Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Revoltingest]

Alceste was right.

I disagree.
To take $10 from Peter & give it to Paul is not an injection of $10 into the economy.

There is a net change in how much money is circulating when there is capital growth. The superwealthy are like monetary vacuum cleaners. They suck huge amounts of money out of the economy, which they do not reinvest in job-growing activities. They simply do not consume enough to make a dent in demand, which is one of the factors that drives economic growth. The government (if it is doing its job right) spends money on job growth when the economy is weak or in recession.

That is a different matter, which I'm not addressing for now.

 

[Copernicus]

I disagree.
To take $10 from Peter & give it to Paul is not an injection of $10 into the economy.

Not if Peter refuses to spend it and Paul is guaranteed to spend it. The rich invest money, and not always in the American economy.

 

[Kathryn]

I thought this was interesting:

Federal stimulus money for Oregon jobs hired foreign workers | OregonLive.com

Surely not GE! Why, of course! And three other companies - spending federal stimulus money to hire FOREIGN workers instead of unemployed US workers.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not if Peter refuses to spend it and Paul is guaranteed to spend it. The rich invest money, and not always in the American economy.

Everyone I know would be spending the money that they pay in taxes...wasting it on things like loan payments, labor, materials & such.
The rich make capital available when they don't spend money. Idle money is withering money, since it's slowly destroyed by inflation.
So they invest...& even if it's overseas, the profits return here. But more importantly to me, I'm finding that borrowing money is
easier from investors (the rich guys) than from banks, who are loathe to lend at the moment.

 

[dust1n]

I thought this was interesting:

Federal stimulus money for Oregon jobs hired foreign workers | OregonLive.com

Surely not GE! Why, of course! And three other companies - spending federal stimulus money to hire FOREIGN workers instead of unemployed US workers.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

:areyoucra sigh.

 

[Alceste]

The point is that they aren't really stimulating the economy if there's no net change in how much money is circulating.
government claims that what it spends is added, without subtracting what is taken (either by taxation, currency dilution or borrowing).

The stimulus is in the form of spending on infrastructure and public services that are necessary anyway. The idea is that people spend more when they are working and consumer spending leads to growth - or at least slows contraction. The example I gave of our government's shipbuilding contracts is typical of the way it is supposed to work. Thousands of people who are currently on assistance will have quality jobs as a result. Not just in the shipyards but building houses and providing goods and services for an influx of new workers. Instead of sucking up tax revenue for doing nothing they will be paying taxes for a change. Of course the ideal situation is that the product our service being produced with public funds is necessary.

Whether it makes sense to you or not it is a method that is proven time and time again to be an effective economic policy in a time of stagnating growth and low consumer confidence. Your preferred policy of gutting the resources of the public sector right when targeted, thoughtful stimulus us most needed has proven time and time again to accelerate economic decline.

 

[Revoltingest]

The stimulus is in the form of spending on infrastructure and public services that are necessary anyway.

That would have potential to be positive, but make work projects don't appear to be wise uses...just
mad dash grabs for massive dissemination of loot, eg, sidewalks to nowhere in Detroit.

The idea is that people spend more when they are working and consumer spending leads to growth - or at least slows contraction. The example I gave of our government's shipbuilding contracts is typical of the way it is supposed to work. Thousands of people who are currently on assistance will have quality jobs as a result. Not just in the shipyards but building houses and providing goods and services for an influx of new workers. Instead of sucking up tax revenue for doing nothing they will be paying taxes for a change. Of course the ideal situation is that the product our service being produced with public funds is necessary.

But that money spent on those things is taken from people who would spend it on other things, eg, employees, building materials, loan payments.
It would be better if I could replace bad roofs on my buildings than adding sidewalks to vacant neighborhoods in Detroit.

Whether it makes sense to you or not it is a method that is proven time and time again to be an effective economic policy in a time of stagnating growth and low consumer confidence.

You say it's proven. I say it isn't.
Controlled testing on a country's economy isn't possible.

Your preferred policy of gutting the resources of the public sector right when targeted....

I didn't advocate that policy....I advocated avoiding increased spending & taxation.
To decrease spending & taxation is another issue.

 

[Copernicus]

That would have potential to be positive, but make work projects don't appear to be wise uses...just mad dash grabs for massive dissemination of loot, eg, sidewalks to nowhere in Detroit.

You are always going to find example of waste, fraud, and abuse. You won't cure the problem by never funding any major works projects. Your generalization is too sweeping. The Army Corps of Engineers has long reported on needed improvements to our crumbling infrastructure, and nobody other than the government is going to fix these problems.

But that money spent on those things is taken from people who would spend it on other things, eg, employees, building materials, loan payments.
It would be better if I could replace bad roofs on my buildings than adding sidewalks to vacant neighborhoods in Detroit.

In fact, when super-high incomes were taxed at super-high rates (e.g. during the Eisenhower administration), business owners tended to plow their money back into their businesses rather than to give themselves expensive perks, huge salaries, and massive bonuses.

You say it's proven. I say it isn't.
Controlled testing on a country's economy isn't possible.

That isn't the only way to prove economic theories. The people who actually study how economies work--economists--are fairly well-convinced that it has been proven to work.

 

[Alceste]

Is that actually what the rich do with their money?

I was always wondering what someone could possibly do with billions of dollars...

Whatever they are doing with it, they certainly aren't creating jobs. Capital that is invested in a workforce doesn't end up in the business owner's personal bank account and therefore is not subject to the personal income tax the rich are always moaning about.

The richest 1% are hoovering capital out of the economy by the billions and stuffing it in their pockets, where it sits gathering dust. The government, which ostensibly represents the american people, needs to take some of that capital back and put it to work.

 

[Alceste]

That would have potential to be positive, but make work projects don't appear to be wise uses...just
mad dash grabs for massive dissemination of loot, eg, sidewalks to nowhere in Detroit.


But that money spent on those things is taken from people who would spend it on other things, eg, employees, building materials, loan payments.
It would be better if I could replace bad roofs on my buildings than adnjding sidewalks to vacant neighborhoods in Detroit.

You say it's proven. I say it isn't.
Controlled testing on a country's economy isn't possible.

I didn't advocate that policy....I advocated avoiding increased spending & taxation.
To decrease spending & taxation is another issue.

Let's be clear: if you are spending your capital on your business, it is not going to be listed as personal income on your tax return. Capital that stays in your business is business income. We are talking about personal income. If you would rather reinvest in your business and put less capital in your pocket, you would benefit from a nice low business tax rate. If you decide to use it mostly to inflate your personal stock portfolio it's only fair that a portion of it be redirected back into the real economy where it can create jobs..

 

[Revoltingest]

You are always going to find example of waste, fraud, and abuse. You won't cure the problem by never funding any major works projects.

I never said to avoid funding any major works projects. What I do observe is that spending is more wasteful in times of such desperation & feeding frenzy.

Your generalization is too sweeping. The Army Corps of Engineers has long reported on needed improvements to our crumbling infrastructure, and nobody other than the government is going to fix these problems.

And your faith in the wisdom behind urgent government spending looks too sweeping to me. As I've said, if taxes are spent in such a fashion that they boost productivity more than they would remaining in private hands, then that would be a net positive effect. But projects put together in a hurried fashion by politicians angling for the biggest piece of the pie they can get don't inspire careful consideration.

In fact, when super-high incomes were taxed at super-high rates (e.g. during the Eisenhower administration), business owners tended to plow their money back into their businesses rather than to give themselves expensive perks, huge salaries, and massive bonuses.

Are you arguing that such spending doesn't contribute to the economy? Moreover, those high marginal tax rates were offset by greater tax deductions such as accelerated depreciation over shorter periods than today. Were the effective tax rates (after deductions & dodges) really higher than today?

That isn't the only way to prove economic theories. The people who actually study how economies work--economists--are fairly well-convinced that it has been proven to work.

A quick search of the internet will show that opinions on government spending are diverse.....
» Debating the Great Depression: The Failure of Keynesian Economics - Big Government
Even Keynes favored only short term stimulus. If endless spending & fiat currency campaigns worked, the Weimar 'Republic fiasco wouldn't be such a cliche.

 

[Falvlun]

You must mean today, or this week. Are you seriously saying that you don't think our economy has gotten markedly worse in the past two years?

No, I am not seeing the economy moving ever faster downhill, which is what acceleration would mean. It might be continuing to go downhill in some areas due to simple inertia, but I don't see acceleration. Also, in other areas, like unemployment, things have been essentially stable for the last two years. GDP has actually gone up (and down) in the last two years, but it is still above where it was two years ago.

There is no "what might have been." There is only "what is."

When you make claims like "Obama's policies are not working", then yes, you need to consider what might have occurred if those policies were not put into place in order to determine whether they have worked or not. My opinion, and that of many economists, is that if Obama had not pushed for that stimulus money, had not continued TARP funding, or had not bailed out the auto industry, then yes, things would be much worse then they are now. That would indicate that his policies have worked, just not as well as we had hoped-- or else the roots of the economic decay go deeper than anyone imagined.

"What is" is a pretty terrible mess, and Obama and Bush and BOTH MAINSTREAM POLITICAL PARTIES have wrecked the economy of this fine country by practicing and supporting very poor economic policy. Obama has presided over the fastest acceleration of debt in our country's history, as well as a precipitous and devastating drop in our GDP.

There are many factors causing and influencing this recession. The economy was tanking when Obama took office-- his policies did not cause that. It's the accumulation of bad policies and a globalization that wasn't quite planned for. Free-falling economies, like runaway trains, cannot be stopped immediately. These things take time.

Every cloud has a silver lining I guess. But the first 18 months of his administration, he and his partners in insanity pushed through some absolutely ruinous legislation - much of which we haven't yet felt the full ramifications of, since they are timed to roll out over the next 10 years. TEN YEARS. Hell, we'll be mired in this stuff long after he's retired and writing books.

Obviously, I disagree. But I'm more interested in ascertaining why you believe that these policies can only be the result of criminal irresponsibility, insanity, or willful sabotage, rather than an honest attempt at righting the ship. I understand not agreeing with the policies. But why be so nasty about it?

 

[Shermana]

If you really want to tax the rich, get the government to stop subsidizing Democrat-sponsoring corporations like GE who pay negative taxes (collect money from government) and clamp down on off-shore tax havens.

 

[Falvlun]

Ummm, so why did they omit the word "Economically"?

Perhaps you missed post 35?

 

[Kathryn]

If you really want to tax the rich, get the government to stop subsidizing Democrat-sponsoring corporations like GE who pay negative taxes (collect money from government) and clamp down on off-shore tax havens.

You mean the same GE which hired FOREIGN forestry workers in Oregon using federal stimulus money to do so, when Oregon had the third highest unemployment rate in the US, with many local foresters out of work?

THAT GE? Yeah, I thought so.

Federal stimulus money for Oregon jobs hired foreign workers | OregonLive.com

Insane. And, apparently legal.

 

[Shermana]

Read the link in the OP. "They" didn't omit anything. The direct quote from Cain is "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country". The interviewer asks how liberals will destroy the country, and that's when Cain responds "economically". In other words, Cain is not simply saying that liberals are attempting to destroy the economy (the interpretation you seem to favor.) He is saying that liberals are attempting to destroy the country, using the economy as their means.

I don't see how this post adequately defends their omission of "economically", but I do see how it attempts to justify their wording without getting into detail of what he said. You'd almost think they went to lengths to avoid the context.

And did you read what I said about the "unintended consequence" thing? The thing I said about the dog and the Persian rug?

 

[dust1n]

I don't see how this post adequately defends their omission of "economically", but I do see how it attempts to justify their wording without getting into detail of what he said. You'd almost think they went to lengths to avoid the context.

And did you read what I said about the "unintended consequence" thing? The thing I said about the dog and the Persian rug?

And again, what economically destroyed country isn't destroyed in basically every other fashion?

 

[Copernicus]

I never said to avoid funding any major works projects. What I do observe is that spending is more wasteful in times of such desperation & feeding frenzy.

It is true that the volume of waste, fraud, and abuse will go up when more money is being spent. Again, that is not an argument in favor of doing nothing or actually reducing revenue to the government through further tax cuts.

And your faith in the wisdom behind urgent government spending looks too sweeping to me...

I am less cynical than you, but that does not mean I have "faith in the wisdom behind government spending." There are good ways and bad ways to implement spending programs. Generally speaking, Republican policies tend to introduce the bad ways--e.g. Medicare Plan D, which forces the government to pay retail prices for drugs. Democrats can be just as bad, but not quite as often.

As I've said, if taxes are spent in such a fashion that they boost productivity more than they would remaining in private hands, then that would be a net positive effect. But projects put together in a hurried fashion by politicians angling for the biggest piece of the pie they can get don't inspire careful consideration.

True, but we do not have much choice. To do nothing is to continue our downward spiral. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to more jobs, nor has the low tax rate on investment dividends led to a better economy. We need to let his tax cuts expire and tax investment income at the same rate as other income. That would begin to get us back on the road to fiscal sanity.

Are you arguing that such spending doesn't contribute to the economy? Moreover, those high marginal tax rates were offset by greater tax deductions such as accelerated depreciation over shorter periods than today. Were the effective tax rates (after deductions & dodges) really higher than today?

A huge part of the deficit comes directly from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When Clinton left office, the government was projecting a balanced budget by 2012. Then the Bush-led Republican tsunami hit. Hello, deficit. Goodbye, balanced budget.

A quick search of the internet will show that opinions on government spending are diverse.....
» Debating the Great Depression: The Failure of Keynesian Economics - Big Government
Even Keynes favored only short term stimulus. If endless spending & fiat currency campaigns worked, the Weimar 'Republic fiasco wouldn't be such a cliche.

Nobody is arguing for perpetual stimulus. The Weimar fiasco was created by the monetary policy of the German government, not fiscal stimulus. And I am not surprised that your quick search led to Andrew Breitbart's right wing web site. It is true that so-called "fiscal conservatives" oppose fiscal remedies. Traditionally, before the Republicans went completely off the deep end, they favored monetary remedies. Now they oppose both fiscal and monetary solutions. Rick Perry, bless his hyperbolic soul, even suggested that Bernanke would be a traitor to try to implement it. (Well, maybe he didn't really oppose manipulation of the currency. He just feared anything that might improve the economy while a Democrat was in the White House.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It is true that the volume of waste, fraud, and abuse will go up when more money is being spent.

While true, that wasn't what I said. (Check....you'll see.)
It's the haste in doling out the dough, & the fervor in grasping it which really escalates the waste.

Again, that is not an argument in favor of doing nothing or actually reducing revenue to the government through further tax cuts.

That's not an argument I'm making.

I am less cynical than you, but that does not mean I have "faith in the wisdom behind government spending." There are good ways and bad ways to implement spending programs. Generally speaking, Republican policies tend to introduce the bad ways--e.g. Medicare Plan D, which forces the government to pay retail prices for drugs. Democrats can be just as bad, but not quite as often.

I don't see the problem as partisan.

True, but we do not have much choice. To do nothing is to continue our downward spiral. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to more jobs, nor has the low tax rate on investment dividends led to a better economy. We need to let his tax cuts expire and tax investment income at the same rate as other income. That would begin to get us back on the road to fiscal sanity.

I opposed the Bush cuts as bad policy because they didn't significantly lower marginal rates.
Increasing taxes upon investment would generate revenue, but it would also hurt investment & income therefrom.
I favor lower marginal rates, indexing capital gains tax to inflation, & reducing personal deductions (except for a
standard deduction to enhance progressivity at the low income end) for a revenue neutral overhaul.

A huge part of the deficit comes directly from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Source?

When Clinton left office, the government was projecting a balanced budget by 2012. Then the Bush-led Republican tsunami hit. Hello, deficit. Goodbye, balanced budget.

9/11 was the start of the decline, which was hardly Bush policy. I'd give most blame to his reaction to it, & support from both parties for endless wars.[/quote]

Nobody is arguing for perpetual stimulus. The Weimar fiasco was created by the monetary policy of the German government, not fiscal stimulus.

But we are using fiat currency to finance the deficit, which is analogous to what Weimar did.

And I am not surprised that your quick search led to Andrew Breitbart's right wing web site. It is true that so-called "fiscal conservatives" oppose fiscal remedies.

I'm not surprised that you use leftist sources, but you don't see me harping on it.
(After all, even I use left leaning sources at times.)

Traditionally, before the Republicans went completely off the deep end, they favored monetary remedies. Now they oppose both fiscal and monetary solutions. Rick Perry, bless his hyperbolic soul, even suggested that Bernanke would be a traitor to try to implement it. (Well, maybe he didn't really oppose manipulation of the currency. He just feared anything that might improve the economy while a Democrat was in the White House.)

Your party loyalty is touching, but blame both parties.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how this post adequately defends their omission of "economically", but I do see how it attempts to justify their wording without getting into detail of what he said. You'd almost think they went to lengths to avoid the context.

What do you mean, ommision? According to the transcription of the video, he didn't say "economically" until after the interviewer asked how the liberals were destroying the country. (Granted, I cannot watch the video to confirm the transcription is correct-- internet messed up-- but if he doesn't say it in the video, I really don't know what you are whining about.)

And did you read what I said about the "unintended consequence" thing? The thing I said about the dog and the Persian rug?

Which post?