RaspberryCheeseBlintz
RaspberryCheeseBlintz
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 38
October 16th, 2012 at 10:04:41 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

He won the Cold War, dind't he? Along with help from Thatcher's GB, and not least from the Polish Solidarity Union. One thing that helped was the Reagan fought it in moral terms, not just political ones.



See the economic growth and rising living standards in his two terms.



I dind't say he was perfect. But consider he labored under mostly Democratic-controlled Congress. And it's the latter that ultimately controls the purse-strings. Obama had a Democratic Cnogress in his first two years, and managed to do even worse: bigger deficits, bigger debt, lower economic growth. Clinton began trying to spend big, but got stopped. First by a GOP filibuster, then by a GOP controlled Congress.

Not that the GOP is fiscally responsible. Oh, not in the elast. Under W. Bush with a GOP Congress for 6 out of 8 years, spanding went through the roof. It's that dreaded Deficit Attention Disorder I brought up before: the GOP is obssesed with the deficit only when it's out of power.



Won the Cold War? He did no such thing. The Cold War was a fantasy built by people who made money on...the Cold War.

Reagan welcomed the proto-Taliban into the White House, calling them "Freedom Fighters". He gave vast amounts of money and arms and encouragement to what would become a movement of islamic fanatics that plagues us to this day. While calling Iran a "terror regime", and piously stating that he'd never negotiate with terrorists...he did exactly that. He prosecuted his own horrible terror war in Nicaragua, and abetted murderous right-wing thugs in El Salvador. He foolishly put 200+ marines in harms way, and then pulled the trigger on their doom by ordering the shelling of numerous Lebanese civilians leading to the bombing of said marines. He tossed vast sums into space on foolish projects like Star Wars and the useless ISS (promised cost: $8 billion. Actual: $100+ billion and counting).

Worst of all, he championed the corruption of the modern GOP by getting in bed with people who think the world is 6,000 years old, and feel evolution is a satanic plot.

We won't even get into his vast expansion of the disastrous Drug War, and the massive increase in our prison population (a statistic where we are truly #1).

He was a terrible president, and we suffer from his multiple disasters to this very day.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10373
October 16th, 2012 at 10:07:10 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

The CO professors who haven't been wrong ever,
since 1980, and predicted a Romney win in the
electoral college, have now predicted Romney
has a 77% liklihood of getting the majority of
popular votes as well. They use different models
for each prediction. http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435



Is 8 correct predictions in row between 2 choices that impressive? (well, it's not always two choices, but basically it's calling a coin flip for the most part)

I wouldn't risk any money in Vegas on a system with 8 wins of anything, even if it never lost yet.

At any rate, I'd like to see their model prediction break this time
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15039
October 16th, 2012 at 10:12:04 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, but careers take turns here and there. And there are many fields where there is steady demand. From truck drivers to welders. Machinists to nurses. They are out there.



I agree, but the market for a certain career can still become flooded.


Quote:

Sorry, people have been relocating to find work in the USA since the first colonies have been founded. Not sure if your friend lives near WVU, but Morgantown is not the most booming place out there. If you want to rise in the hospitality industry, you must be mobile.



He wants to teach, he coaches Middle School Football and H.S. Basketball right now. He just night audits because he has to do something, and it works with his schedule.


Quote:

Make full-time mandatory? What do you want to do, destroy business creation? What about the business that needs a person only for the few busy hours a day? What about the person who does not even want full time? (there are many.) What on earth does "wage equality" mean? No offense, but do you realize how unworkable what you are saying is?



That's why I said there would be holes. There would obviously be certain parameters based on business needs. Obviously, if you only have a small handful of employees, then it's different, but if you take something like a grocery store that staffs with a bunch of part-timers to duck giving FT benefits, that's a different matter. The people who want part-time are different, an individual can work only part-time if his/her household is Economically viable to the extent that they survive without welfare. If they work PT and depend on welfare, that will not be permitted.

Wage equality simply means less disparity.


Quote:

Sorry, we have Monster, CareerBuilder, Jobbing, LinkedIn, and dozens of others that do it better and without taxpayer funding. Listings at the Unemployment Bureau are fine, I found my favorite job ever via one, but the mere idea of even *saying" "the government will find you work" is a bit USSR.



Yes. Here's a job. We found it. Work or you will be off of the welfare program, those are your choices.


Quote:

SOCIALISM! No thanks, I do not want my taxes going to subsidize wages. Let a new business start up who can pay better.



It's unknown to me whether or not you would even pay taxes, in my scenario.

Quote:

Many holes to poke. Sorry, but I prefer an economy where government control is minimized and thus growth is robust. What you are suggesting is a mixture of Marxism, Fascism, and Socialism.



You can have Economic growth with Government Micro-Management of the workforce. You'd also cut spending in many other areas, prisons are a good one. For example, you expand the death penalty to include any offense involving a firearm (such as armed robbery), physically provable rape, physically provable child molestation and attempted murder, at a minimum. Bullets are cheaper than cells. Prisoners cannot produce, and why have them cleaning the highways when the Government could pay a free person (even less, ultimately, since they will not need armed supervision) to do it?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12545
October 16th, 2012 at 10:32:03 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I agree, but the market for a certain career can still become flooded.



Then you move into other work. The average person has what, 6 carrers in a lifetime now?

Quote:

He wants to teach, he coaches Middle School Football and H.S. Basketball right now. He just night audits because he has to do something, and it works with his schedule.



He should move. When I was in AZ they were always looking for good teachers. Teaching jobs in the norheast are harder to get than most places as far as I have noticed.

Quote:

That's why I said there would be holes. There would obviously be certain parameters based on business needs. Obviously, if you only have a small handful of employees, then it's different, but if you take something like a grocery store that staffs with a bunch of part-timers to duck giving FT benefits, that's a different matter. The people who want part-time are different, an individual can work only part-time if his/her household is Economically viable to the extent that they survive without welfare. If they work PT and depend on welfare, that will not be permitted.



Again, why should you have to be "permitted" a certain employer/employee relationship? If a grocery store wants to employ PT to "duck giving benefits" that is their business. One of a few things can happen. There may be a suprlus of labor in the area, in which case they will be able to staff. There may be a shortage of labor, meaning they will need to offer FT to more workers. They may get a lower-level of employee with only offering PT, or they may not. No matter what, it is their choice as a business to do it however they want. As it should be.

Quote:

Wage equality simply means less disparity.



Based on what? Wages are based on skill. I make more than the kid at the grocery store both because I deliver more value to my employer and I can do his job but he cannot do mine. A doctor makes more than me for the same reasons. Why is wage disparity a bad thing in this case? If there was less disparity then there is less motivation to improve yourself. Why go to college if you can make almost as much at the grocery store? Why learn a trade, taking years to go from apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman if you can make near as much as unskilled labor?

Sorry, wage disparity is not a bad thing, unmotivated people thinking they have a "right" to a living wage is.



Quote:

You can have Economic growth with Government Micro-Management of the workforce. You'd also cut spending in many other areas, prisons are a good one. For example, you expand the death penalty to include any offense involving a firearm (such as armed robbery), physically provable rape, physically provable child molestation and attempted murder, at a minimum. Bullets are cheaper than cells. Prisoners cannot produce, and why have them cleaning the highways when the Government could pay a free person (even less, ultimately, since they will not need armed supervision) to do it?



History shows otherwise. The more government manages the private sector, the more inefficient and distorted it gets.

Why have a prisoner clean highways instead of a free person?

Prisoner: $.25/hour
Free Person" $10+ per hour, and they still need supervision even if not armed.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
October 16th, 2012 at 10:37:33 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Is 8 correct predictions in row between 2 choices that impressive?



Its certainly not unimpressive. Its spanned a period
of 32 years, you act like it spans a period of two weeks.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10373
October 16th, 2012 at 11:02:01 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Its certainly not unempressive. Its spanned a period
of 32 years, you act like it spans a period of two weeks.



Yeah, but chance alone you average 4 correct out of 8. I don' see how years matter, just the number of predictions made. 8000 correct predictions of something is impressive. 8, not so much.

I'm not taking anything away from them; they may be the best model for this sort of thing out there.
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
October 16th, 2012 at 11:08:25 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Yeah, but chance alone you average 4 correct out of 8. I don' see how years matter,



I guess we'll see in 3 weeks. My money is on the
college brainiacs. There's always hope, though.
Maybe Romney will strangle a live puppy on
national TV or something. Obama could do that
and his fan's wouldn't care at all. Their KoolAid
is the strong stuff..
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Scotty71
Scotty71
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
October 17th, 2012 at 12:24:22 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



In this event, you can provide a wage that is at least a good living wage if you have two people in the household working, you'd base the wage for one on the current average cost of living, by State.



The two income family is the worst thing that has happened to America. 100% household employment is what we should strive for. This is where the "rich" need to be "taxed" if you will AND this is where health insurance/HC reform will do the most good. I will start a thread for this topic because it is too much to expand on here.

HUD currently subsidizes housing to almost no rent to accomplish exactly this right. What needs to change? My widowed mother ran a HUD housing unit in a small town for years. Its one of the poorest county in the midwest and wages are low, so depending on # kids rent was anywhere from $8- $180 a month with utilities included and in and at most HUD complexes cable TV is a utility or at least an inalienable right.

I'm sorry but I often work 70-90 hours a week, why should I subsidize any wage especially if they aren't working my hours and taking my risks. We have safety nets to prevent starvation so WTF is a good living wage anyway? Is it acquiring goods, that's mainly what people want regardless of what they tell you. They want stuff because that's what people in America value!

Quote: Mission146



1.) The Government will find you work as soon as possible in a period of unemployment via a Government supported job listing site. That one lists oneself on the job site is mandatory if one is unemployed and receiving welfare. If you refuse, you lose, as in you're cut from the program.



I like this idea but you have to juice job creation and hiring to even need a job board. If you cut the bennies for non compliance does that include no housing benni's like hud or section 8? As far as the job site goes the Govt doesn't usually compete with private industry (Monster, jobs.com). Is the govt going to screen applicants better? What about the people who get fired at jobsites and newspapers because the government undercut their industry?

Quote: Mission146


2.) Social works. If you're not working, and are on welfare, then you are required, for each individual, to volunteer 40 hours per week accomplishing some sort of Social Good. It could be picking up highways, organizing donations, working on humanitarian efforts for other countries, helping organize donations to troops if we have troops abroad, the list goes on.



Hell yeah! I love this but you will be accused of slavery and this is so hard to enforce regionally but you are on the right track. I would goes as far as to phase out lowest level govt jobs and transition unemployed welfare recipients in. All of this works well in urban areas but there is more poverty than you can imagine in rural America and less access to transportation to complete these service projects. You have to be careful that you dont grow govt in this dept so you turn this over to the Red Cross' and Habitat's of the world.

Quote: Mission146



3.) Mandatory drug testing. If you are on welfare, you will be required to be subjected to random drug screening (at home) and there will also be a mandatory test once every six months during the time you are on welfare. If you are new to welfare, you must immediately submit to drug testing, that will dissuade even those who are not on welfare from doing drugs...just in case. In the event that a would-be welfare recipient tests positive, he has thirty days to submit a test, at his own expense, proving that he is clean. In the event he is unable to do so, or an active recipient fails the screening, they are cut off.[q/]

What about the alcoholics, they are a bigger problem I bet. You know some are on disability for alcoholism right? Please tell me you would boot them off disability and put em on short term welfare. I say no money no drinky.

Quote: Mission146



4.) Wage Subsidization. If there comes a time when, given the wage increase, businesses can conclusively prove that it is simply too much (and are willing to open the books to an auditor), then the business may have wages subsidized on a sliding scale for up to one calendar year by which the Government will determine how much relief a business needs and pay the difference.



You lose me here. Dont over complicate and just make it a tax credit I think... In your model as an biz owner can I opt out and close up shop?... lay people off? Dangerous ground here unless I'm missing something.
I run a private investment company, is the gov't going to tell me how much money I need to lose before I can lay people off or cut their wages? I need clarification. is this small biz temporary welfare... who audits and decides what is a fair margin?

BTW just to get very specific I pay my admin 56k a year+401k match+14 days vacation+12 sick days+disability insurance+employment taxes...is that a good wage? Next year after her wages are paid I should clear over 300k lets say... I'm not looking for ways to pay her less because she is very good... but in 2015 if things go bad and I only clear 200k do I deny her her her normal 3%-5% COLA(union lovers say no) & at what point am I justified to reduce her pay by 30% if ever. Whats my fair wage given the fact that I took the risk of starting my own company (quit a job), burned a shitload of capital (all of my savings and most investments) and flirted with 7 figure lawsuits( over non competes) to get it going? Can I get the govt (Dems) to guarantee she doesn't take a better job and leave me in the lurch...hell no. Great wages & job security for the serfs w/out loyalty to the King....that NEVER has worked. Its my risk to keep talent but you have to understand that in the private sector investors are bearing the risk and you want to potentially tax them more for zero incremental reward. When you gamble do you want to just break even or do you want a payoff for putting your money at risk, Its like paying 3:2 on the 4&10... you might make some money but the downside risk doesnt necessarily warrant the bet.

Farm subsidies you forgot to mention- I would want to support small farms more and cargill a lot less, but the smaller need to act bigger via cooperatives- End subsidies completely and fund loans to seed farming cooperatives with via community banks. You have to have a strategy for jobs in rural America too!

Stay tuned for health care...
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." E.E. Cummings
Scotty71
Scotty71
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
October 17th, 2012 at 1:20:49 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



5.) Universal Health Care-Denmark Model. Health Care Costs are ridiculous, and you have these pharmaceutical companies fronting the insurance companies ridiculous three-figure amounts for a certain prescription that they sell for pennies on the dollar...and yet still at a small profit...in other countries. [q/]

I can live with UHC...but again you are dictating profits. Companies will charge what the market will bear, its very simple. The drugs and equipment they sell overseas aren't necessarily manufactured in an FDA compliant (very expensive) facility in the US either. America doest get to pay Africa prices because revenue has to come from somewhere unless you want to put Pfizer and Merk out of biz. You could shift the most expensive R&D to universities but again that is meddling and will cost jobs and the government cannot allocate capital a fraction as well as a profit driven entity. Dont forget the Healthcare sector is 17% of the S&P 500 and if you crush the pharma companies the pensions and mutual funds (in your 401k too) will get crushed along with the overpaid executives you likely think are the problem. Rev growth will be purely secular & you will remove most of the profit motive that funds future projects. Investments are my area and in addition to stocks I invest in private health care companies and clinical startup biotech too so I am sensitive to this area. I (we) have over 7.2 million directly invested in startups in the following areas (stem cell production for diabetes and cancer research, wound care management technology, medical records efficiency and drug delivery/efficacy). These investment if all the stars align could pay off 200x... is that too much, what is a fair return on my capital when we can lose our entire investment. Investment decisions are driven by competing projects (other projects). If HC doesn't pay off anymore the investment $$ chasing returns will go where its treated best.

Money always goes where it is treated best, casino's & governments notwithstanding.

St Jude Medical for example makes heart valves, pacemakers etc... they spent 704MM on R&D last year, greater than 10% of their revenues...what kind on long term return can the expect on that money. If their Implantable defibrillators (about 40k) work fine now what incentive exists to make a better one that saves more lives. Make them reduce prices by 15%..... Do they comfortably have 700MM a year now to invest in R&D when rev goes from 5.5BB to 4.6BB but their EBITDA goes from 1.2BB to 600MM?

when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." E.E. Cummings
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
October 17th, 2012 at 7:18:23 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

1.) You may be right, but anything can happen in the world of business, and God bless those who do go into business. We have jobs that would not otherwise exist for those people being in-business, and they take risks that other people are either unable or unwilling (is there a mirror nearby for me to gaze into?) to take. They are to be both saluted and respected as pillars of our community. Another thing, regardless of what Obama says, YES, they built that.

2.) I agree with your perspective, but these policies need not come at the expense of the low-level worker who is then branded a social outcast and pariah for either being a low-level worker or on welfare. These are people who may well have been dedicated and loyal employees who understood that the business could not afford to pay them more, but stuck around because they respected the small business owner and were otherwise treated well.

Here's the thing, we get into something like Social Security and they get a cost-of-living increase indexed by an inflational measurement that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I believe they came up with either 1.6% or 1.8% today. I'm going to look at average gas costs and I'm getting nearly 8% over last year. We're going to be looking at 2.5-3% on food prices. That's where most of this money goes!

I'm not saying that we are able to adjust accordingly right now, but what I am wondering about is why we don't adjust the wages for minimum wage according to even the poor inflation metric. You're talking about people who are, at a minimum, at least contributing to the Social Security fund, and they also have to use gas to get to work in the majority of cases.

The other thing is that businesses can't be left to do this completely by themselves. This was proven in the Industrial Revolution when you are talking about having horrendously unsafe working conditions, child labour, obscene working hours...especially for physical jobs...no safety nets for someone permanently severely injured and unable to work, just that person's bad luck.

I'm not saying that all of the companies would rape the employees, I've talked to you enough to know that you are a good human being who would not do that, but some of them would, no question about it. No minimum wage? Well, $2.00/hour is better than $0.00/hour, so yeah, they'd find enough people desperately hungry enough to staff, it'd be inhumane, but sure.

I readily admit it works the opposite way with the Unions. They're horrible, especially since over 50% of them are supposedly civil service positions. I don't mind taking a hit if it's necessary, if our revenues return to 2008 levels, then I probably need to return to my 2008 salary.



A lot of points, and a busy day- so to quickly comment:
1. I certainly don't, and would imagine that most people don't agree any "low level" worker is a pariah or social outcast! If you contribute, you're all right in my book!
2. I think many organizations realize that paying the lowest possible wage isn't in their best interest. I don't think McDonald's does that most of the time. I do feel businesses, especially smaller ones, sometimes need the flexibility to do what they need to do.

Anyway, need to get back to it- I appreciate the different perspectives!
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.

  • Jump to: