Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
How is this a loophole if it stipulates the hiring must be done from the pool of unemployed workers?
|
Every loop-hole has some stipulation. It is the government trying to micro-mange some aspect of economic behavior, trying to pick winners and losers, or simply trying to redistribute wealth based on some arbitrary cut-off or formula. In the example I gave, the loop-hole clearly did not have a measurable impact on economic growth considering GDP growth has slowed to 1.8% in the most recent measurement.
Quote:
|
As one example, the Liberals do different things from the Democrats, but they're both liberal parties.
|
Not clear to me.
Quote:
|
It's difficult to compare our systems based on numbers and size of banks. This is mostly because our demographics are very different, yet our geography is comparable in terms of size. What you should know about our biggest banks is that despite their relative few number, they are very large in terms of our economy and they are highly profitable and consistently so. A "bad" quarter for one of our big banks means profits weren't as big as expected or fell short compared to competitors. This was even throughout the recession, when they were posting record-breaking profits. There hasn't been a bank failure in decades, and since before the Great Depression there have been only two bank failures, and these included regional banks only.
|
Again, I have no problem with the Canadian banking system. I think the US system was harmed when the line between commercial banking and investment banking was lifted. Given that change, banks could assume significantly more risk. However, those that assumed excessive risks were not allowed to fail (at least some were not allowed to fail). It is another example of the half way stuff. If we want banks to be free to do whatever they want, we have to let the ones that make bad decisions fail.
Quote:
|
However, this does little to speak to the Nordic model, which is based on a higher tax environment, extensive welfare programs, and low barriers to doing business. Canada isn't quite reflective of the Nordic model, but there are similarities. In principle the model aims to alleviate the burden of poverty through essentially guaranteed health care, education, and social security. While these things aren't necessarily "free" to all, they are for the most part either free or highly subsidized by the government.
|
In the US we constantly seek hybrid systems, systems that can not work. With health-care, we need to pick a model. Single payer or free market. If the Nordic model is single payer or guaranteed coverage for everyone, that is why it works better than our system.
Public education for young people should be free through graduate level programs, in my opinion. We should not have hundreds of cost structures and how those costs are handled on a tax basis, for people going to college. Again, we need to go to one extreme or the other.
Social Security, should be based on a minimum and amounts contributed during a life-time of work. My preference is that the minimum be 100% government funded regardless of based on age. People should then have the option of contributing amounts that they would control for a supplement. So, for example if a person had 5% of their lifetime wages invested in US Treasuries it could be their choice or if they choose a combination of US Treasuries and other investments that be their choice.
Quote:
|
This is why the argument that cutting taxes is the only way to foster growth is false. Sure, cutting taxes in some strategies probably does foster growth, but cutting taxes isn't necessary for this to happen. This is demonstrated in a number of economies, especially the stronger ones employing the Nordic model. The difference is in the focus in terms of where the wealth lands. The top-down model has been revealed as a model that can fail. The bottom-up model has a number of success stories, and Canada is one of them.
|
I agree that there is a point where additional tax rate cuts are inefficient. Fundamentally, when market participants are free to make choices wealth distribution will be relatively flat. The goal of those in power is to restrict the freedoms of choice, that leads to exploitation.
For example, in a system of employer provided health care based model. The ability of choice by the employee is restricted. First the employee has no real choice in the type of health care available and second the risk of losing health care restricts movement from that employer. Government gives the employer special tax treatment under this model and it increases the cost of non-employer based plans that don't get the special tax treatment. In this environment, employees can be more easily exploited reflected in wages. If we fix this problem employers would have to be more generous with wages in order to compete with the added options employees would have. The wealth distribution curve would be flatter.
Quote:
|
My point is that I'm curious as to where the Tea Partiers were during George W. Bush's reckless spending and constitutional lapses. It would seem the Tea Partiers are more concerned with the guy who came in to clean up his messes.
|
You point confuses me unless you are willing to say spending under Obama has been reckless as well.
From my point of view I could see the frustrations of government spending building during Bush's term and most people in the Tea Party say that spending was out of control before Obama took office and Obama made it worse. What we wanted was smaller, less intrusive government. That meant lower taxation and lower spending. bush had it half right, Obama has it all wrong.
---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
there was no tea party under the bush people. from a remove, the tea party can be seen as a repetition effect---they inhabit the discursive space carved out by 40 years of neo-liberal hegemony--within that, there's been the conservative media apparatus busily repeating away since the early 90s.
|
The Tea Party did not have the name, but basically we are Reagan Republicans. Small government, less taxes. We have been around for decades. It is that simple.
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
straight talk about what? it's been nothing but "birf certifcat" for weeks
|
Every TV interview I have watched the birther issue consumed at least 50%-75% of the interview. They don't ask him serious questions. However, when he addresses the birther issue, he does it head on. When he talks about other issues he talks in a language that connects with average people. China is screwing the US. Everyone knows it, but he says it in a very unapologetic way. OPEC is screwing us, Trump would send them a bill - people stand and cheer. There is no nuance. There are no double entendres. Two people don't walk away hearing two different messages. If Ron Paul and Trump had a baby, we might have the perfect candidate. Paul is too intellectual for mass appeal and Trump is too superficial.