Why Biden/Harris will win

[homersapien 11,385]

20 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

The answer is yes. The more money we make, the more successful (financially) we all are in our company. Our bonuses are based on our bottom-line. 

You didn't read my post.  The amount of money your company makes has nothing to do with 'trickle down' economics theory.  You are confusing the strategy of reducing marginal tax rates with profitability of your company.  They are not related.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Why cherry pick that one period instead of looking at the policy as a whole, which has been the predominant philosophy of Republican fiscal policy since 1980?  The world has changed a lot since Reagan left office, but the policy has left workers behind.

I would suggest to you the last 40 years is not representative in its entirety of supply side economics. The purest form occurred under Reagan and the results speak for themselves as it relates to the economy. 
 

What left workers here behind largely is the Clinton/Gore insistence on NAFTA. Perot turned out to be correct in that the sucking sound in the US was the sound of all of the mfg. jobs being sucked out of our country because of a Clinton policy. While we are at it, we can thank the same team for the North Korean situation. At least we now have someone in office who is trying to clean up the mess that others have kicked the can in for a couple of decades. 

[SocialCircle 570]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You didn't read my post.  The amount of money your company makes has nothing to do with 'trickle down' economics theory.  You are confusing the strategy of reducing marginal tax rates with profitability of your company.  They are not related.

No, you are confusing how the privately held company I work for arrives at their “bottom-line” that determines raises and bonuses within our company. 

[SocialCircle 570]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You have given no explanation of why it is biased based on the actual data.  All you've done is make assumptions about me and used that as a defense.

This is the serious forum dude.  If you don't like the data, show something that refutes it from a reputable source.

Here is more data for you.  If you are really concerned about those earning the low wages, then Trump is your man!! 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/workers-at-lower-end-of-pay-scale-getting-most-benefit-from-rising-wages.html

 

[homersapien 11,385]

44 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

No, you are confusing how the privately held company I work for arrives at their “bottom-line” that determines raises and bonuses within our company. 

That has nothing to do with 'trickle down' (aka 'supply side') economic theory, which is the subject we are discussing.

[SocialCircle 570]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That has nothing to do with 'trickle down' (aka 'supply side') economic theory, which is the subject we are discussing.

We disagree.  

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The market doesn't dictate that.  Decisions by the business owners or shareholders decide that.  They could allow a bigger share of the pie to flow down to the workers that make the company's success possible but they don't.  They just use the fact that they hold almost all the cards in this power dynamic between owner and worker to hold labor costs down to the minimum they can get away with.  

And no, both boats are not rising.  A 12% growth in wages since 1978 barely keeps up with inflation over that time period.  And in some respects, they've actually lost purchasing power since then.  One boat is not only rising, it's been upgraded from a nice ski boat to a yacht the size of a small country.  The other boat is barely staying above water and springs leaks from time to time.

No one is arguing here that the owner of the business or the one who 'took the risk' should be making the same as the kid working the cash register or on the assembly line.  That's a straw man.  We're saying that the idea that the wealth truly "trickles down" is inaccurate.  It mostly stays at the top.

 

Again, no one is suggesting that the owner/CEO/founder of a large and successful company doesn't deserve to make more money.  What we're saying is, workers also deserve to reap the spoils of success.  Mr. Cathy can't run the company, and manage distribution, and manage each individual restaurant, and work the registers and cook the food.  All of the folks at the local level doing their jobs well make it possible for the company to be as big and successful as it is.  They and people like them at companies across the economy should be rewarded for that with more than anemic wage growth that barely keeps up with the cost of living over the last 40 years. 

Sure the market helps dictate it as people are free to move around and work somewhere else if/when they feel they are being treated unfairly. If too many good people start leaving, then companies tend to adjust in an effort to recruit and retain the type of employees they need for what they do. Your last sentence is your opinion. Again, I am saying the market is largely determining the value of those workers you are talking about....and is also determining the value of the CEO. Many people believe college football coaches make too much, but the market dictates what they make.  

[homersapien 11,385]

10 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

We disagree.  

Then please explain how they relate. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

I would suggest to you the last 40 years is not representative in its entirety of supply side economics. The purest form occurred under Reagan and the results speak for themselves as it relates to the economy. 
 

What left workers here behind largely is the Clinton/Gore insistence on NAFTA. Perot turned out to be correct in that the sucking sound in the US was the sound of all of the mfg. jobs being sucked out of our country because of a Clinton policy. While we are at it, we can thank the same team for the North Korean situation. At least we now have someone in office who is trying to clean up the mess that others have kicked the can in for a couple of decades. 

So first of all, do your homework on NAFTA.  Clinton did sign it into law, however the primary discussions and framework were negotiated by Bush 41.  The agreement was long down the road before Clinton ever came into office.  Also, NAFTA passed the Senate with 34 Republican votes supporting the bill.  It was as bi-partisan as a policy as you'll ever see when enacted.

And sorry, but NAFTA has little to no bearing on this conversation.  It still doesn't address the continued failure of a trickle down policy where executive pay rose over 900% while everyone else rose just 12%.  You're throwing out a red herring.

The last 40 years of primary Republican fiscal policy hasn't changed much at all.  And it's been shown, with evidence, that every time Republicans get power, they leave the economy and federal budget in worse shape than it was found.

As for North Korea, Trump has literally accomplished nothing with them except to give the regime legitimacy by meeting with them.  We have zero gains to show on that front.

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

This literally has nothing to do with the policy and the major growth gap between executive pay and the every day worker, as shown in the Pew Research.  No one, and I mean no one, is arguing that all workers should earn the same thing.  But at the same time, executive pay should not have grown by 900%+ over the last 40 years while employee pay has only grown 12% (numbers adjusted for inflation).  That means wealth isn't actually trickling down as promised by the policy.  Instead those at the top are just keeping more.  That bonus you get are the crumbs.  I get bonuses too.  Based on just what I bring in to the company alone in raw dollars and profit, it's paltry.  

While those are indeed good things, the government as you said grew substantially.  It also grew under H.W. Bush and W. Bush.  The latter even created an entirely new cabinet level department (Homeland Security).  Not only did government grow under all three, but the deficit ballooned under all three as well. 

Clinton inherited a major deficit.  He left office with a budget surplus, only for W Bush to explode the deficit to over $1 trillion.  Obama cut that deficit in half, but Trump has already pushed it back to over $1 trillion again.

It's also worth noting that the two Presidents with the best return rate in the history of the stock market are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/07/23/historical-stock-market-returns-under-every-us-president/

So sorry if I think the dominant Republican economic policy and claims of fiscal responsibility are frauds.  There's too much data to ignore.

Again, you're projecting as to what you think I like or don't like.  It's not about whether I like it or not.  I've been very successful so far and will continue to be so.  But this is about empirical evidence showing me that the ideas you're arguing for are failed experiments.

Of course the stock market exploded when Clinton was in office, but the question is why....and the answer is the tech sector....which had little to do with anything he did as far as policy goes.  Good timing helps you know. There was a push by the Rs to balance the budget when Clinton was in office led by Newt and Kasich. They were successful.  A big help also was the peace dividend thanks to Reagan by ending The Cold War. The crash of the market just before Obama took office is the reason it increased a large percentage during his 8 years. This is kind of like giving Trump credit for the massive economic recovery the last few months after everything had to be shut down for 2 months. George W, Obama, and Trump are all big spenders.  Whoever is in office the next 4 years will also be a big spender....you can count on it. 

[SocialCircle 570]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So first of all, do your homework on NAFTA.  Clinton did sign it into law, however the primary discussions and framework were negotiated by Bush 41.  The agreement was long down the road before Clinton ever came into office.  Also, NAFTA passed the Senate with 34 Republican votes supporting the bill.  It was as bi-partisan as a policy as you'll ever see when enacted.

And sorry, but NAFTA has little to no bearing on this conversation.  It still doesn't address the continued failure of a trickle down policy where executive pay rose over 900% while everyone else rose just 12%.  You're throwing out a red herring.

The last 40 years of primary Republican fiscal policy hasn't changed much at all.  And it's been shown, with evidence, that every time Republicans get power, they leave the economy and federal budget in worse shape than it was found.

As for North Korea, Trump has literally accomplished nothing with them except to give the regime legitimacy by meeting with them.  We have zero gains to show on that front.

Reagan was great for the economy and so is Trump.  

The families who received the bodies of their loved ones disagree with you as it relates to NK for sure, as does this writer. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-kim-korea-success/563012/

 

[SocialCircle 570]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Then please explain how they relate. 

No, since you know so much about the privately held company I work for....you tell me how they don't relate. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

13 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So first of all, do your homework on NAFTA.  Clinton did sign it into law, however the primary discussions and framework were negotiated by Bush 41.  The agreement was long down the road before Clinton ever came into office.  Also, NAFTA passed the Senate with 34 Republican votes supporting the bill.  It was as bi-partisan as a policy as you'll ever see when enacted.

And sorry, but NAFTA has little to no bearing on this conversation.  It still doesn't address the continued failure of a trickle down policy where executive pay rose over 900% while everyone else rose just 12%.  You're throwing out a red herring.

The last 40 years of primary Republican fiscal policy hasn't changed much at all.  And it's been shown, with evidence, that every time Republicans get power, they leave the economy and federal budget in worse shape than it was found.

As for North Korea, Trump has literally accomplished nothing with them except to give the regime legitimacy by meeting with them.  We have zero gains to show on that front.

What's funny is, for all the talk of folks expecting the assembly line worker and the founder of a company to make the same (no one is arguing for that), we wouldn't be having this conversation if for instance executive pay had risen 700% while everyone else rose almost 300%.  The lion's share is still going to upper management and especially owners.  But a larger share of the spoils is being shared with the Average Joes and Janes that got them there.

The problem is, the invisible hand of the free market has no mechanism for making that happen.  The motivation is to maximize profits above all else and to minimize labor costs by only throwing enough crumbs to them to avoid an all out revolt.  Sharing more of the pie requires something the market alone can't teach and won't incentivize:  not being selfish.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

which is the subject we are discussing

I predict a discussion on soccer will soon commence. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I predict a discussion on soccer will soon commence. 

Nah, we already have a derailed thread for that.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So first of all, do your homework on NAFTA.  Clinton did sign it into law, however the primary discussions and framework were negotiated by Bush 41.  The agreement was long down the road before Clinton ever came into office.  Also, NAFTA passed the Senate with 34 Republican votes supporting the bill.  It was as bi-partisan as a policy as you'll ever see when enacted.

And sorry, but NAFTA has little to no bearing on this conversation.  It still doesn't address the continued failure of a trickle down policy where executive pay rose over 900% while everyone else rose just 12%.  You're throwing out a red herring.

The last 40 years of primary Republican fiscal policy hasn't changed much at all.  And it's been shown, with evidence, that every time Republicans get power, they leave the economy and federal budget in worse shape than it was found.

As for North Korea, Trump has literally accomplished nothing with them except to give the regime legitimacy by meeting with them.  We have zero gains to show on that front.

Probably better off with Rodman being our point of contact with them. LMAO

I mean at least then it is done in a more professional manner. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

13 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Reagan was great for the economy and so is Trump.  

The families who received the bodies of their loved ones disagree with you as it relates to NK for sure, as does this writer. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-kim-korea-success/563012/

 

You do realize that North Korea has already backed off of all those things the writer mentions as accomplishments, correct?  Only thing they couldn't take back were hostages.

Keeping up with current news and events would help your argument.

[SocialCircle 570]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What's funny is, for all the talk of folks expecting the assembly line worker and the founder of a company to make the same (no one is arguing for that), we wouldn't be having this conversation if for instance executive pay had risen 700% while everyone else rose almost 300%.  The lion's share is still going to upper management and especially owners.  But a larger share of the spoils is being shared with the Average Joes and Janes that got them there.

The problem is, the invisible hand of the free market has no mechanism for making that happen.  The motivation is to maximize profits above all else and to minimize labor costs by only throwing enough crumbs to them to avoid an all out revolt.  Sharing more of the pie requires something the market alone can't teach and won't incentivize:  not being selfish.

There are plenty of companies to work for that do treat employees “fairly.” Of course fairly is in the eyes of the beholder. If someone doesn’t think they are being treated fairly they can try to find work somewhere else or learn a skill that increases their value or even try to start their own company. There are several examples I’ve seen in recent years that are mostly out west where an owner was so fair they fairer themselves right out of business or had to revert back because this is what the market dictated. Also, I don’t think you or I are in any position to judge what is fair or what isn’t fair. Companies determine what they think is fair and if enough agree with them they can employ enough to stay in business and if enough disagree and leave then they can adjust or decide to close down. 

[SocialCircle 570]

19 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You do realize that North Korea has already backed off of all those things the writer mentions as accomplishments, correct?  Only thing they couldn't take back were hostages.

Keeping up with current news and events would help your argument.

Actually everything indicated in the article is still true today. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Actually everything indicated in the article is still true today. 

LOL!

Let's go through just a few of them, shall we?

Gonna use the same news link for the first two since it applies to both.  Note that this is from 2 months ago, not two years ago.

The United States and North Korea are now talking to each other rather than threatening war.

Any North Korean denuclearization pledge is remarkable.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-26/north-korea-threatens-us-with-nuclear-attack

 

Looks like this one is already dead since NK has said they will meet us "nuke for nuke".

For the moment, some conditions for a realistic, halfway-decent nuclear deal with North Korea are in place.

 

But yeah, other than those things, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

[SocialCircle 570]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

LOL!

Let's go through just a few of them, shall we?

Gonna use the same news link for the first two since it applies to both.  Note that this is from 2 months ago, not two years ago.

The United States and North Korea are now talking to each other rather than threatening war.

Any North Korean denuclearization pledge is remarkable.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-26/north-korea-threatens-us-with-nuclear-attack

 

Looks like this one is already dead since NK has said they will meet us "nuke for nuke".

For the moment, some conditions for a realistic, halfway-decent nuclear deal with North Korea are in place.

 

But yeah, other than those things, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

The writer made 5 points. You attempted to address a couple of them. Again the writer is correct when he said “for the moment“..... As everyone knows there was always going to be plenty of bluster and talk when dealing with NK and when Trump is involved. The situation is going to go back and forth. 
 

NK is not threatening war today. In fact, their missile and nuclear testing has gone way down.  

Every sane person knows this will go back and forth over time. 
 

Clunton largely created this problem and Trump is trying to clean it up after everyone since Clinton has kicked the can. 
 

You started by saying nothing has been accomplished and immediately had to take that back when I pointed out the families who got the bodies disagreed with you. 
 

So the play was fine for me. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The writer made 5 points. You attempted to address a couple of them. Again the writer is correct when he said “for the moment“..... As everyone knows there was always going to be plenty of bluster and talk when dealing with NK and when Trump is involved. The situation is going to go back and forth. 
 

NK is not threatening war today. In fact, their missile and nuclear testing has gone way down.  

Every sane person knows this will go back and forth over time. 
 

Clunton largely created this problem and Trump is trying to clean it up after everyone since Clinton has kicked the can. 
 

You started by saying nothing has been accomplished and immediately had to take that back when I pointed out the families who got the bodies disagreed with you. 
 

So the play was fine for me. 

Hold on: Clinton created this problem?  You're really putting the insanity of the North Korean regime, which started in the 1950s, at the feet of Bill Clinton?

As for families getting their bodies back, it is indeed a good thing.  I'd argue that we shouldn't be negotiating with these asshats at all.  It's callous sure, but the country has a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.  Hate to be that guy, but the bigger picture matters.

And yes, I addressed a few of them because his points were largely the same, just worded differently.  However I don't see how you're steadfastly leaning on an opinion piece from two years ago when actual words spoken by North Korea two months ago refute his core positions.

[SocialCircle 570]

27 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Hold on: Clinton created this problem?  You're really putting the insanity of the North Korean regime, which started in the 1950s, at the feet of Bill Clinton?

As for families getting their bodies back, it is indeed a good thing.  I'd argue that we shouldn't be negotiating with these asshats at all.  It's callous sure, but the country has a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.  Hate to be that guy, but the bigger picture matters.

And yes, I addressed a few of them because his points were largely the same, just worded differently.  However I don't see how you're steadfastly leaning on an opinion piece from two years ago when actual words spoken by North Korea two months ago refute his core positions.

Some of his comments were qualified as I pointed out. 

[SocialCircle 570]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

LOL!

Let's go through just a few of them, shall we?

Gonna use the same news link for the first two since it applies to both.  Note that this is from 2 months ago, not two years ago.

The United States and North Korea are now talking to each other rather than threatening war.

Any North Korean denuclearization pledge is remarkable.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-26/north-korea-threatens-us-with-nuclear-attack

 

Looks like this one is already dead since NK has said they will meet us "nuke for nuke".

For the moment, some conditions for a realistic, halfway-decent nuclear deal with North Korea are in place.

 

But yeah, other than those things, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Speaking of Lincoln  reminds me of his words.

[SocialCircle 570]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

What's funny is, for all the talk of folks expecting the assembly line worker and the founder of a company to make the same (no one is arguing for that), we wouldn't be having this conversation if for instance executive pay had risen 700% while everyone else rose almost 300%.  The lion's share is still going to upper management and especially owners.  But a larger share of the spoils is being shared with the Average Joes and Janes that got them there.

The problem is, the invisible hand of the free market has no mechanism for making that happen.  The motivation is to maximize profits above all else and to minimize labor costs by only throwing enough crumbs to them to avoid an all out revolt.  Sharing more of the pie requires something the market alone can't teach and won't incentivize:  not being selfish.

You and Brad simply ignored the first article I posted as it relates to how low wage earners have fared under Trump. Here is more info for you. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/02/minimum-wage-increases-fueling-faster-wage-growth-those-bottom/%3foutputType=amp