed -- was non-partisan, but the causes were entirely driven by conservative/Republican "pro-business" laissez-faire ideology.

The democrats in government 2003-2006 did not cover themselves in glory in pointing out there was a bubble -- they were clearly as complicit as anyone else -- but the active mistakes were committed by Republicans that were in power, especially 2001-2006.

This was your show, own it, and don't try to bullshit people about it.

Both parties are responsible. The original post is a shot at Reaganomics.

"The jobs are being created in Texas. The reason is they are a pro-business, no income tax, low regulation, low business tax state."

Nevada also meets all of that criteria. They have 14% unemployment. Texas is simply benefiting from a natural gas boom. It has nothing to do with their taxes or regulations. In fact, when it comes to energy, all of the regulations are federal, so regardless fo where the compaies operate, their regulatory burden remains the same.

Truthplease says

Both parties are responsible. The original post is a shot at Reaganomics.

"Reagonomics" was simply borrow-and-spend. The national debt tripled from 1981 through 1989.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RO

This was continued in the household and business sector, where debt tripled too:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RN

The bottom line of this country is that our taxes are too low to pay for the government we have. Only one party voted to raise taxes in 1993, and the electorate in its infinite wisdom then booted them the next year.

What afflicts this nation isn't our politicians, it is us. And that's the Truth.

copy-paste zzz:

http://patrick.net/?p=817264#comment-744647

content-free conservative bullshit.

wormwood says

You ought to take a civics lesson there are 3 other branches of government.

Yes, there's Congress, the White House, the SCOTUS, and the Fed.

Republicans controlled the House 1995-2006, the Senate 1995-2001 and 2003-2006, and while Republicans lost the majority during 2001-2002 conservatives -- thanks to conservative Dems like Lieberman, Zell Miller -- still controlled the Senate during this time, as demonstrated by the 2002 Iraq war vote.

Greenspan, literally an Ayn Rand acolyte, along with 20 years of other Republican Fed appointees, controlled the Fed 1993-now.

1995-2006 was entirely a Republican show. Clinton could only oppose things by veto, which he did not do enough of, being a rather conservative person in the first place.

Try putting this on size. Government is too big.

I agree. Propose your cuts & I'll propose mine. But whatever isn't cut will have to be met with higher taxes eventually.

And don't kid yourself that cuts won't tear this country apart. They would, which is why there aren't any coming anytime soon.

They hired him, and laughed when he lampooned the president with racist commentary. They laughed when he made fun of Newt, saying that his consultants were
"dropping faster than Anthony Weiner's pants in an AOL chatroom."

However, when he focused his humor on Romney, Pawlenty, and Bachman, they ran out of humor.

They can dish it out, but they can't take it. They never should have hired this impersonator without reviewing all of his content. Doesn't matter whether they're lib or conservo, they're childish.

Yeah, the hook was pulled as he went after Bachman.

If he had roasted Palin a bit, he may not have made it out unscathed :)

tatupu70 says

I suggest you do some reading and learn about our ancestors. You might be surprised to learn that many of them were pretty self absorbed and entitled too.

An example of some of our not so illustrious ancestors...

John C Calhoun "Slavery is a Positive Good"

But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good - a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. . . .

http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10157.html

This just proves how stiff the rod is that sticks up a Republicon's backside. They can't laugh at themselves. No wonder why they're all such miserable fear mongers. If you can't laugh at yourself you have serious problems.

Troy says

Republicans were running the government 1995-2006. It was their policies that created and fed the bubble. Attempts to pin the disaster on Democrats is just partisan bullshit.

Troy says

1995-2006 was entirely a Republican show. Clinton could only oppose things by veto, which he did not do enough of, being a rather conservative person in the first place.

So the Republicans brought us the surplus of the late 90's? The Reagan and conservative policies were working until baby Bush came to power and started warmongering? Is this your position?

Really you want to know why Conservative comedians aren't more common?

Simple double standards. If Conservatives were to make jokes of their issues, it wouldn't be Politically Correct. And Libs like you would make issues out of every petty joke that was cracked, and the Liberal media would come down so hard, the ACLU would have to join in.

But it's OK to joke about conservative Whites, and their whole family, and if you are a cast member of Saturday night lie, you eviscerate a whole family, from a baby with down syndrome, to the teen daughter, you can even claim one sibling is the other's son.

Yeah Let's hear it for Gay jokes, Racial Jokes, the Liberal Hypocrisy, there's plenty of Comedy there, you Liberals would turn inside out, if the Conservatives were to set up comedy shop at the Liberal expense.

But you know, they don't have to, you Libs are fucking your selves.
People aren't stupid, they see the hypocrisy, where Liberals have no boundaries and nothing is sacred, even the President is cracking Jokes at America's expense. The Liberals are Ephing this country in the "A" and laughing all the way to the bank. Laugh it up funny Boy, it wont be so goddamn funny in November 2012, you're going to see how funny Saturday Night Live(which hasn't been funny in over 20 years) is.

Troy says

This country desperately needs a weaker dollar so we can get some exports going again.
Problem is we can’t afford the more expensive oil that comes with a weaker dollar.
Gold *should* be at least $2000 — that would give our wage labor a 30% comparative boost vs the ROW.
Failing that, we should just start erecting trade barriers against countries with large surpluses against us, relative to the size of the surplus.
Or we could go with a stronger dollar and see productive goods-producing employment continue to crater, and our capacity either going unused or exported to the cheap labor countries.
But these trade deficits are unsustainable. Something’s going to have to give here.

Actually the first problem we'd need to do is tackle is our budget deficits. The government is addicted to spending like drunken sailors, and therefore would not want to anger any of the foreigners supporting or debt habit. Once we get that out of the way, we can erect import duties and dump all our domestic subsidies.

Having said all of that I'd would ignore our merchandise trade deficit until we achieve energy independance.

ToT, usually people who get stoned are relaxed and in a good mood. They laugh easily even at themselves. You may want to question your dealer about his supply. Something isn't right.

This is a repeat of Colbert being invited to the Bush white house correspondent's dinner.

He started roasting sacred cows, they started squirming. They weren't going to repeat the other mistake with Colbert of letting him finish.

simchaland says

ToT, usually people who get stoned are relaxed and in a good mood. They laugh easily even at themselves. You may want to question your dealer about his supply. Something isn’t right.

What you never heard of Mean Green?

thunderlips11 says

I don’t get it. Mississippi and Arkansas have among the lowest taxes, lowest wages, and the weakest business regulations in the nation.
How come all the Fortune 500 companies aren’t relocating there?

Maybe they have figured out that tornadoes are attracted to trailer parks and plastic pink flamingos on the lawn.

shrekgrinch says

And ALL currency pairs are compared to the dollar exchanges, because why should anyone pay more for a currency pair trade than the traditional dollar one?

BS go learn how forex works.

Truthplease says

Reagan kicked some ass! He brought down the USSR.

yeah, right, and Gore invented Internet.

article came out a few days ago that apple has enough cash to buy all the makers of mobile devices except for samsung.

michaelsch says

Truthplease says

Reagan kicked some ass! He brought down the USSR.

yeah, right, and Gore invented Internet.

You can't argue that Reagan's strategy brought down the USSR. It was an obvious success. Reaganomics however... probably assumed that businessmen cared more about the people in this country than their profits.

The Soviet Union fell because it had an economic system that could not be sustained.

Correct, Reagan's strategy worked.

The Soviet Union fell because it had an economic system that could not be sustained.

Correct, Reagan's strategy worked.

Giving credit to someone acting like an arrogant bully is absurd.

Incorrect, the man wasn't arrogant. If he was arragont we would have deployed our fully military might into Lebanon.

You obviously are anti-Reagan because this fact is a slow pitch softball.

1950's Korean war U.S. 36K deaths (wiki), created a split nation.
1960's early 70's Vietnam war U.S. 58K (wiki), deaths for what purpose?
1980's Cold War with no open engagement or open warfare. Defeat of a communist regime; priceless!

You can "win" a knife fight if you live a little longer than the other guy. BFD!