(I don't support all out right to work legislation for Michigan but would consider legislation that kept current union shops under the old rules.)
Sun May 04, 2008 11:03 am
Public D F L I N T O I D
I'm sorry, but only a pack a lawyers, GOP economists & their corporate funders would have the nerve to claim that their Right to Work advocacy was done with workers' interests in mind. RTW is and will always be the favorite disguise of employers and their paid henchmen (lawyers & GOP lawmakers) to help them avoid paying fair wages, implementing safety regulations, providing benefits, etc. etc. If you want to help corporations and lawyers make more money off our labor, by all means, support this cause.
It was clearly done with businesses in mind. Michigan cares much more about workers than other states who care much more about businesses. In Flint we have rules against home businesses so if workers can't create businesses I don't see what the alternative is to catering to businesses who are the ones that create jobs.
Mon May 05, 2008 2:45 pm
Public D F L I N T O I D
Too bad none of these brilliant Mackinaw economists can come up with a way to cater to businesses other than for workers to agree to slash their own throats or to gift wrap tax rebates that this state desperately needs.
What if all the wealthy Mackinaw hangers-on agreed to pool the money they would normally spend to support this status quo-preservation think tank and invested it, instead, in the production of wind, solar, green bus and regional rail transportation? Jobs now and an
actual
foundation to
actually
attract more industry in the future.
DeVos, Romney, Davidson, Stryker, Ilitch, that Quicken Loans guy - thanks for all the pizza, soap, sports teams, and failed political runs, but what do you say we give investing in our state's future a shot? Nay. Michigan workers racing to the bottom can probably be turned into some sort of marketable sport - or pizza topping.
I think low taxes and low regulations are the best ways to attract jobs. I wouldn't mind seing an oil refinery in Michigan or we could also drill for oil. That would create jobs and revenues for our state.
We do use tax payers' hard earned dollars to fund public transportation but it hasn't worked out too well. We also use discrimination to support ethanol which helps starve/malnourish taxpayers and kill people in other countries.
Some people aren't willing to sacrifice their future to give Michigan a better future. Michigan can sometimes be a dangerous state to invest in. It's much easier to open stores in other states. Other states also need jobs as well. We need to be competitive. Without businesses there will be nowhere to work in this state. We do need to be more business friendly.
Mon May 05, 2008 4:09 pm
Adam Ford F L I N T O I D
quote:Public D schreef:
Too bad none of these brilliant Mackinaw economists can come up with a way to cater to businesses other than for workers to agree to slash their own throats or to gift wrap tax rebates that this state desperately needs.
What if all the wealthy Mackinaw hangers-on agreed to pool the money they would normally spend to support this status quo-preservation think tank and invested it, instead, in the production of wind, solar, green bus and regional rail transportation? Jobs now and an
actual
foundation to
actually
attract more industry in the future.
DeVos, Romney, Davidson, Stryker, Ilitch, that Quicken Loans guy - thanks for all the pizza, soap, sports teams, and failed political runs, but what do you say we give investing in our state's future a shot? Nay. Michigan workers racing to the bottom can probably be turned into some sort of marketable sport - or pizza topping.
Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns. Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money. Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.
The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous. Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000. The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance. That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects. Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!
Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place. The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations. These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by. Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration. This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.
Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it. There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.
I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax. It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent. Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.
With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15th of April every year.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst042008.htm
Mon May 05, 2008 10:36 pm
Public D F L I N T O I D
quote:Adam Ford schreef:
I think low taxes and low regulations are the best ways to attract jobs. I wouldn't mind seing an oil refinery in Michigan or we could also drill for oil. That would create jobs and revenues for our state.
We do use tax payers' hard earned dollars to fund public transportation but it hasn't worked out too well. We also use discrimination to support ethanol which helps starve/malnourish taxpayers and kill people in other countries.
Some people aren't willing to sacrifice their future to give Michigan a better future. Michigan can sometimes be a dangerous state to invest in. It's much easier to open stores in other states. Other states also need jobs as well. We need to be competitive. Without businesses there will be nowhere to work in this state. We do need to be more business friendly.
Wow, Adam. Didn't know you were a Mackimaniac too. The ol' bribe, beg, beat down wages and beef up archaic industry method, huh? Never failed us before. Right, GM? Are you familiar with the Refinery in Alma that closed in 1999? Why did it close? For the same reason it will not be reopening in its old form or as an ethanol refinery. It is not viable given that the margins aren't up to Wall Street's standards. No, the oil companies know we're at peak production and that the less they spend from now until the last drop is gone, the more and more and more and more they can charge us. It's that supply & demand & profit motive you can't get enough of.
Ever hear of opportunity costs? Spending money on one thing means that that money can't be spent on other. For example, if one were to spend money on drilling for oil in your basement and building a refinery on your front lawn, that's money they can't spend on wind turbine manufacturing, solar roof installations, regional electric rail, battery technology, etc. It's like putting all your money into bandages even if the pharmaceutical cure for Leprosy is known – but simply costs too much to produce and be profitable by Wall Street standards. Standards that never have and never will factor the pubic good or public cost into their master calculator (like Health Care).
Investing resources in oil rather than developing an entirely new economy around what we know we need, and know works, is a short-term, pigheaded policy that will only lead us back to the same dilemma in a matter of years. What will the Mackinacs offer up as a solution then? Drill another hole? Declare a gas holiday?
We need to start thinking about courses of action far more radically (think practically) than the traditional 'the market will safe us' method. The market does not factor us into its growth plan. And indeed against it. In the long-term, it's you and I who pay the ultimate price (at the pump, grocery store, iron lungs r' us) - not the corporations you suggest we bow to.
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” – Kenneth Boulding
Wow, Adam. Didn't know you were a Mackimaniac too. The ol' bribe, beg, beat down wages and beef up archaic industry method, huh? Never failed us before. Right, GM? Are you familiar with the Refinery in Alma that closed in 1999? Why did it close? For the same reason it will not be reopening in its old form or as an ethanol refinery. It is not viable given that the margins aren't up to Wall Street's standards. No, the oil companies know we're at peak production and that the less they spend from now until the last drop is gone, the more and more and more and more they can charge us. It's that supply & demand & profit motive you can't get enough of.
Ever hear of opportunity costs? Spending money on one thing means that that money can't be spent on other. For example, if one were to spend money on drilling for oil in your basement and building a refinery on your front lawn, that's money they can't spend on wind turbine manufacturing, solar roof installations, regional electric rail, battery technology, etc. It's like putting all your money into bandages even if the pharmaceutical cure for Leprosy is known – but simply costs too much to produce and be profitable by Wall Street standards. Standards that never have and never will factor the pubic good or public cost into their master calculator (like Health Care).
Investing resources in oil rather than developing an entirely new economy around what we know we need, and know works, is a short-term, pigheaded policy that will only lead us back to the same dilemma in a matter of years. What will the Mackinacs offer up as a solution then? Drill another hole? Declare a gas holiday?
We need to start thinking about courses of action far more radically (think practically) than the traditional 'the market will safe us' method. The market does not factor us into its growth plan. And indeed against it. In the long-term, it's you and I who pay the ultimate price (at the pump, grocery store, iron lungs r' us) - not the corporations you suggest we bow to.
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” – Kenneth Boulding
Yes I am a capitalist Republican. I have known for a while that you are a Marxist Socialist though.
I hadn't heard about the Alma refinery until now. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-11988591_ITM It does need to be reponed. There should be some measures the state of Michigan/federal government could take. We could possibly force the oil companies to reopen Alma under drilling contracts.
I'm very familiar with opportunity costs. With oil drilling even marxist socialists like you could use the Royalties from the oil to subsidize other environmentally freindly projects. The only reason ethanol is being produced is due to subsidies. It takes a lot of food water and oil to produce ethanol. It has very high opportunity costs. You are right about the pharmaceutical companies. The medical profession union also goes along with them as well. The government definately helps limit competition for pharmaceutical companies. If I had cancer I would definately consider a visit to Mexico where alternative treatments are leagl.
We do need to defend property rights (fight polution) but socialism and central planning is not the solution to problems caused by socialism and central planning.
Yes I am a capitalist Republican. I have known for a while that you are a Marxist Socialist though.
Red-baiting?! Congratulations, Adam! It's a very handy tool for any wannabe conservative politician who can't win an argument on facts or merit. You guys just need to make sure people don't start thinking of it as synonymous with, "uncle."
Refusing to buy everything capitalism is selling doesn't make you a Marxist Socialists. It makes you discerning. But blindly excepting it and merrily ignoring its faults apparently does make you, at least, a narrow-minded McCarthyite. Good for you, Adam. Shut out all the views you want - the facts won't change. No matter how loud you squeal "Red!"
Red-baiting?! Congratulations, Adam! It's a very handy tool for any wannabe conservative politician who can't win an argument on facts or merit. You guys just need to make sure people don't start thinking of it as synonymous with, "uncle."
Refusing to buy everything capitalism is selling doesn't make you a Marxist Socialists. It makes you discerning. But blindly excepting it and merrily ignoring its faults apparently does make you, at least, a narrow-minded McCarthyite. Good for you, Adam. Shut out all the views you want - the facts won't change. No matter how loud you squeal "Red!"
Feel free to come at me with any facts supporting socialism/economic central planning.
You may consider yourself discerning but in some ways you come of as left of Hugo Chavez who is a natorious defender of communism and you appear to be far left of Michael Moore who is known to be exteremely liberal.
Marixt socialist might have been the wrong phrase but you do seem to have some strong socialistic tendencies. According to Michael Moore of all people France which is a socialized nation is to the right of us. Even communist China saves more money than we do. We are already running to the left of France and possibly even communist China but you seem to wants to take us further left which makes no sense at all.
McCarthy may have been off in his accusations and he may have been vindictive but I am a strong proponent of capitalism and a strong opponent of socialism. If calling you a Marxist will get you to reconsider your central planning initiatives than I am definately willing to do that.
We pay more taxes than completely socialized France!!!
I'm a Ron Paul Republican not a Bush or even Reagan Republican. We need to get rid of the Flint, Michigan and United States income taxes and kill at least the majority of central planning that our governments do and stick to our constitutions.
Since when do we want our leaders to not have a plan? Is that what it means to be a Ron Paul paeliolibertarian-republican what's it? That's obnoxious, dangerous, what we've been doing for the last 8 years (4 decades)! Business men have no interest and even less ability to look at, to say nothing of solving, this country's problems. You are obviously obsessively hung up on titles, labels and where everything fits on your personal continuum of political thought slide-rule of purity circa 1813.
quote:Public D schreef:
Since when do we want our leaders to not have a plan? Is that what it means to be a Ron Paul paeliolibertarian-republican what's it? That's obnoxious, dangerous, what we've been doing for the last 8 years (4 decades)! Business men have no interest and even less ability to look at, to say nothing of solving, this country's problems. You are obviously obsessively hung up on titles, labels and where everything fits on your personal continuum of political thought slide-rule of purity circa 1813.
There's a great quote that goes something like this:
"Is what Stalin and Mao did to Marx really that different from what Friedman & Bush did to Adam Smith?"
Meaning, anything taken to its extreme, fundamentalist, purity-at-all-costs end can lead to global disaster.
We do have a plan. It's called the united States Constitution. Perhaps after our leaders learn to follow that they could decide whether central economic planning will work better for us than the communists in Russia. Businesses create jobs which is what this nation needs and not more taxes and more socialism. I think we were on the right track until 1913 when the United Stated government started taxing income and inflation tax when we handed over the treasury to the privately owned federal reserve.
I would probably classify Bush as a Keynesian economics proponent so yeah that statement is somewhat valid although to be fair I think Friedman is a little to the right of Keynesian. Bush and the Republican controlled congress seemed to me to be pretty left wing unconstitutional keynesian and then the democrats are even farther to the left into the borderline socialist territory.
There are many forms of good government. There are certain dictatorships/kingship that worked very well and even some communist governments have pursued some conservative agendas but I do thing we need to move towards the Austrian economics concept which we mostly had up until 1913 and things have slowly been unraveling ever since. Hopefully it is not too late to change. Unfortunately there are many things working against returing to a "conservative" government. For example if I won I would be the one and only truly hard line conservative in Lansing but I am in a pretty much impossible district. The majority of Republicans who are elected seem to gravitate towards the socialist democrats.
Wed May 07, 2008 12:51 pm
Public D F L I N T O I D
quote:Adam Ford schreef:
We do have a plan. It's called the united States Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is not an economic plan - unless you count legitimizing slavery. I couldn't follow the rest of your post at all. Turn left where? Austria? Bush is a Keynesian? Where are we going again? Lah-Lah Land? 1913?
Maybe you should pull over until you can stop worrying about how and where everything stacks up against Ron Paul's messianic vision of the past and start thinking about what's actually going to work here and now and going forward.
Or not. I like watching people do donuts as much as the next guy. But it does get old after a while. Bad for the environment too.
quote:Adam Ford schreef:
We do have a plan. It's called the united States Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is not an economic plan - unless you count legitimizing slavery. I couldn't follow the rest of your post at all. Turn left where? Austria? Bush is a Keynesian? Where are we going again? Lah-Lah Land? 1913?
Maybe you should pull over until you can stop worrying about how and where everything stacks up against Ron Paul's messianic vision of the past and start thinking about what's actually going to work here and now and going forward.
Sorry it may be a little confusing but about half the stuff the Federal govermnet does is unconstitutional. I think that the United States may be more liberal/leftist/socialist than even Keynesian economics. I would say Bush follows Keynesian economics.
Our current level of socialism is not going to work for us. We are heading for disaster. The solution is not more government the solution is less government and taxes.
Wed May 07, 2008 3:59 pm
Adam Ford F L I N T O I D
This is an example of Keynesian economics. Though it has consumed the vst majority of Republicans it is much worse on the democrats side. We need to reduce govenment reulations and hostility towards electric vehicles. I support energy conservation but am worried about mandating it.
He said reducing high health care costs is the best way for the auto industry to become more competitive.
“One of the problems that the Big Three automakers has is increased costs that have been negotiated over the years that puts them at a competitive disadvantage,” McCain said."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
Bad for the environment too.