Thorough debunking of Repub talking point. - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #46 10-18-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Everyone should be preoccupied first and foremost with what fowler thinks before hitting the submit reply button!

Did I say that?
I do think it is common courtesy for people responding via quoted replies direct their comments to the quote. That was directed to an individual who likes to insult, but is not capable of engaging in an adult discussion, much like the annoying 12 year old who continually says, " I know I am, but what are you?"
You may be in the same category. or not. Your posts will tell the story.

MS Fowler · #47 10-18-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

I work for a large Electric utility in an Engineering office.

I usually dont get the whole company picture, but from my region (the midwest) I could specifically name about $1Billion in capital projects that my company is considering - they all center around pollution controls at existing power plants. This situation is very uncertain. So uncertain the utilities are rushing to get into contracts with the large construction firms (Shaw...) so that they can 'lock-in' prices on these large projects IF they decide to do them.

analogy:
I would never go to a car dealership, and pay the car salesman a few $hundred just to stick around near his phone in case I call needing a car. I would only do this if the supply of cars was very uncertain and there was a chance that if I needed a car in a year, I wouldnt be able to find one.

Luckily I have peachparts if I need a decent car quickly

Please don't doubt the uncertaintly claim. The nice thing about companies is that thier motives are transparent - making money. If they are spending money to hedge risk (locking in price contracts) then they are pretty convinced that the risks/uncertainty is real.

-John

Its good to hear actual case stories from people involved in industry. The President surrounds himself with academics, who like himself, have never tried to run a business.
Remember the old saying, Those who can--do, those who cannot--teach."

SwampYankee · #48 10-18-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Its good to hear actual case stories from people involved in industry. The President surrounds himself with academics, who like himself, have never tried to run a business.

That's what's so frustrating as a business owner. And it's not only on the federal level, it's at the state and local levels as well. Many of the people crafting legislation that directly effects business haven't the slightest clue of what it takes to run a business. And I don't think some of them even care. The state of CT is controlled by a single party; with veto-proof majorities; filled with lawyers, academics and career politicians. Smart people in their own right. But haven't a clue when it comes to the business world.

As a result, businesses continue to flee the state. CT has become the first state in the nation to require employers (50+ employees) to provide paid sick leave in addition to any personal and vacation time an employer may offer. The exodus continues (unless you're one of the multi-national, $multi-million/billion+ corporations that are given multi-millions in forgivable loans and tax credits to come or stay with no requirement to expand here) and the politicians continue to scratch their heads and wonder why?

When a business leaves our town for another town, they point fingers at them and vilify them. When a business leaves our state for another state, they point fingers and vilify them. When businesses leave our country for another country, they point fingers and vilify them. The business is always the bad guy. But they are just part of the equation. The business, labor/the employees and the government are equally complicit when a decision to move is made.

The question is always, "Why did that company leave?" Why isn't it ever, "What could we have done to keep them here?" Or proactively, "What can we do to keep them here?"

MTI · #49 10-18-2011, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Its good to hear actual case stories from people involved in industry. The President surrounds himself with academics, who like himself, have never tried to run a business.
Remember the old saying, Those who can--do, those who cannot--teach."

Isnt one of those advisors J. Immelt from GE? In fact, if you check the list on the Economic Advisory Board, I don't think you'll find many academics.

Have you heard of some of those business leaders and CEOs?

Air&Road · #50 10-18-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

What I saw with my boots on the ground helping spend the stimulus money and from what I saw all around, the stimulus money was spent fixing infrastructure that needed fixing. When government spends money on infrastructure like road improvements, university buildings and bridges it allows the nation to conduct business.

Therefore it is good.

In my experience, generally it appears that when Ds control the government money gets spent on infrastructure. When Rs control money gets spent on tax breaks for upper income entities.

For myself I prefer spending money on infrastructure.

Tom,

When someone is hopelessly in debt as is our government, is it a good idea to be borrowing money to fix cracks in the driveway, or should they be more careful with the money they borrow and try to cut their spendinig?

Such road construction jobs are temporary only helping politically until the next election. OUR money is being spent not for OUR good, but for the politicians own effort to get re-elected. This is a bipartisan comment. Both sides do it.

MTI · #51 10-18-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Tom,

When someone is hopelessly in debt as is our government, is it a good idea to be borrowing money to fix cracks in the driveway, or should they be more careful with the money they borrow and try to cut their spendinig?

Such road construction jobs are temporary only helping politically until the next election. OUR money is being spent not for OUR good, but for the politicians own effort to get re-elected. This is a bipartisan comment. Both sides do it.

If I understand your economic and jobs plan as described above, the federal government, and state and local governments, should not be spending any monies until their respective debts are liquidated. I don't know of any economists that are advocates of that plan. Have you any authority for the benefits and expected results of such theory?

MS Fowler · #52 10-18-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Isnt one of those advisors J. Immelt from GE? In fact, if you check the list on the Economic Advisory Board, I don't think you'll find many academics.

Have you heard of some of those business leaders and CEOs?

You are right. I neglected to include " crony capitalists". I regret the error.

MTI · #53 10-18-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You are right. I neglected to include " crony capitalists". I regret the error.

Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric chief executive

James W. Owens, head of Caterpillar

Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO of UBS Group Americas

Mark Gallogly, founder and managing partner at Centerbridge Partners L.P.

Penny Pritzker, chair and founder of Pritzker Realty Group and Classic Residence by Hyatt

John Doerr, partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers

Monica C. Lozano, Director of Bank of America

Charles E. Phillips, Jr., president of Infor.

Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of Council of Economic Advisers

Christina Romer, former chairperson of Council of Economic Advisers

William H. Donaldson, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman

Laura D'Andrea Tyson, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration

Martin Feldstein, former chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan,
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Member

David F. Swensen, CIO at Yale University

What is the foundation for yoiur personal criticism of this group? I'm curious as to your blanket rejection of credibility and how you came to know this.

Air&Road · #54 10-18-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

If I understand your economic and jobs plan as described above, the federal government, and state and local governments, should not be spending any monies until their respective debts are liquidated. I don't know of any economists that are advocates of that plan. Have you any authority for the benefits and expected results of such theory?

I would ask you to reread what I wrote. That is NOT what I said. I said "Hopelessly" in debt. The US is indeed HOPELESSLY in debt.

To further the analogy, if you were swimming in say a half million in personal debt while making $20,000 a year, MAYBE you need to be paying off some debt before fixing the driveway.

It's called PRIORITIES! We obviously have a whole Washington DC full of career politicians that understand NOTHING about priorities.

As far as evidence of my theory? It's called COMMON SENSE! Is this something that you are familiar with?

MTI · #55 10-18-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I would ask you to reread what I wrote. That is NOT what I said. I said "Hopelessly" in debt. The US is indeed HOPELESSLY in debt.

To further the analogy, if you were swimming in say a half million in personal debt while making $20,000 a year, MAYBE you need to be paying off some debt before fixing the driveway.

It's called PRIORITIES! We obviously have a whole Washington DC full of career politicians that understand NOTHING about priorities.

Many analogies are somewhat simplistic and inapplicable to a complex economic system.

For instance, in your analogy, what if the repairs to the driveway woud prevent damage to my car, which would cost more in the future? Or if the repairs to the driveway will provide me or my business more opportunity to help reduce the debt load?

Speaking of the debt load . . . should a person just stop spending and divert all income to debt relief? Alternatively,shouldn't a person in that situtation look to increase both income, while reducing expenditures?

Air&Road · #56 10-18-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Many analogies are somewhat simplistic and inapplicable to a complex economic system.

For instance, in your analogy, what if the repairs to the driveway woud prevent damage to my car, which would cost more in the future? Or if the repairs to the driveway will provide me or my business more opportunity to help reduce the debt load?

Speaking of the debt load . . . should a person just stop spending and divert all income to debt relief? Alternatively,shouldn't a person in that situtation look to increase both income, while reducing expenditures?

Okay, those are fair questions.

If I were in a debt crisis as I describe in the analogy and as is the US, I would not have to worry about expensive damage to my car, because I would bail out of my fancy car and be driving a $500 rag that would barely be able to get me to work. This is called taking necessary steps. Something that the US politicians are unwilling to do.

Yes, as I indicated with buying the junker to drive, I would be working at a PIZZA parlor or MacDonald's at night or whatever I had to do. Your raising tax analogy doesn't fly with my analogy because I personally would NOT spend OTHER PEOPLE's money as do our stupid politicians and then demand MORE of it.

Yes, our government should be taking DRASTIC measures to cut spending. There are a number of departments in the Federal Government that should be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

Just like my guy with the debt and the limited income, it's time to live in a tent and drive a junker. Of course, if this hypothetical person had such a lack of character that he didn't care if he ever repayed the money that he agreed to repay, much like our stinking government, then I guess the slime ball would simply keep borrowing money as long as he could, again like our slime ball government.

BTW, in your implying that taxes should be raised. Why is it that you guys insist on raising the taxes on the wealthy? The top 2.5% are already providing 40% of the tax revenue. How about charging some tax to the bottom 50% who pay NOTHING. You guys talk about being FAIR. What is wrong with EVERYONE paying taxes?

pj67coll · #57 10-18-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Speaking of the debt load . . . should a person just stop spending and divert all income to debt relief? Alternatively,shouldn't a person in that situtation look to increase both income, while reducing expenditures?

What if you cant?

- Peter.

MTI · #58 10-18-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

What if you cant?

- Peter.

I think that's the problem with simplistic analogy. The government cane reduce discretionary and non discretionary spending and raise or lower taxes.

Air&Road · #59 10-18-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I think that's the problem with simplistic analogy. The government cane reduce discretionary and non discretionary spending and raise or lower taxes.

What the government NEEDS is some simplicity. Just start CUTTING! It must have been simple to get us into the debt in the first place. If it had been complicated, the Bozo's in DC certainly couldn't have accomplished it.

MS Fowler · #60 10-18-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric chief executive

James W. Owens, head of Caterpillar

Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO of UBS Group Americas

Mark Gallogly, founder and managing partner at Centerbridge Partners L.P.

Penny Pritzker, chair and founder of Pritzker Realty Group and Classic Residence by Hyatt

John Doerr, partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers

Monica C. Lozano, Director of Bank of America

Charles E. Phillips, Jr., president of Infor.

Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of Council of Economic Advisers

Christina Romer, former chairperson of Council of Economic Advisers

William H. Donaldson, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman

Laura D'Andrea Tyson, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration

Martin Feldstein, former chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan,
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Member

David F. Swensen, CIO at Yale University

What is the foundation for yoiur personal criticism of this group? I'm curious as to your blanket rejection of credibility and how you came to know this.

They are judged by the failure of their ideas.