Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dirtywick said:
lowering corporate tax rates and stripping regulations are pro free market positions. social liberal, fiscal conservative is a classic moderate dem.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if that's why it is ever done, it isn't.

The rich lobby for tax breaks for themselves. That's why the gap between the rich and the poor is still growing.

Do their tax cuts = more jobs? Nope. More income for the workers? Nope. A better deal for anyone but the rich? Nope.

Whereas investing in health care could result in cutting free-marketing costs. Unions can exert a healthy influence on the economy and so on.

I don't want to get more off-topic than that. Bottom line the Democrats in power have always resulted in better economic measures. Look at what Biden is doing, funding infrastructure. The GOP has neglected said infrastructure time and time again while cutting taxes on the rich. They also neglected funding higher education and public health all the while whining that more tax cuts are needed.

You have to take care of the community if you want the free market to function properly.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
deregulation and corporate tax cuts have been steady for decades. this goes beyond trump's tax cuts. certainly some of those stripped along the way were ok with the moderates.

again, you can't put all these economic problems that resulted from economic and regulatory theories that are too far to the right, ...
Click to expand...
I could but I don't have enough time.
 
Stacyhs said:
So you didn't write : "lowering corporate tax rates and stripping regulations are pro free market positions. social liberal, fiscal conservative is a classic moderate dem."?

Hmmm. Maybe that's not what you meant but I don't see any other way for me to interpret what you did write.

Since you immediately followed the first sentence with the second, I can't see how you weren't tying "a classic moderate dem" to supporting '"lowering corporate tax rates and stripping regulations," and the free market position.



Now I'm even more confused. So you ARE saying moderate Dems are pro "lowering corporate tax rates and stripping regulations"?



I agree; I don't blame the progressives. But I also don't blame moderate Dems. I blame the GOP for most of it..
Click to expand...

well you can go back and reread it if you're still confused.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, if that's why it is ever done, it isn't.

The rich lobby for tax breaks for themselves. That's why the gap between the rich and the poor is still growing.

Do their tax cuts = more jobs? Nope. More income for the workers? Nope. A better deal for anyone but the rich? Nope.

Whereas investing in health care could result in cutting free-marketing costs. Unions can exert a healthy influence on the economy and so on.

I don't want to get more off-topic than that. Bottom line the Democrats in power have always resulted in better economic measures. Look at what Biden is doing, funding infrastructure. The GOP has neglected said infrastructure time and time again while cutting taxes on the rich. They also neglected funding higher education and public health all the while whining that more tax cuts are needed.

You have to take care of the community if you want the free market to function properly.
Click to expand...

they lobby republicans and moderate dems.

i mean, i don't really understand what's going on here. you guys think there's not fiscally conservative dems? that's what makes them moderates
 
Nobody here recommended a "command economy" in general.

What was actually said was that it was the only apparent way to possibly get our economy to quit pushing the planet's temperatures up. And that was an entirely accurate statement.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
You're right, capitalism is an awful economic system. In fact you could say that it is the best economic system, apart from all the others which have been tried. 😁
Click to expand...

Yea, it's better than feudalism and slavery or a command economy, I give you that. To say it is better than all the others that have been tried isn’t saying all that much.

That said, certain aspects of capitalism I think are a must in any economic system. That is the ability to profit and make decisions based on self interest. But I disagree with anyone and everyone who thinks unbridled capitalism is best.

Republicans constantly whine about regulations. But don't tell me that laws that protect the environment, workers, consumers and the public are bad. It doesn't take much looking around to see what businesses will do if there aren't such laws.
 
acbytesla said:
Republicans constantly whine about regulations. But don't tell me that laws that protect the environment, workers, consumers and the public are bad. It doesn't take much looking around to see what businesses will do if there aren't such laws.
Click to expand...

To poke at this a little further, it's probably not wrong to say that far too frequently...

"Job-killing" regulation = Life-saving regulation
"Job-killing" regulation = Regulation with overwhelming net benefits to community and country
"Job-killing" regulation = Regulation which doesn't actually reduce the number of jobs in practice

Incidentally, I don't think that I've heard any of those "job killing regulation" complaints actually cite specific regulations that they're talking about. It could be me, but that feels like a sign that many of those regulations that are being railed against wouldn't be popular to remove at all on individual inspection. More generally, it feels like things like "job killing regulations" are used to try to divert attention away from the actual big issues at work. The emotional blame for changes in market demand, corporate cost cutting and short term focus on profits, and the like is being strategically shifted towards the government, in short, by those who really, really don't have the best interests of the people at heart.

Even besides that, of course, poorly regulated and unregulated capitalism will destroy itself in various ways that have also have significant negative effects on community and country. The fundamental real function of economic systems is to raise the quality of life of a population. Factors that significantly impair that are things that governments certainly should seek to address, preferably in ways that lead to the least total real burden all around.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To poke at this a little further, it's probably not wrong to say that far too frequently...

"Job-killing" regulation = Life-saving regulation
"Job-killing" regulation = Regulation with overwhelming net benefits to community and country
"Job-killing" regulation = Regulation which doesn't actually reduce the number of jobs in practice

Incidentally, I don't think that I've heard any of those "job killing regulation" complaints actually cite specific regulations that they're talking about. It could be me, but that feels like a sign that many of those regulations that are being railed against wouldn't be popular to remove at all on individual inspection. More generally, it feels like things like "job killing regulations" are used to try to divert attention away from the actual big issues at work. The emotional blame for changes in market demand, corporate cost cutting and short term focus on profits, and the like is being strategically shifted towards the government, in short, by those who really, really don't have the best interests of the people at heart.

Even besides that, of course, poorly regulated and unregulated capitalism will destroy itself in various ways that have also have significant negative effects on community and country. The fundamental real function of economic systems is to raise the quality of life of a population. Factors that significantly impair that are things that governments certainly should seek to address, preferably in ways that lead to the least total real burden all around.
Click to expand...

Let's get things straight. I'm totally against onerous unneeded regulations. I have absolutely no doubt that there are some, maybe even many such regulations. And we should always be open to rethinking them. But the general idea that regulations are necessarily bad is simply wrong headed.
 
acbytesla said:
Let's get things straight. I'm totally against onerous unneeded regulations. I have absolutely no doubt that there are some, maybe even many such regulations. And we should always be open to rethinking them. But the general idea that regulations are necessarily bad is simply wrong headed.
Click to expand...

Of course. With that said, though, in the US, the issue of onerous unneeded regulations is ridiculously overdramaticized. Actually problematic regulations do exist, of course, frequently as a result of things like corporate lobbying to stifle competition, but even then, in the big picture, the focus on bad regulations is absurdly disproportionate and should be called out as such.

To poke at some numbers -

Self-reported industry data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that only about two tenths of one percent of layoffs are caused by government regulations of any kind, including environmental regulations. These are “mass layoffs,” defined as more than 50 people laid off for at least 30 days – an important statistic to look at. Layoffs of all kinds are caused far more often by declines in business demand (36 percent), including because of competition; shifts in seasonal need for workers (34 percent); financial problems at the company’s (s6 percent); and changes of ownership, including buyouts (5 percent); among other causes. Technological advances and lower overseas labor costs both play important roles in the loss of American jobs.
Click to expand...

Highlighting mine, of course. To add a bit more larger context to that, though, too -

The reality is that decades of research by economists have documented that there is little or no evidence that environmental regulations “kill jobs.” Far more often, these regulations create jobs by forcing companies to hire American construction workers and engineers to build sewage treatment plants, sewer lines, air pollution control systems and other upgrades to their plants – instead of just wasting their money on bloated CEO salaries or stock buybacks that help Wall Street but not workers.

<snip>



For every job lost due to government regulations, 15 are lost due to corporate cost cutting, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A 2014 review paper from the London School of Economics concluded that the effect of environmental regulations on the competitiveness of businesses is “negligible compared to other factors such as market conditions and the quality of the local workforce.”

Over the last decade, the benefits of environmental regulations have exceeded the costs they impose by a ratio of more than ten to one, according to a 2015 report of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

All told, major regulations provide net economic benefits to the U.S. of over $500 billion per year, according to that OMB report.
Click to expand...

Should we be wary of bad regulations? Sure, of course. The GOP's prevailing narrative push, however, is downright dangerous and directly harmful to the country and absolutely should be called out as such.
 
Aridas said:
Of course. With that said, though, in the US, the issue of onerous unneeded regulations is ridiculously overdramaticized. Actually problematic regulations do exist, of course, frequently as a result of things like corporate lobbying to stifle competition, but even then, in the big picture, the focus on bad regulations is absurdly disproportionate and should be called out as such.

Should we be wary of bad regulations? Sure, of course. The GOP's prevailing narrative push, however, is downright dangerous and directly harmful to the country and absolutely should be called out as such.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 percent. I want to hear specifics, not nebulous generalities.
 
dirtywick said:
they lobby republicans and moderate dems.

i mean, i don't really understand what's going on here. you guys think there's not fiscally conservative dems? that's what makes them moderates[/
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go back and read it again. Here, let me help you:

"Moderate Dems are socially liberal and center-right...not far right...fiscally conservative. Center-right does not mean being anti-regulation but more conservative with what regulations are needed".
How do you get "you guys think there's not fiscally conservative dems?" from what I wrote above?
 
To the GOP, any regulation that could possibly lower profits for companies is 'onerous, job-killing, and unnecessary'.

To the Dems, regulations that protect the health and safety of the public, protect the environment, and protect the economy from the dangers of rapacious corporations are necessary.
 
acbytesla said:
Yea, it's better than feudalism and slavery or a command economy, I give you that. To say it is better than all the others that have been tried isn’t saying all that much.

That said, certain aspects of capitalism I think are a must in any economic system. That is the ability to profit and make decisions based on self interest. But I disagree with anyone and everyone who thinks unbridled capitalism is best.

Republicans constantly whine about regulations. But don't tell me that laws that protect the environment, workers, consumers and the public are bad. It doesn't take much looking around to see what businesses will do if there aren't such laws.
Click to expand...

You do realise that the most complete expression of capitalism was Soviet Russia, right? A command economy.
 
dudalb said:
Us evil Centrist hold the balance of power in national elections.
Not that the hard line ideologues will ever admit that.
And, frankly, Trump would have probably won the popular vote if he had been running against Bernie. Bernie is simply too far to the left to win a general election. There is no vast lost tribe of left wing voters out there.
Click to expand...

To address this for the third or so time, many Trump supporters before 2015 were not "far right"...until they were.

A similar thing could very well play out with Bernie as the nominee.

The left-leaning media, especially corporate liberal media isn't playing the same game as rightwing media though. They'll use rightwing talking points to put Bernie down instead of focusing on the good for their guy.
 
Left-wing voters aren't missing. They're who the Democrats have depended on all along (while constantly fighting against them & attacking them and then scolding them for not being more supportive of their attackers).

The real missing voters are the "centrist" voters whom the DP has kept chasing for years. That strategy keeps failing because it's chasing people who don't exist, but they're bound to magically appear one of these days years!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom