Issue 4

[Hi Oktane]

Another reason for companies to avoid Ohio:

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-08-19-0019.html

[pup]

This is the state that is contimplating suing one of its largest corporations over a case the company has now won 20 out of 20 states it has been heard in.

Nothing surprises me. Nothing.

[skatingtripods]

Someone around the UA campus wanted me to sign a petition last year. I asked what it was for. She said, "Paid sick days for employees". I walked away stunned. Why the fuck should you get paid if you don't show up to work?

Small business owners would really get dicked by this. As they keep getting rear-ended by the continuous minimum wage increase.

This is undoubtedly going to pass in this state, and it sickens me.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Ohio seems to keep moving backwards.

If Ohio really wants to get more jobs and more people back into the state then it needs to ease up on taxes and regulation for business. Make it easier to open businesses in the state of Ohio. The state also needs to ease back on state income taxes and work towards eliminating them entirely.

A major piece of legislation would be a right to work law in Ohio, but the unions are probably still too powerful. Closed shops are a disgrace and anathema to real industrial growth anymore.

[Hi Oktane]

This is undoubtedly going to pass in this state, and it sickens me.

Of course it will. You're basically asking Joe Lunchbox, "Hey, you want 7 more days vacation?" This thing passes by a landslide.

[skatingtripods]

This is undoubtedly going to pass in this state, and it sickens me.

Of course it will. You're basically asking Joe Lunchbox, "Hey, you want 7 more days vacation?" This thing passes by a landslide.

And once Obama wins the election, he raises all the taxes across the board, especially on businesses. And Ohio is one of the highest taxed states for real estate development and land holdings.

This state's in deep deep trouble.

Maybe Joe Lunchbox can spend his week's vacation at the new casino!

[WarAdmiral]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

[Ziner]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

So do you have expectations that you will never be in that tax bracket? Just because some people dont want to bust their ass to get in to a tax bracket doesnt mean they should be all for taxes being raised for others. Besides, the so called "upper class" for the most part it isnt very "upper class".

[WarAdmiral]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

So do you have expectations that you will never be in that tax bracket? Just because some people dont want to bust their ass to get in to a tax bracket doesnt mean they should be all for taxes being raised for others. Besides, the so called "upper class" for the most part it isnt very upper class. You could be in it and not know it.

I probably won't be making 250,000 a year anytime soon. If raising what I pay now a little, is invested in my childrens future, I would be for it now. The war will have to be paid off sometime, and sooner the better. I look at the Democratic plan, and see the bulk of it as investment towards our future. I just don't see the entitlement waste, that Neo-Cons like to label it. I look at it, as fixing taxes.

I do personally prefer a flat tax across the board, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[BDFD]

Ohio seems to keep moving backwards.

If Ohio really wants to get more jobs and more people back into the state then it needs to ease up on taxes and regulation for business. Make it easier to open businesses in the state of Ohio. The state also needs to ease back on state income taxes and work towards eliminating them entirely.

This issue is absolute BS. I couldn't agree with Mac more. At this point, this is the last thing this state needs.

Question: Who proposed this and why? Joe Lunchbox wanting seven more days of vacation aside, who really benefits from passing this law? Seriously, I do not see how anyone can view this as being a good initiative for the state of Ohio. It has to be the Democrats... it has to be.

[WarAdmiral]

Ohio seems to keep moving backwards.

If Ohio really wants to get more jobs and more people back into the state then it needs to ease up on taxes and regulation for business. Make it easier to open businesses in the state of Ohio. The state also needs to ease back on state income taxes and work towards eliminating them entirely.

This issue is absolute BS. I couldn't agree with Mac more. At this point, this is the last thing this state needs.

Question: Who proposed this and why? Joe Lunchbox wanting seven more days of vacation aside, who really benefits from passing this law? Seriously, I do not see how anyone can view this as being a good initiative for the state of Ohio. It has to be the Democrats... it has to be.

Well, it will get our base to the box, during a presidential election.

[Hi Oktane]

Received this via e-mail today:

For Immediate Release:

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Governor, Lt. Governor Statement on
Paid Sick-Day Ballot Initiative

Columbus, Ohio – Governor Ted Strickland and Lt. Governor Lee Fisher today issued the following statement regarding their opposition to Issue 4, the proposed paid sick-day initiative, on the ballot this November:

“While important members of the business community and SEIU participated in good faith discussions, it was, unfortunately, not possible to achieve a compromise acceptable to a sufficient portion of the business community and the proponents to cause its removal from the ballot. We regret that a reasonable compromise was not possible. This reality means that there will be a hard fought campaign centering on this initiative in the coming months. During that campaign, we call upon both sides to avoid portraying Ohio as unfriendly to business and economic development.

“We also recognize it is important to make clear our thoughts on important public policy issues and today are announcing that we cannot support the paid sick-day ballot initiative. While we would hope that all Ohio businesses would make paid sick days available to their employees whenever possible, we believe that this initiative is unworkable, unwieldy and would be detrimental to Ohio's economy, and we will be opposing it and asking Ohioans to oppose it as a result.”

[Hi Oktane]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

WA, I only hope that the company you work for doesn't decide it can't afford to keep you on as a result of this legislation. In a free market, one has to wonder why such a thing must be legislated. You basically have the government telling private businesses how to operate (anyone feel comfortable with that?) rather than allowing them to make their own decisions about how to run their business, inclusive of how to attract/keep quality employees. In the long run, this legislation is of benefit to no productive employee.

Look for companies to be restructuring their vacation plans/other benefits in '09.

[WarAdmiral]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

WA, I only hope that the company you work for doesn't decide it can't afford to keep you on as a result of this legislation. In a free market, one has to wonder why such a thing must be legislated. You basically have the government telling private businesses how to operate (anyone feel comfortable with that?) rather than allowing them to make their own decisions about how to run their business, inclusive of how to attract/keep quality employees. In the long run, this legislation is of benefit to no productive employee.

Look for companies to be restructuring their vacation plans/other benefits in '09.

Fair point and I will take it under consideration. When I read that Ted is against it, that also adds weight.

[BDFD]

For Immediate Release:

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Governor, Lt. Governor Statement on
Paid Sick-Day Ballot Initiative

D'oh. I guess it wasn't the Democrats.

Another question: How many of you already have paid sick time from the company you work for?

*raising hand*

I do!

[WarAdmiral]

I have personal business time, but it has to be prearranged. If I wake up sick, and have time left, they don't have to give it to me.

[buckeye319]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

So do you have expectations that you will never be in that tax bracket? Just because some people dont want to bust their ass to get in to a tax bracket doesnt mean they should be all for taxes being raised for others. Besides, the so called "upper class" for the most part it isnt very "upper class".

Ziner - the implication is that people who aren't in that tax bracket don't bust their ass, which is obviously not true. There's plenty of people who don't get into that tax bracket for a variety of reasons. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people in America don't move up or down out of the tax bracket from which they were born.

And for all the conservative hyperventilation at Obama's tax plan, I find it interesting that those same conservatives aren't concerned about the fact we're $10 trillion dollars in debt, and still want to cut taxes. How much debt are you cool with? I understand why many don't want to have outrageous taxes, but if you're gonna fight two wars, it's pretty much a necessity to raise them.

P.S. - I guarantee McCain raises taxes if he wins the presidency, just as Bush I (correctly) did.

[Hi Oktane]

D'oh. I guess it wasn't the Democrats.

The proposal from the union-backed Ohioans for Healthy Families would also allow workers to take leave in one-hour increments. Part-time workers would receive a prorated amount of leave.

The group turned in enough signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State's office last week to get the issue on the Nov. 4, although the signatures are still being verified.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/08/a_proposed_statewide_issue_for.html

[Doc]

The paid time off feature at my job is definitely one of the selling points for me.

I don't make a ton, but new employees get 12.67 hours of paid time off per month. That equates to 19 days per year as a new hire. Of course, that encompasses sick days, personal days, and vacation...but damn near 4 weeks of paid time off is awesome.

And it's especially good for a guy like me who doesn't take a ton of sick days. I have to be either pretty sick or pretty hungover not to go into work on a scheduled day. I think I've called off maybe 4 times in 14 months (1 was in the snow when I was already gonna be a half hour late due to the traffic, one I was throwing up all night, 1 was when my grandmother passed (paid bereavement time not digging in to my paid time off, and one day I just didn't feel like going. )

Not to mention we just recently switched into a trial 4 10-hour day work week. So, now my Tuesdays can be my doctor/dentist day, giving me even more time to save up. Hell, I'm taking a total of 40 hours of work time off starting August 30th (Saturday) and I don't have to work again until Wednesday September 10th. And then I have that Friday off as well, for a trip to Yankee Stadium/USC v OSU/Cleveland v Pitt weekend.

I guess it would be nice as a casual worker to get compensated...case in point, I worked for a family rental business for 7+ years. I got NO paid vacation, NO paid sick time, and maybe 3-4 total paid holidays for the duration of my tenure there...not 3-4 per year...TOTAL. Then they cut your hours back in the winter. So, for Joe Lunchbox...they need the money, too. Not everyone is fortunate enough to make great money, have great benefits, or in my case, get a pretty loaded paid time off system. I sympathize with the small businesses. I do. But I empathize with the working man as well. If there are safeguards to make sure people don't overuse it, we're all better off. Because, quite frankly, I'd rather not have the person in the cube next to me hacking her strep throat on me in the winter time and get half the office sick. And hopefully, that's what people will use it for.

[skatingtripods]

I'm voting for it, and Obama isn't raising taxes on my tax bracket, so I am cool with that.

Obama's still raising taxes across the board. He plans to increase taxes across the board to increase social spending. And guess what, my friend, any tax increase hurts you regardless of what "tax bracket" you are in. Goods and services cost more money. If he wants to give the shaft to businesses and tax the hell out of their profits, guess who incurs the wrath? That's right- you the consumer.

He may not raise your income tax. But, if taxes get raised across the board, you pay for them too. And if you're in a lower tax bracket, and you're paying more for goods and services, who's getting hurt more by tax increases?

To mention one of your later points, you're in favor of the Fair Tax? Someone slanted to the liberal side in favor of the Fair Tax? Sorry, but that's a little shocking to me. I'm all about the Fair Tax, myself. It's a fantastic idea that doesn't widen the class gaps that will always exist. It will stop them from expanding. It's a great idea, but most people are too ignorant (stupid) to understand.

And for all the conservative hyperventilation at Obama's tax plan, I find it interesting that those same conservatives aren't concerned about the fact we're $10 trillion dollars in debt, and still want to cut taxes. How much debt are you cool with? I understand why many don't want to have outrageous taxes, but if you're gonna fight two wars, it's pretty much a necessity to raise them.

So Obama's going to further hamper the economy by raising everyone's taxes through the roof and limiting disposable income. Tell me how that encourages economic growth? All it does is increase Obama's spending power to spend on social programs that don't need more money dumped in to them. They need reform from within, not more frivolous claims from more people that can cheat the system.

What war is Obama planning on fighting? The best way to rectify the economy is to encourage spending by the consumer culture that is our population. Tax breaks will help that. When energy bills are constantly rising, cars will no longer be leased, and taxes out the wazzu, how is a lack of disposable income for entertainment purposes going to help the economy? That's not even mentioning the escalation that's going to happen to foodstuffs when Obama continues to push his bogus ethanol plan.


Does anybody care about small businesses? All these paid sick days are going to do is cripple small business owners and with less options, there's less competition. Where there's less competition, there are higher prices for goods and services.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I probably won't be making 250,000 a year anytime soon. If raising what I pay now a little, is invested in my childrens future, I would be for it now. The war will have to be paid off sometime, and sooner the better. I look at the Democratic plan, and see the bulk of it as investment towards our future. I just don't see the entitlement waste, that Neo-Cons like to label it. I look at it, as fixing taxes.

I do personally prefer a flat tax across the board, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It won't be invested in the future because revenues will likely drop over time with a tax hike. Obama wants to create new government programs - over a trillion in new spending. He has no answers for the $30 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

The answer is to cut into the unfunded liabilities by gradually raising the social security age, cutting medicare to people who earn more than a certain amount in retirement, cut into welfare and other entitlements, reduce the bureaucracy and ridiculous pensions for government workers, etc. Just expanding government is not the answer.

Forcing employers to pay for sick days will mean fewer employees and service will take a hit while jobless claims grow. Anyone who votes for something like that clearly has no understanding of how an economy works or how a business is run.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

And for all the conservative hyperventilation at Obama's tax plan, I find it interesting that those same conservatives aren't concerned about the fact we're $10 trillion dollars in debt, and still want to cut taxes. How much debt are you cool with? I understand why many don't want to have outrageous taxes, but if you're gonna fight two wars, it's pretty much a necessity to raise them.

P.S. - I guarantee McCain raises taxes if he wins the presidency, just as Bush I (correctly) did.

Are you aware that every time taxes have been cut that revenues have increased to the Federal gov't?

Most of that debt is actually not debt in the general sense. Some of it is due to bonds, etc. Some is unfunded liabilities. Some is just imaginary debt because of the inflation caused when the government overspends. It's not exactly the kind of debt that you or I have to lenders, etc.

The first solution is eliminating government waste. That means the entire Federal government needs a top down audit. Bureaucracy must be eliminated that is unnecessary. Salaries must be examined (many government salaries exceed what anyone could make in the private sector for the same type of job) and restructured. The government pension plan needs to be eliminated for younger government employees in favor of personal investment and matching.

The health care system needs to be fixed by opening it up to competition. This can help drive down the cost of medicare, one of the largest contributors to the "debt". Medicare fraud needs to be taken care of because billions of dollars are paid out every year on fraudulent claims. National tort reform is an important part of this (and can actually help bring down inflation as well across the board due to the impacts of lawsuits on all industries that get passed down to the consumer).

Corporate taxes must be lowered. They are the highest in the developed world right now. This will drive business away, taking away jobs. I think taking the tax rate down to 15% is the best solution right now. Once again, those taxes are just passed down to the consumer and calculated into the profits. This will incentivize more US based business.

We have to make it easier in states and federally for businesses to open up, for plants to be built. This delves into the bureaucracy a bit and also into the exorbitant fees charged to build a factory or other major business. This limits construction jobs, factory jobs, etc. By making it easier we will see more money spent here, more jobs here, higher wages here, and an increase in revenue here.


I'm in favor of a national right to work law as well. Democrats wouldn't be just as they'd be against tort reform. You think Big Oil controls the Republicans? That's nothing compared to how much trial lawyers give to the Dems - and overwhelming amount compared to what they give to the GOP.

Same goes for Labor. Much more money than Big Oil gives to the GOP. Those union bosses get rich off of the closed shops and could care less about the rust belt going into the toilet - at least until GM or Ford file for bankruptcy and can unilaterally dictate terms.

The big debt is a problem, but Obama just wants to create more debt by creating over $1 trillion worth of new programs without raising taxes enough to just cover them. McCain has a history of cutting spending while Obama promises more deficits.

Yeah, we in the GOP really don't care about the debt. We do need a surplus but we need to do it by shrinking government, not growing it further. We need to take the shackles off the US economy instead of letting the union bosses, lawyers, and environmentalists keep it from booming.

The solution to solving the debt issue is taking the gloves off and letting the US economy boom and boom big. I'm an advocate of the Fair Tax on that one and I think with it we would really boom.

[Ziner]

I do personally prefer a flat tax across the board, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The obvious question to me is, if you are all for a flat tax that means you want everyone regardless of income to pay the same percentage of tax. So if you do prefer this, why would you want to increase the gap in the current percentage that exists between the lower and upper incomes?

[Ziner]

P.S. - I guarantee McCain raises taxes if he wins the presidency, just as Bush I (correctly) did.

Not being a dick, but did I miss something? Waht taxes has Bush raised? One of his first orders of business was lowering the income tax, and very recently he got a stimulus package that essentially refunded our tax dollars. Both of which he got hammered by democrats for doing. I also am pretty sure he lowered the Capital Gains tax, but I am too lazy to look it all up

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Not being a dick, but did I miss something? Waht taxes has Bush raised? One of his first orders of business was lowering the income tax, and very recently he got a stimulus package that essentially refunded our tax dollars. Both of which he got hammered by democrats for doing. I also am pretty sure he lowered the Capital Gains tax, but I am too lazy to look it all up

He's referring to Bush's father who pledged to not raise taxes but was forced to in a compromise with the Democrat controlled Congress. It's actually one of the things that helped cause the recession that got him out of the White House (though he would have won without Perot running).

In an economic slow down it is a bad idea to raise taxes because it can just make the problem worse, especially with high inflation being part of it.

Hey, not only does Obama not care if you pay $4 a gallon or more than that for a gallon of milk, he also wants to make you pay more in taxes so you can have less money to spend on yourself. Maybe then you'll have to get food stamps and become hooked on the government like so many others that are stuck on the Democratic Party. More government reliance = more mindless schlubs who will keep you in power and control. That's how the Dems work and why they came up with The Great Society - keep 'em hooked and they'll never realize that you're not really helping them, they'll just blindly vote for you.

[buckeye319]

P.S. - I guarantee McCain raises taxes if he wins the presidency, just as Bush I (correctly) did.

Not being a dick, but did I miss something? Waht taxes has Bush raised? One of his first orders of business was lowering the income tax, and very recently he got a stimulus package that essentially refunded our tax dollars. Both of which he got hammered by democrats for doing. I also am pretty sure he lowered the Capital Gains tax, but I am too lazy to look it all up

Bush I - George H. W. Bush. It wasn't exactly done the way he wanted to do, but he understood the debt wasn't going to get fixed by simply cutting government spending. McCain's plan won't even come close to alleviating the debt through cutting entitlement programs. Economists from all sides have admitted there is a huge gap. That's not to say it's a bad idea, but there is a lot more at play than entitlement programs.

In any case, the biggest reason for U.S. economic problems is broader globalization issues, not tax policy, whereby corporations are now able to do business in other countries for far less than they could ever conceive of doing in America in this day and age. Most of this out of the hands of politicians, unless you want to become a protectionist nation, which is an altogether bad idea. What the America really needs is the explosion of a new industries, which generally speaking, isn't going to be hindered by a tax increase. And again, balancing the budget so you can spend on private businesses isn't a bad way to go

[buckeye319]

Hey, not only does Obama not care if you pay $4 a gallon or more than that for a gallon of milk, he also wants to make you pay more in taxes so you can have less money to spend on yourself. Maybe then you'll have to get food stamps and become hooked on the government like so many others that are stuck on the Democratic Party. More government reliance = more mindless schlubs who will keep you in power and control. That's how the Dems work and why they came up with The Great Society - keep 'em hooked and they'll never realize that you're not really helping them, they'll just blindly vote for you.

Get outta here with this grandiose talk of government reliance. That's such a distorted view of America, and quite honestly, one that doesn't come many moderate conservatives in politics and government.

I'm not saying we have to hand out $100 bills at every corner, but that balancing the budget is a very good thing, and cutting program isn't gonna cut it. I agree that tax increases during a slow economy isn't the best recourse, but if done properly with smart spending, it's not going to destroy an economy with larger issues at hand.

[Ziner]

P.S. - I guarantee McCain raises taxes if he wins the presidency, just as Bush I (correctly) did.

Not being a dick, but did I miss something? Waht taxes has Bush raised? One of his first orders of business was lowering the income tax, and very recently he got a stimulus package that essentially refunded our tax dollars. Both of which he got hammered by democrats for doing. I also am pretty sure he lowered the Capital Gains tax, but I am too lazy to look it all up

Bush I - George H. W. Bush. It wasn't exactly done the way he wanted to do, but he understood the debt wasn't going to get fixed by simply cutting government spending. McCain's plan won't even come close to alleviating the debt through cutting entitlement programs. Economists from all sides have admitted there is a huge gap. That's not to say it's a bad idea, but there is a lot more at play than entitlement programs.

In any case, the biggest reason for U.S. economic problems is broader globalization issues, not tax policy, whereby corporations are now able to do business in other countries for far less than they could ever conceive of doing in America in this day and age. Most of this out of the hands of politicians, unless you want to become a protectionist nation, which is an altogether bad idea. What the America really needs is the explosion of a new industries, which generally speaking, isn't going to be hindered by a tax increase. And again, balancing the budget so you can spend on private businesses isn't a bad way to go

Sorry didnt realize you mean Bush I. My apologizes. sometimes this country just irritates the hell out of me. none of these politicians have our best interest in mind. They all just want elected again and kickbacks so they can live their cushy life.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Get outta here with this grandiose talk of government reliance. That's such a distorted view of America, and quite honestly, one that doesn't come many moderate conservatives in politics and government.

I'm not saying we have to hand out $100 bills at every corner, but that balancing the budget is a very good thing, and cutting program isn't gonna cut it. I agree that tax increases during a slow economy isn't the best recourse, but if done properly with smart spending, it's not going to destroy an economy with larger issues at hand.

How? Rich people just move their money around so they actually don't end up paying any more and guess who pays 95% of the tax revenue? That would be the richest 2-3%.

Cutting government spending is a great way to get a balanced budget or surplus and cutting taxes will actually further increase revenues. As I said, and even Barack Obama has admitted, cutting taxes increases revenues. It is now a FACT. All three tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush generated increased revenues into Federal coffers over the prior higher tax rates. Less money gets moved abroad.

You see, lowering the corporate tax rates does the same thing. IT encourages companies to relocate their corporate headquarters to the US, increasing revenues. It can actually encourage more people to go into business.

Raising taxes because of shortfalls is the silliest and most shortsighted "solution" and, as I said, Obama wants to add more government entitlements and increase our unfunded liability. If Barack gets what he wants then we'll be even further in the hole.

I would guess that nearly a quarter of the Federal budget is waste or complete pork. It might be higher if we look at redundancy and salaries. State and local governments are also extremely wasteful.

You see, the problem you have is one so many other people have. They think that throwing money at the problem will fix it. People always say the same thing about schools. It's like having leaky pipes throughout your house. Sure, throwing more water into the pipes may increase the amount that comes out of the tap in the end but how much is wasted and how much damage is done in the process?

We had both the state and local governments down here flush with cash a few years ago thanks to the housing boom. Property tax revenues were at all time highs and a lot of people were cashing in on the high prices. Then what happened? The market took a dive, the citizens began to bitch about the taxes, and the state and local governments no longer were flush with cash but were struggling. Want to know why? Because the governments pissed it all away as soon as they got it. Charlie Crist pissed away the huge surplus (and I know Charlie) that Jeb left him from years of trimming and attempting to curtail waste.

Most of the people that have done it down here are Republicans, so don't think I'm just going after the Dems, they've just done it more often nationally because they've been in control of Congress for most of the past 50-60 years.

It's one of the things that I'm most disappointed in President Bush for, that he let the Republicans run amok and go crazy with spending. It's something I doubt McCain would stand for based on his history, but I guarantee that Obama will increase spending.

McCain has pledged to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Obama has refused to make such a commitment because he knows he needs to create more government programs to buy more votes. That's how it works in Chicago. McCain has a track record as a budget cutter and that's a necessity.

I'd like to see McCain pick Romney as his running mate and pick up Romney's idea of doing a top down audit. Romney turned a budget deficit in Massachusetts into a surplus in less than a year and I do believe that a cooperative Congress could help him do the same if McCain puts him in charge of economic policy. We set our expectations so low and only aim for that low bar on the budget, but I actually think we could run a $250B surplus fairly quickly without raising taxes. Government will need to be streamlined and redundancy eliminated. Taxes will need to be cut, but I think that'll increase revenues further, especially with a corporate tax cut.

[buckeye319]

Well yeah, you've basically summed up the Bush II and Reagan economic argument (independent of the spending). That's fine, but the notion that lowering tax cuts creates greater government revenue isn't the view of most economists, as well as independent government findings and even economists within the Bush administration, let alone a fact. I'm not doubting that tax cuts can't stimulate growth, but we're talking about paying off the federal debt (which is completely my fault for throwing this thread off topic).

I do think, however, we can agree that whichever way you get the most revenue, if you don't cut back wasteful spending then it defeats the purpose.

[jfiling]

If raising what I pay now a little, is invested in my childrens future, I would be for it now.

What, you can't be responsible on your own for your kids' futures? Why do I, or anyone else, have to be responsible to ensure your kids future in the richest nation this planet has ever seen? That's just freaking greedy.

[WarAdmiral]

If raising what I pay now a little, is invested in my childrens future, I would be for it now.

What, you can't be responsible on your own for your kids' futures? Why do I, or anyone else, have to be responsible to ensure your kids future in the richest nation this planet has ever seen? That's just freaking greedy.

LOL, that came out wrong. I should've said our children's future. I hate the fact we a saddling them with huge deficits and I'm afraid they will be fighting the Chinese, when they come to collect on what we owe them, and we ain't got it.

[skatingtripods]

we're talking about paying off the federal debt (which is completely my fault for throwing this thread off topic).

Being that neither one of us can fully understand the magnitude of $10T, under what utopian sensationalist thought processes can you actually see us paying off $10T in debt during our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our children's children's lifetime, etc.?

More or less, it's just a number there for nominal value. Yeah, we're in debt, no shit. We will always be in debt. Smaller government and less spending will at least stop it where its at. State governments actually assuming some fiscal responsibility will help. But $10 tril will never be paid off, regardless of what policies are put in place.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Well yeah, you've basically summed up the Bush II and Reagan economic argument (independent of the spending). That's fine, but the notion that lowering tax cuts creates greater government revenue isn't the view of most economists, as well as independent government findings and even economists within the Bush administration, let alone a fact. I'm not doubting that tax cuts can't stimulate growth, but we're talking about paying off the federal debt (which is completely my fault for throwing this thread off topic).

I do think, however, we can agree that whichever way you get the most revenue, if you don't cut back wasteful spending then it defeats the purpose.

Let me put this simply:

Every time the federal government has cut the income tax there has been a corresponding revenue increase. It is a fact and not a theory anymore. It has been done by a Democrat (Kennedy) and two Republicans (Bush and Reagan).

The problem has been that those tax cuts did not have corresponding spending cuts.

John McCain voted against Bush's cuts originally because they did not include mandatory spending cuts. If McCain had gotten what he wanted all those many years ago then we would have seen increased revenue and decreased spending likely resulting in having a balanced budget or better by now.

People just don't understand the damage that can be done by jacking up the tax rate and how little can be accomplished with it. Only about 1/3 of the Federal budget comes from income taxes. The shortfall isn't going to be fixed there.

A huge contributor to the deficit right now is the Medicare prescription drug plan. Predictably, prices went up in that sector when he government got involved, costing the taxpayers even more money. Medicare has actually helped to drive up medical costs for everyone in this country, though it is far from the only factor in that.

This is a multifaceted problem and suggesting that raising taxes is the solution is silly. Maybe it could be part of it? I doubt that is likely because raising the income tax will just cause the people with the most money to move it out of the country.

Don't you understand that rich people are rich for a reason? Not only that, but a lot of them don't really have much in the way of income. All the trust fund babies out there aren't receiving an income. They don't pay into social security or medicare. They don't pay much in income taxes if they pay anything at all.

The real solution is the Fair Tax and moving away from this archaic system. The Fair Tax is what would unleash the economy. It will get a lot of businesses to come back to the US and will increase income because the underground economy and the trust fund babies will now be onboard with paying more money. You want to build a huge mansion somewhere then you pay the Fair Tax. You want to buy a yacht then you also pay.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Being that neither one of us can fully understand the magnitude of $10T, under what utopian sensationalist thought processes can you actually see us paying off $10T in debt during our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our children's children's lifetime, etc.?

More or less, it's just a number there for nominal value. Yeah, we're in debt, no shit. We will always be in debt. Smaller government and less spending will at least stop it where its at. State governments actually assuming some fiscal responsibility will help. But $10 tril will never be paid off, regardless of what policies are put in place.

I disagree.

For one, the debt is not debt like you or I have. For instance, a lot of that debt would take a serious hit if the dollar is seriously strengthened. The foreign investments in the dollar were made with other currencies.

This is actually where a balanced budget comes in. A responsible government would increase the dollar's strength. A less restrictive government that opens up the economy would also add to its strength.

The public debt is actually a little below $6 trillion with the rest being made up of money borrowed from the Medicare and SS trust funds. That money can be made up by reforming those systems. The major problem here is that there's about $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities here for promises made to citizens. That's the biggest concern.

Other than a brief period when Andrew Jackson was President in the 1830s, the United States has always carried debt.

As for the Chinese, they hold about $500 Billion of our debt. The Japanese hold the most (around $600B), and all foreign debt totals just under $2.7 trillion. This is where the strength of the currency comes into play. A increase of 10% in value for the dollar against the yen would reduce the debt by $60B or so to Japan. Of course a strengthened dollar would also give more spending power when buying foreign goods and make each dollar go further abroad as well and the government does spend abroad.

The thing is that about half of the debt is somewhat imaginary. It's essentially money that was printed by the Federal Reserve to cover the overages. A more responsible government and deflation would help alleviate some of it by causing the currency to contract.

The idea is not to get rid of the debt. It's best to limit its growth and attempt to get the foreign powers less involved with it. Figuring out the upcoming unfunded liability crisis is part of the issue and reforming SS and Medicare will take care of that an quite a bit of the current debt. Fixing the medical system by opening up competition, limiting legal profiting, etc will help drive down Medicare costs. Eliminating fraud in Medicare will save the country trillions over the years as well.

[Ziner]

Being that neither one of us can fully understand the magnitude of $10T, under what utopian sensationalist thought processes can you actually see us paying off $10T in debt during our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our children's children's lifetime, etc.?

More or less, it's just a number there for nominal value. Yeah, we're in debt, no shit. We will always be in debt. Smaller government and less spending will at least stop it where its at. State governments actually assuming some fiscal responsibility will help. But $10 tril will never be paid off, regardless of what policies are put in place.

I disagree.

For one, the debt is not debt like you or I have. For instance, a lot of that debt would take a serious hit if the dollar is seriously strengthened. The foreign investments in the dollar were made with other currencies.

This is actually where a balanced budget comes in. A responsible government would increase the dollar's strength. A less restrictive government that opens up the economy would also add to its strength.

The public debt is actually a little below $6 trillion with the rest being made up of money borrowed from the Medicare and SS trust funds. That money can be made up by reforming those systems. The major problem here is that there's about $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities here for promises made to citizens. That's the biggest concern.

Other than a brief period when Andrew Jackson was President in the 1830s, the United States has always carried debt.

As for the Chinese, they hold about $500 Billion of our debt. The Japanese hold the most (around $600B), and all foreign debt totals just under $2.7 trillion. This is where the strength of the currency comes into play. A increase of 10% in value for the dollar against the yen would reduce the debt by $60B or so to Japan. Of course a strengthened dollar would also give more spending power when buying foreign goods and make each dollar go further abroad as well and the government does spend abroad.

The thing is that about half of the debt is somewhat imaginary. It's essentially money that was printed by the Federal Reserve to cover the overages. A more responsible government and deflation would help alleviate some of it by causing the currency to contract.

The idea is not to get rid of the debt. It's best to limit its growth and attempt to get the foreign powers less involved with it. Figuring out the upcoming unfunded liability crisis is part of the issue and reforming SS and Medicare will take care of that an quite a bit of the current debt. Fixing the medical system by opening up competition, limiting legal profiting, etc will help drive down Medicare costs. Eliminating fraud in Medicare will save the country trillions over the years as well.

Mac, you either know a hell of alot about govt and politics are one fantastic bullshitter... I am always impressed with your numbers and logic, unlike me who just spew what I believe with out facts to back it up

[FUDU]

Someone around the UA campus wanted me to sign a petition last year. I asked what it was for. She said, "Paid sick days for employees". I walked away stunned. Why the fuck should you get paid if you don't show up to work?

Small business owners would really get dicked by this. As they keep getting rear-ended by the continuous minimum wage increase.

This is undoubtedly going to pass in this state, and it sickens me.

I used to be against mandated increases in minimum wage but not so much anymore. The way I see it is if you want to be in business (even a small business owner) you should be able to handle meeting minimum wage obligations. There is no reason on Earth why a business owner, one that wishes to be successful, cannot pay somebody at least $6.85 an hour. IF you cannot handle that obligation then may guess is you shouldn't be in business to begin with.

As far as the topic at hand, issue 4, pretty absurd to me. Paid time off as in vacation is one thing, paid sick time? LOL

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I used to be against mandated increases in minimum wage but not so much anymore. The way I see it is if you want to be in business (even a small business owner) you should be able to handle meeting minimum wage obligations. There is no reason on Earth why a business owner, one that wishes to be successful, cannot pay somebody at least $6.85 an hour. IF you cannot handle that obligation then may guess is you shouldn't be in business to begin with.

As far as the topic at hand, issue 4, pretty absurd to me. Paid time off as in vacation is one thing, paid sick time? LOL

Try running a business.

Minimum wage is one cause of inflation because it sets a bottom. As an employer I have my hands tied if I have to start people out at the bottom. Because I can't determine how much I want to pay someone based on their work it means that the better and more productive employees often make just as much or slightly more than the least productive.

Raises in minimum wage also mean that an employer has to raise prices to cover those bumps in wages, making everyone's dollar worth a little less. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually that higher wage will be worth just as much as the old wage was and part of the reason is because of the increasing minimum. People with higher wages will have to pay more for stuff too and they'll ask for raises, forcing their employers to find more money. It ultimately leads to higher prices for consumers.

I have a friend who once did espouse the minimum wage, mandatory sick days, etc. She has been a staunch Democrat over the years and fairly liberal. Thing is, she bought a small business a little over a year ago and her philosophy changed. She realized how much the minimum wage was hurting her, how much SS and Medicare cost her, how much the corporate tax hurt her, and how expensive sick days would be, especially in a restaurant where service plummets when people call in sick. Guess what? She's voting Republican now.

Try running a business where your own neck is on the line and then see what you think about minimum wage and paid sick days. Those paid sick days will just get abused in situations where they don't get paid time off. People will use them to skive off work and get paid for it.

Does the proposed law up there mandate that 16 year olds get paid sick time too? Why the hell should a 16 year old get $7 an hour?

Abolish the minimum wage and let employers and workers figure it out. The good workers will make more and the slackers will get paid far less. I would've loved to take $2 an hour from one of my least productive employees when I had a bunch of people on the minimum or near it. I would've given that money to one of the gusy that worked his ass off. Hell, I'd have also been willing to give him paid sick days because those hard workers don't tend to want to scam you. You learn after a while who you can trust, who really cares. Fuck the people who think they deserve to get paid a certain amount money just for showing up.

[Hi Oktane]

Mac, you either know a hell of alot about govt and politics are one fantastic bullshitter...

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Mac, you either know a hell of alot about govt and politics are one fantastic bullshitter... I am always impressed with your numbers and logic, unlike me who just spew what I believe with out facts to back it up

Well, there is some bullshitting involved sometimes, though the debt numbers are real. I absorb a lot of information and have nearly total recall with my memory. I also have had to make arguments in academic papers a lot over the years, so I know how to form an argument and support it.

My political views are based on facts and observation. I used to lean much further to the left because I relied overmuch on my emotions. I do feel sympathy for people but leaning on your emotions too much leads to bad decisions. It's happened in government. I really do think that Lyndon Johnson truly wanted to do something about poverty when he launched the Great Society. He had been there himself growing up, but the plan didn't account for the ability of human's to abuse things and the lack of discipline and self respect that often infests many of the impoverished. The only hope to actually make headway is to try to change people one at a time - and that's a toughy.

Government programs are the easy way out and we as humans love the easy way out. But the easiest way is not the best way nor does it often work out like you'd hope.

There's no easy way out of the debt. There are also repercussions from paying it off. Whenever you pay it down you end up taking money out of circulation. Imagine removing $5 trillion from circulation! That's the reality of paying off the debt. It is possible, though unlikely and not practical, but the debt can be reduced.

The best thing to do is minimize foreign influence on the currency and prevent debt growth for a while. As the GDP expands the debt will shrink in relation to the GDP. That's when you have a chance to dump so of it, but the GDP will take a hit when you do it.

The best way to increase GDP is by actually taking the reigns off and lowering taxes. You want to attract business because the more they create in the US the higher the GDP goes. Right now the US GDP is around $14 trillion a year. Big problem #1 is that government spending is a huge component of the GDP. If you want to reduce government you also want to get the private sector to generate more. That's where tax cuts and incentives can help.

Funny thing is that one of the things that could give a nice big boost to the GDP is the oil locked up in the Rockies. The US has enough oil shale to supply the world with oil for 130 years at current consumption levels - and that's at 85 million barrels a day. That's assuming that all other oil production worldwide ceases. Opening up the oil and removing production penalties would increase GDP.

Removing penalties for building and expanding refineries would increase GDP.

Removing penalties for building factories would expand GDP.

Cutting the corporate tax rate would encourage more production in the US and more corporations to move to the US, increasing the GDP.

And as the GDP increases so does the revenue to the government. That allows the government to slowly pay off foreign debt and slowly remove currency from circulation in a way that will not negatively impact the economy too much. The best time to do this when and if you can cause a natural deflation in the currency. Once again, higher oil production would help to do this because it would send food, fuel, etc prices down. Ending the forced inflation of minimum wage could help.

In short, we'd have to deflate the currency and make the dollar worth more for everyone; attempt to move back to the days when a dollar could buy you a gallon of milk. That means that salaries would have to gradually decrease, etc. It would not be an easy thing to do because we've grown so used to ever present inflation.

[FUDU]

Mac while your reply to me is appreciated, and a decent reply, it really goes to prove my point.


If one has to try to make justifications and excuse concerning minimum wage one shouldn't be in business, it is that simple.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Mac while your reply to me is appreciated, and a decent reply, it really goes to prove my point.


If one has to try to make justifications and excuse concerning minimum wage one shouldn't be in business, it is that simple.

What? Are you kidding me?

Have you ever run a business when you've put your own money on the line? If not then it must be easy to sit on your high horse and tell people that if they can't deal with the minimum wage they shouldn't be in business.

You don't understand how it prevents an employer from rewarding excellence because you've got to pay a slack jawed teenager nearly as much as you might have to pay a good employee.

Here's the simple math. It's not about the total expense of the wage, it's the consequences of it. If I have to pay pimple-faced slacker $7 an hour then it prevents me from paying excellent worker more. I still might have the same salary pool and I still will run the same labor cost, but I have no ability to distribute it the way I like.

Let's say my good employee gets $8.50 an hour. If I could pay the teenager $5 an hour then I could give that $2 an hour to the good employee and pay him $10.50 or I could use the savings to pay for benefits that the teenager doesn't need. Get the drift?

There is an inflationary aspect to it too that causes inflation.

Let's say I run a shop that has a labor cost of about 15% on weekly revenue of $30,000. That's $4500 in salary paid out weekly plus another 6.5% ($292.50) paid out in FICA and Medicare matching, so actually around 16% of my gross revenue. A mandatory increase in the minimum could increase that number by another 1% or more to 17%.

Guess what? The product prices are going to be raised because generally retail runs on a 5-10% margin. The problem is that the manufacturers will also raise prices, eating into the raw margin on a product. So that item that we charged $50 for now is going to cost you $55. Your groceries also end up costing more. So does just about everything else and you end up needing a raise, causing your employer to raise the price and that causes the minimum to no longer be viable and now it is tied to the inflation index (bad idea).

And the great thing is that most people on the minimum wage don't live off of it. Most of them are teenagers or college students.

Just saying that someone shouldn't be in business if they can't handle the minimum wage is a stupid thing to say. Try dealing with it with your own money on the line and then tell me what you think.

[Ziner]

Mac while your reply to me is appreciated, and a decent reply, it really goes to prove my point.


If one has to try to make justifications and excuse concerning minimum wage one shouldn't be in business, it is that simple.

I dont understand people want to raise the minimum wage. Mac is right talking about the inflationary issues with doing so, but here's the thing. a LARGE majority of minimum wage workers are under 18. People are not raising families on minimum wages alone... at least not without the help from a ton of other govt programs. However my biggest issue with it is who are we/you/the government to say what is high enough for minimum age. Obviously 6.50 isnt enough to comfortably live... why not make it $10 an hour? but then that isnt high enough, why dont we actually make it $20/hour so every people can live a average life... but wait when we do that we cause inflation... so what does 6.50 do for someone that 5.25 doesnt? If you dont want to make minimum wage there are programs to help you gain skills so you dont have to make that wage. Make yourself more valueable the government is basically telling the worst worker in the country they are worth 6.50 an hour... but why does it matter when it still isnt enough to live a good life. get my point? Lets make minimum wage $40 an hour everyone will make so much more money it would be sweet (sarcasm )

[FUDU]

Mac I don't have any day to day involvement with any businesses, but I have invested in some moderately sized businesses.

There are costs to being in business, if one cannot handle the costs and innovate and change with things like growing technology etc then one really shouldn't be in business, or at least expect to be as successful as they had hoped.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Mac I don't have any day to day involvement with any businesses, but I have invested in some moderately sized businesses.

There are costs to being in business, if one cannot handle the costs and innovate and change with things like growing technology etc then one really shouldn't be in business, or at least expect to be as successful as they had hoped.

I don't disagree entirely, but I also think that the government has little business creating salary requirements.

Shouldn't a business owner be able to determine what he's willing to pay? And if that employee is any good shouldn't he be able to request more and be able to find better pay elsewhere in the market if necessary?

You just don't see to get the point. It's not always about innovation. I know in businesses that I've owned I could've cut prices to consumers by 10% or more with less government interference (the stuff that is unnecessary are just lines bureaucratic pockets). I could've also paid the teenagers less anf the more career oriented employees more.

You argument is completely off point and doesn't address how much money is actually taken out of people who actually do want (or need) to make it a career out of bagging groceries, etc by teenagers that are the major beneficiaries of minimum wage hikes.

And being invested in a business is a hell of a lot different from running one.

[skatingtripods]

I disagree.

For one, the debt is not debt like you or I have. For instance, a lot of that debt would take a serious hit if the dollar is seriously strengthened. The foreign investments in the dollar were made with other currencies.

This is actually where a balanced budget comes in. A responsible government would increase the dollar's strength. A less restrictive government that opens up the economy would also add to its strength.

The public debt is actually a little below $6 trillion with the rest being made up of money borrowed from the Medicare and SS trust funds. That money can be made up by reforming those systems. The major problem here is that there's about $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities here for promises made to citizens. That's the biggest concern.

Other than a brief period when Andrew Jackson was President in the 1830s, the United States has always carried debt.

As for the Chinese, they hold about $500 Billion of our debt. The Japanese hold the most (around $600B), and all foreign debt totals just under $2.7 trillion. This is where the strength of the currency comes into play. A increase of 10% in value for the dollar against the yen would reduce the debt by $60B or so to Japan. Of course a strengthened dollar would also give more spending power when buying foreign goods and make each dollar go further abroad as well and the government does spend abroad.

The thing is that about half of the debt is somewhat imaginary. It's essentially money that was printed by the Federal Reserve to cover the overages. A more responsible government and deflation would help alleviate some of it by causing the currency to contract.

The idea is not to get rid of the debt. It's best to limit its growth and attempt to get the foreign powers less involved with it. Figuring out the upcoming unfunded liability crisis is part of the issue and reforming SS and Medicare will take care of that an quite a bit of the current debt. Fixing the medical system by opening up competition, limiting legal profiting, etc will help drive down Medicare costs. Eliminating fraud in Medicare will save the country trillions over the years as well.

So what exactly did you disagree with? That we will never pay off the Nat'l Debt? Because if you disagree with that, I'm sorry, but that's foolish. Regardless of what programs and to what countries the debt lies, we will always have to spend on something. It doesn't matter how far down we get it.

I know the idea isn't to get rid of debt. I thought I hinted at that pretty well. It's to balance the budget. And, you can balance the budget by less spending and strengthening the consumer culture to make the USD go farther.

We will never have bipartisan overhaul of Medicare. While I hope it happens, at what point are Democrats going to give up on this idea of socialized medicine and fix the problems from within. It's the only point that goes anywhere with Joe Lunchbox and his family.

You made a lot of good points, but none of them point to what you disagree about in my post. No matter how much we want what you listed above to happen, you and I both know how tough that road is. Not to mention how long it's going to take.

As I said, I agree with your points, but neither you nor I can predict the future. We may be drawn in to another war that forces increased spending, or a major national catastrophe. We can make it more manageable, yes, but never fully rid ourselves of it.

[waborat]

Looks like I'll have to fire 2 of my guys to get under the 25 employee mark... ****sound of axe sharpening***

[Mr. MacPhisto]

So what exactly did you disagree with? That we will never pay off the Nat'l Debt? Because if you disagree with that, I'm sorry, but that's foolish. Regardless of what programs and to what countries the debt lies, we will always have to spend on something. It doesn't matter how far down we get it.

I disagree that it's an impossibility to pay off the debt in our lifetimes. I didn't say that we should pay it off and indicated that in the post, so I agree with you on that front.

I know the idea isn't to get rid of debt. I thought I hinted at that pretty well. It's to balance the budget. And, you can balance the budget by less spending and strengthening the consumer culture to make the USD go farther.

You did and I apologize for not more clearly stating the one area of disagreement.

We will never have bipartisan overhaul of Medicare. While I hope it happens, at what point are Democrats going to give up on this idea of socialized medicine and fix the problems from within. It's the only point that goes anywhere with Joe Lunchbox and his family.

That means that we have to aim for a non-bipartisan overhaul. A much tougher prospect that requires us to get 60 in the Senate, though the Justice Dept. can be far more aggressive in pursuing fraud.

As I said, I agree with your points, but neither you nor I can predict the future. We may be drawn in to another war that forces increased spending, or a major national catastrophe. We can make it more manageable, yes, but never fully rid ourselves of it.

That's the point of disagreement. We can rid ourselves of it but it would take a lot of sacrifice and another debt would build afterwards. My major point was to argue against an argument for not really caring about the debt that some people make. I was reacting more to the thought that that stance was rearing its head.

[FUDU]

Mac I don't have any day to day involvement with any businesses, but I have invested in some moderately sized businesses.

There are costs to being in business, if one cannot handle the costs and innovate and change with things like growing technology etc then one really shouldn't be in business, or at least expect to be as successful as they had hoped.

I don't disagree entirely, but I also think that the government has little business creating salary requirements.

Shouldn't a business owner be able to determine what he's willing to pay? And if that employee is any good shouldn't he be able to request more and be able to find better pay elsewhere in the market if necessary?

You just don't see to get the point. It's not always about innovation. I know in businesses that I've owned I could've cut prices to consumers by 10% or more with less government interference (the stuff that is unnecessary are just lines bureaucratic pockets). I could've also paid the teenagers less anf the more career oriented employees more.

You argument is completely off point and doesn't address how much money is actually taken out of people who actually do want (or need) to make it a career out of bagging groceries, etc by teenagers that are the major beneficiaries of minimum wage hikes.

And being invested in a business is a hell of a lot different from running one.

First off there isn't that much difference in owing/running a business as opposed to investing in one, the investor still has his/her money on the line.

Secondly throughout you mentioned the ability to control the pay of the employee, based on how good they are etc... Well there has to be incentive to draw employees in, even in the entry level pimple face market of potential workers. Do you want the reputation of the local small business that doesn't pay well, b/c trust me that will put a halt to your business just like anything else. Also the potential employee doesn't need the employer as much as the employer needs that employee in small business, and actually that holds true across the board on a micro level, not as much on a macro level. There are plenty of individuals looking for work in the minimum wage range that can do without a potential job if that employer is trying to nickel and dime his compensation.

I probably agree with our POV more than you would believe or more than I am letting on but my main point here is that there can be a reasonably decided amount of compensation for work, work in general not just specific jobs and tasks. I think right now they got it right in Ohio at $6.85 I believe.

[waborat]

First off there isn't that much difference in owing/running a business as opposed to investing in one, the investor still has his/her money on the line.

Jesus H Christ, You are kidding right???