frankj1
13 years ago

I've always subscribed to Trickle Down Economics. Not any more.

The top 2% is paying a lower rate than they did previously. So the rich have the extra money. Which they are reinvesting in the econmoy by hiring more people. THAT is why the unemployment rate is so low and everyone that wants a job, has one.

8trackdisco wrote:


No sarcasm alert required.
You seem to be going through some changes, and your comment above raises a question for me. So I'd like your opinion as you seem to have been listening to more than just dogma from either party...

we all know that many corporations have amassed record high accumulations of profits, but are not spending nor hiring. Why? I don't think it's as simple as waiting until after the election.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Definitely.
We should kill half of all babies born today (and tomorrow, etc). Do we just kill the 50% (or are we using 47%? I'm kinda confused on this... but heck, what's 3% among friends) from the lowest incomes? Or are we killing whatever percentage are from the higher incomes, but not paying taxes, as well as the remaining percentage from lower incomes?

victor809 wrote:



Even Right To Life people would go Pro-Choice if 90% of the aborted babies were full blooded Democrat fetuses.

Is there an app for that?
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Just end all forms of Welfare support for everyone but the TRULY needy. Eliminate the comfortable and profitable option to spawn yet more dependents in exchange for even more freebies. Eliminate the option to spend an entire life not working and not contributing to anything but the local McDonalds franchises and future episodes of COPS.

And oh yeah, my favorite...no vote while you're on the dole. Let's see how many truly compassionate liberals there are left in government after they realize they can no longer pander to that particular bloc by handing out entitlements in exchange for votes.

DadZilla3 wrote:



This country is well too far down the drain to get back there. The dirty deals where the rich got a tax break and another welfare case got another handout, hundreds of time over have destroyed not only the middle class, but any chance of getting anything back from either side.

Take away tax breaks from the rich? They'll take their money-ball and go home.

Try to get the deadbeat trash of all colors to get off the government teat is impossible. Hell, we are taking in illegals that aren't even citizens, and giving them food, drivers licenses, amnesty and paths toward citizenship.

If our founding fathers would have seen the cesspool of greed and sloth coming, they would have probably stayed in Europe.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

we all know that many corporations have amassed record high accumulations of profits, but are not spending nor hiring. Why? I don't think it's as simple as waiting until after the election.

frankj1 wrote:



It is half of that.

Individual state governments, under the guise of helping their citizens, are continually passing new laws that are not friendly to the private sector or corporations. Florida is a great example where the state went crazy with laws limiting increases in home owners insurance, and mandated specific coverages for car insurance around the same time.

The end result on the homeowners side, was many companies left the state. The financial risk outweighed any potential profits. The end result; fewer choices as some take their financial ball and go home, while the rest of the remaining companies charge the highest premiums allowed by the state (under new restricted laws) and plot exit strategies.

I do know of at least one company that is holding off on a 10% expansion all pending the election result. If Obama wins, that planned expansion will be scrapped. The monies that are currently held in reserve for that expansion is expected to be then paid out instead toward additional healthcare insurance costs, and any other social engineering ideas from Washington DC and new taxes not even dreamed of yet.

Presidents on a second term are scarier that Charlie Sheen on Crack with a Ferrari and a fully loaded AR-15. If the Dems hold the white house and both the house and senate, it will have a paralyzing affect on the economy. Another 1/4 of small business will be taxed out of the economy, while the corps work to weather the storm.

To use a football analogy, the corps are going into the Prevent defense, knowing they'll lose ground and then will do anything just short of armed conflict to win in 2016.
8trackdisco
13 years ago
"...we all know that many corporations have amassed record high accumulations of profits.."

I don't agree with that generalization. All of the fat (in non-union shops) have been chopped away, along with some muscle. The manager to worker ratio over the last three years has gone from 1-12 to 1-18. The stresses brought on by that are considerable. It isn't record profits, it is squeezing the juice out of every available resource.

There isn't much of anything left.
HockeyDad
13 years ago

we all know that many corporations have amassed record high accumulations of profits, but are not spending nor hiring. Why? I don't think it's as simple as waiting until after the election.

frankj1 wrote:




You can't figure out why businesses aren't spending like drunk sailors.....really?

How about 4 years of stagnant economy?
How about increased costs from Obamacare?
How about the recent actions at the Federal Reserve?
How about the looming double-dip recession?
How about the threat of new taxation?
How about the USA-Iran war and its affect on the global economy?
How about a new regional Middle East War?
How about economic issues in Europe due to debt crisis conflagration?



The better question is why would they be spending.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

You can't figure out why businesses aren't spending like drunk sailors.....really?

How about 4 years of stagnant economy?
How about increased costs from Obamacare?
How about the recent actions at the Federal Reserve?
How about the looming double-dip recession?
How about the threat of new taxation?
How about the USA-Iran war and its affect on the global economy?
How about a new regional Middle East War?
How about economic issues in Europe due to debt crisis conflagration?



The better question is why would they be spending.

HockeyDad wrote:



You forgot high transportation and energy costs.
dpnewell
13 years ago
I agree with 8track and HD in the above posts about Obama's and other government policies killing business. You may have read my story in another thread about my Awning & Canopy Co. that is barely hanging on (thanks to my taking a 60% pay cut over the past 3 years). That's only part of the story.

I used to also do replacement windows, doors, etc. Right after Obama took office, he had the EPA enforce a lead paint mandate. If you do any work in a house built prior to 1977 that disturbs paint (replace windows, remodel, remove a piece of molding, perform any painting, etc.), you are required to be trained and licensed by the EPA. You must use hazmat suits, and approved respirators while doing the work. The entire work area must be sealed in plastic. Warning signs must be displayed in the work area, and the yard to warn neighbors. When done, the whole area must be cleaned with an approved HEPA vacuum, and the contents, suits, etc., must be disposed of as hazardous waste. If followed, it would double or triple the cost to do any work on your pre 1977 home. If caught not following the mandate, companies face a $10,000 fine per incident. A few companies have complied, and found they have priced themselves out of the market or can no longer compete. Some ignore the mandate, hoping not to get caught. Others like me, stopped doing this kind of work. I could do everything they want, and screw up in one area, and bam, a $10,000 fine. Not worth the risk.
DrafterX
13 years ago
That Bassard..!! 😠
pdxstogieman
13 years ago

I agree with 8track and HD in the above posts about Obama's and other government policies killing business. You may have read my story in another thread about my Awning & Canopy Co. that is barely hanging on (thanks to my taking a 60% pay cut over the past 3 years). That's only part of the story.

I used to also do replacement windows, doors, etc. Right after Obama took office, he had the EPA enforce a lead paint mandate. If you do any work in a house built prior to 1977 that disturbs paint (replace windows, remodel, remove a piece of molding, perform any painting, etc.), you are required to be trained and licensed by the EPA. You must use hazmat suits, and approved respirators while doing the work. The entire work area must be sealed in plastic. Warning signs must be displayed in the work area, and the yard to warn neighbors. When done, the whole area must be cleaned with an approved HEPA vacuum, and the contents, suits, etc., must be disposed of as hazardous waste. If followed, it would double or triple the cost to do any work on your pre 1977 home. If caught not following the mandate, companies face a $10,000 fine per incident. A few companies have complied, and found they have priced themselves out of the market or can no longer compete. Some ignore the mandate, hoping not to get caught. Others like me, stopped doing this kind of work. I could do everything they want, and screw up in one area, and bam, a $10,000 fine. Not worth the risk.

dpnewell wrote:


pdxstogieman
13 years ago
Entepreneurs should be allowed free reign to subject their employees and clients to whatever lead, asbestos, or other toxic substance residues as necessary to promote a profitable enterprise. If we exercised that common sense we'd be ultra competitive with China, except for their currency manipulation, dumping, and use of prison labor, but I'm sure not being hindered by nuisance regulations aimed at not exposing people to proven carcinogens for a buck would close the gap.
DrafterX
13 years ago
I removed a bunch of asbestos against my better judgement back in the mid 80s... was a 3 story building in Norman and the owner and my boss decided they didn't want to pay to have it removed the right way so he made me and another dude do it... didn't really have a choice and didn't even get a steak dinner for it.... I'm sure my boss got a nice bonus tho... 🤐 🤐 🤐
dpnewell
13 years ago
I just looked up the regulation mentioned in #108. I was off a little bit. Homes pre '78 not '77, and the fine is $11,000, not $10,000. 50 pages of detailed procedures that must be followed to the "t". Even includes things like replacing carpet or installing window coverings (as you're running a screw through a painted surface).

When's the last time you saw a carpet installer wearing a hazmat suit, putting up warning signs, and sealing the room in plastic? Well according to the EPA, if your house was built prior to '78, he's suppose to be doing these things, or face a possible $11k fine.
dpnewell
13 years ago

Entepreneurs should be allowed free reign to subject their employees and clients to whatever lead, asbestos, or other toxic substance residues as necessary to promote a profitable enterprise. If we exercised that common sense we'd be ultra competitive with China, except for their currency manipulation, dumping, and use of prison labor, but I'm sure not being hindered by nuisance regulations aimed at not exposing people to proven carcinogens for a buck would close the gap.

pdxstogieman wrote:



I replaced windows for 30 years and I have no elevated lead levels whatsoever (I've been tested). If pre '78 paint is so blasted deadly, then all these homes should be condemed, but government has no problem allowing the home owner to live with this paint and disturb it at will (home owners are exempt), just contractors.
pdxstogieman
13 years ago

I removed a bunch of asbestos against my better judgement back in the mid 80s... was a 3 story building in Norman and the owner and my boss decided they didn't want to pay to have it removed the right way so he made me and another dude do it... didn't really have a choice and didn't even get a steak dinner for it.... I'm sure my boss got a nice bonus tho... 🤐 🤐 🤐

DrafterX wrote:



If you're lucky, your bonus will be a a mess o' thelioma.
wheelrite
13 years ago

Entepreneurs should be allowed free reign to subject their employees and clients to whatever lead, asbestos, or other toxic substance residues as necessary to promote a profitable enterprise. If we exercised that common sense we'd be ultra competitive with China, except for their currency manipulation, dumping, and use of prison labor, but I'm sure not being hindered by nuisance regulations aimed at not exposing people to proven carcinogens for a buck would close the gap.

pdxstogieman wrote:



you are a moron,,,
frankj1
13 years ago

You can't figure out why businesses aren't spending like drunk sailors.....really?

How about 4 years of stagnant economy?
How about increased costs from Obamacare?
How about the recent actions at the Federal Reserve?
How about the looming double-dip recession?
How about the threat of new taxation?
How about the USA-Iran war and its affect on the global economy?
How about a new regional Middle East War?
How about economic issues in Europe due to debt crisis conflagration?



The better question is why would they be spending.

HockeyDad wrote:


my question was asking the opinion of one who seems not totally locked in to the dogma of either side, and did not suggest they should spend like drunken sailors...rather why are they not spending AND not hiring despite record profits.

So you have brought up a couple more questions,
1) how does one make record profits during 4 years of stagnant economy, seems oxmoronic, and
2) how much does them not hiring increase and perpetuate the slowdown as it relates to consumers' spending?
DrafterX
13 years ago

If you're lucky, your bonus will be a a mess o' thelioma.

pdxstogieman wrote:



That would be better than the methafeelahomo... meth kills... 😟
ZRX1200
13 years ago
You're a moron.
HockeyDad
13 years ago

my question was asking the opinion of one who seems not totally locked in to the dogma of either side, and did not suggest they should spend like drunken sailors...rather why are they not spending AND not hiring despite record profits.

So you have brought up a couple more questions,
1) how does one make record profits during 4 years of stagnant economy, seems oxmoronic, and
2) how much does them not hiring increase and perpetuate the slowdown as it relates to consumers' spending?

frankj1 wrote:




First you need to establish if record profits have been made during 4 years of stagnant economy. I think that may be slightly media exaggerated but profits have still been made.

#1 Here is how:

A. You staffing was based on x% growth over a certain number of years.
B. Economy slows, slash staffing to as lean as possible since now the forecast is 0 to negative growth.
C. Decreased operating costs > decreased profit from sales reduction
D. Decent profit even during a downturn

Remember, when 20% are unemployed or underemployed, 80% are still employed and can buy your products.

#2 Not hiring surely perpetuates the lake of recovery (not the slowdown) related to consumer spending if the business targets consumer spending. Keep in mind the role of government spending and the government sector in today's economy. For businesses to spend on expansion (material or employees) they need to place a bet on overall economic expansion so they are not wasting their money. Put yourself in their shoes, are you ready to lay out big capital on expansion right now? Has the government done anything to encourage you to lay out big capital on expansion? Are you seeing things in the economy that make you say "I need to go start a business right now!"

Consumer spending really is no different than business spending. Are you seeing anything that makes you want to run out a buy a house, a car, take a vacation? Of course the answer is "yes" to these things to Le HockeyDad because I am under the Obama Cone of Protection.
Users browsing this topic