MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well, since you C&P'd the same bullshit, I'll repost the same response I gave to it the first time.
You should post it again, I like the opportunity to expose your stupidity on the cheap.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Well, since you C&P'd the same bullshit, I'll repost the same response I gave to it the first time.
You should post it again, I like the opportunity to expose your stupidity on the cheap.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
The federal government doesn't pay the Fed interest. All of the Fed's profits are returned to the treasury (after the fixed dividend on banks' contributed capital).
Central banks have enabled more prosperity and more innovation at a faster clip than ever before seen in human history; they have elevated billions from miserable poverty to comfortable lives. Inflation is irrelevant because wages have kept pace with it; there is no taking of wealth through inflation unless people are dumb enough to save cash instead of buying investments.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Word.....those people also employ us....more they pay in taxes the less they can hire.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Cool, thanks for clearing that up, so we are operating at a surplus then and everything is awesome. Wages have kept up with inflation which is why it takes 2 full time working parents to run a household now instead of one in, let's say the 50's.
Bro you're way off....minimum wage in 1955 was a dollar.....a real silver dollar, that is worth $23.29 right now. The minimum wage is more than $23.29 now? Explain that.
You really are distorting history. You seem to be implying that the 1993 bill was responsible for the economic recovery, even though the economy had already begun recovering before Clinton came into office. The economic recovery and the explosive growth of the 1990s was driven by technological innovation, not very slight modifications to government policies.
Obviously it's undeniable that Clinton was an entirely different man after 1994. What he did well throughout his career was learn from defeat, and that midterm helped Clinton to realize the mood of the country, which was anti-government and anti-regulation. He dropped a lot of his original crap in favor of Republican ideas, cognizant of the fact that he had to work with the Republican Congress. There was bitter bickering and all kinds of ridiculous positioning on both sides, as there always is, but ultimately Clinton stood for smaller government and less regulation just as his Republican colleagues did.
Obama is not close to being the man Clinton was. The latter understood the game--the importance of negotiation, compromise, and political framing--whereas the former tried to ignore Congress for much of his first term. That was at Obama's peril, and I'm sad to say it doesn't appear that he actually learned anything from his mistakes.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're forgetting that it's the GOP who spends like drunken sailors, and the democrats who clean up their messes.
other than having it completely backwards, you were almost fairly close.
but not quite.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you have got to be the dumbest motherfucker in the history of dumb motherfuckers.
businesses don't hire based on tax rates, they hire based on demand.
the fact that you even tried to trot out that idiotic GOP talking point among us is insulting.
the greatest insult is the insult it makes to your intelligence though.
The minimum wage in 1955 was 75 cents. In 1955, an ounce of silver was worth $1.29 in 1955 dollars. Could you trade your silver dollar for $1.29 in 1955? Nope--it was worth $1. The real value of a 1955 dollar in 2013 is $6.51; the minimum wage in 2013 is $7.25. The minimum wage obviously has beaten inflation. Of course, silver certainly wouldn't offer you stability. In 1980, the price was $20 an ounce; in 2000, it was $5 an ounce. A couple years ago it was above $40, and now it's below $25.
On needing 2 full time working parents to maintain a household: that's really a matter of how we live. How big was the average house in 1955? Almost half the size of a house today. Did the 1955 house have air conditioning and a full suite of appliances? How many cars did the average household have? How much did the average household pay each year for computers, smartphones, and internet access? How often did the average family buy and cook their own food versus dining out? How much did the average household spend on clothes, shoes, and handbags? The reality is that the average American in the 1950s was content (or forced, since much of the stuff wasn't available) to have far less than the average American today. When you want more, you have to pay more.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
PWNT.
it only took me about two strokes to nut on that succinct destruction of his bletherskyte.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Well there you go, you called me a dumb mother fucker which requires me to respond in kind.
What do you know about businesses and how they operate? Let's say I have a landscaping business, ya know I cut grass. I have some referrals from my current accounts that I don't have time to do as my schedule is quite full. I need to hire someone, maybe a few. Are you saying that if I had, say a 5 to $10k per year tax break I would not at least hire a part timer? Businesses hire based on demand if their overhead permits. Taxes are part of overhead.
Besides that you are a hypocrite based on what you are saying about this subject and what you post on other threads....on another thread you brag about paying for everything is cash....it's not hard to deduce that you operate on the black market swallowing large amounts of human sperm and are paid quite well for it. Which means that your business is tax free, free market, Austrian Economics, Libertarian, Founding Fathers, Conservative or wtf ever you want to call it. I call it the very thing your talking shit about right now all the while reaping the benefits of it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Fail. Our coins were silver till 1964 and people could cash their paychecks and get them. Silver was worth then, what it is now in real terms and what it had the power to purchase.
When you need $x profit to live the life you have and make any debt payments you owe, higher tax rates might certainly affect hiring decisions. If you have $50,000 you don't need, you might be more willing to hire an extra worker versus if you don't have that $50,000 and had to pay it to the government instead.
Most businesses are small businesses taxed at personal income tax rates. These people are generally sitting on paper wealth, not stacks of cash, so changes in tax rates have very real impacts on their business planning.
I think demand for minimum wage labor is relatively fixed, but I question that statement for everything else. The value proposition in hiring is far more uncertain than you suggest ("10 workers at $25,000 a year = $1 million in revenue"). Taking the risk is a necessary step, and when you discourage people from taking it, they're less likely to do so.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Fail on the averages.....you're the one averaging everything out not me....when you say inflation has kept up with wages you averaged everything out right there......my post was based on all that average shit you just said already implied.....peace I got some work to do.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what did i just say?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you NLXSK's sock?
You got silver coins that were valued at face value, not based on the price of silver. You couldn't trade your silver coins in for their silver content and then sell it; you couldn't melt the coins down yourself and extract the silver either. Likewise, you couldn't insist on getting more for your $1 silver coin from a merchant than you could get for a $1 Federal Reserve Note. $1 was worth $1 regardless of the value of the silver content in the coin. The real value of $1 in 1955 is approximately the same as minimum wage today.
Your second premise is also false. Silver was worth $1.29 an ounce in 1955, which would only be $11.20 in 2013. It has more purchasing power than it did in 1955, not the same amount.
By all means, suggest your own measures if you don't like average or median numbers. The story is going to be the same, as many others in this forum have discovered when they tried to repeat the same assertions.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
tokeprep..sifting through bullshit like its his job. I love it. Still waiting on UB and chesus to respond..
woody333333
Well-Known Member
i thought ron paul died?????............ that was alot to say nothing...........you voted for war the day u voted for gw we wont be sitting round the fire roasting marshmallows anytime soon
