I'm sure that is a valid variable here. I'm not an economist. But I do know that businesses want to grow and get bigger, and that it takes an investment in increasing capacity (buying a new truck, machine, or computer, for example) in order to get bigger. That takes money.

Another problem is banks sitting on money they are afraid to lend. I think if the propane demand went up, the bank would lend Buck Strickland the money to grow his business meeting that demand. Serving small business has been the traditional roll of local banks, and it allows them to pay interest to their local depositors, which helps the local community.

Stormie is correct. The myth that the Republicans are pushing this election is that small businesses are the job creators. That's not true. Businesses are reactionary. They get busy and they hire more help. They get busy when the consumers start buying their product or service more. Consumers buy more when they have more money to spend, (or feel like they have more money to spend and are willing to charge it.)

Sure, businesses always want to grow and expand. But if they are in a mature field, that growth is always through taking market share from other companies. That does not create jobs. If company A has 20 employees and competitor B has 20 employees, and they both are selling widgets, then for company A to grow and expand to 30 employees, competitor B will have to lose customers and lay off 10 employees. Net job gain zero. In fact, to take market share, often a company does it through being more efficient and offering a product at a lower price. "More efficient" usually means fewer employees. So you actually end up with fewer jobs total.

The only way to get the entire pie to be larger is to get new customers who weren't buying widgets before. The only way to do that is to invent a new widget (like an iPhone) or make the widget so cheaply that not only do you take market share from competitors, you get customers who were sitting on the sidelines previously.

The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending.

But business expenses are deductible, so if they want to invest in growing their business, they can do that pretax anyway.

Plus, if a "small business" is not only making $250,000 in taxable income, but making enough over $250,000 that the extra money taxed at that rate is significant, they are not the local corner store that politicians want you to picture when they use the phrase "small business".

We have a small business problem in this country.
The problem is that small business in this country doesn't work.

Maybe we could start with rigorous antitrust legislation and action to break up monopolizing or otherwise market-dominating multinationals that siphon money from the poor and working-class to offshore tax havens and to Chinese massive-scale industry.
Maybe we could tax the wal-marts and the apples and the fast-food conglomerates and the comcasts and the financial giants and use that money to subsidize and otherwise help local businesses fill some parts of those same economic niches across the country.
Maybe we could guarantee living wages to hourly or otherwise marginalized workers, giving them the option of shopping local instead of buying chinese crap from wal-mart.
Maybe we could fix the food deserts in our country by making sure EVERY American has access to affordable HEALTHY options, helping to close the health care gap between economic classes and slow the ridiculous rise in health care costs nationally.
Maybe we could put enough money into our cities to build the communities from the inside, with local, small, neighboorhood businesses, instead of outside businesses taking money back out of the community and to the affluent suburbs or gentrified neighborhoods.
Maybe we could work to end the highly racialized nature of our schooling system, and fund education in this country well enough to make sure every American has a REAL opportunity to learn not only job skills, and not only standardized test questions, but also civics, critical thinking, and other more broadly applicable skills that will leave them ready for the job market or for college.
Maybe while we're at it we could reform the for-profit predatory system of colleges that exist only to cash in on the guaranteed student loan program, and the banks that make the profit while the government assumes the risk, by regulating the rising costs of both private and public education, and subsidizing schools through GOVERNMENT loan programs, where the GOVERNMENT keeps the interest profits, instead of the banks.

I could keep going for an hour, if I didn't have to get dressed and ready to leave for class in fifteen minutes. Every one of those things would have broad stimulative effects on the economy, and have either a short-term or a long-term revenue-boosting effect as the tax base broadens. Keynesian economics, bitches. Shit works and always has.

Agreed. Both supply (companies investing) and demand (customers spending) are important but I would argue that the supply side is not as widely recognized today so needs to be emphasized more.

I do want to make the point that in response to an increase in demand, companies can increase supply in two ways: hiring more workers or making their current workers more efficient. Historically, technology moved slow enough that increasing productivity wasn't an option but I think we are approaching the threshold where it may be cheaper (in general) for companies to increase supply by simply increasing productivity, not the amount of workers. I think this, along with technology allowing lower skilled workers to replace higher skilled workers (think manager positions), explains much of our current economic "recovery".

Honestly, my generation will have to deal with a lot of problems (national debt, rising inequality, global competition, climate change), but automation and increases in productivity may be the hardest hitting since nothing else can be solved without a strong economy. Also, it seems economists have their heads in the ground and scream "neo-luddite" every time someone suggest the problem.

The full details of Romney's tax plan:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

You're mixing business policy with charity/welfare policy, and throwing in a little Conservative vs. Liberal philosophy?

Wow! Can you narrow that down to something more specific?

"The least fiscal advantage", I take big exception to. You don't take over a company and take on that level of risk, for a small chance of an upturn. If the company wasn't able to jump up a BIG step (in the opinion of Bain Capital), then Bain Capital wouldn't have been there.
Yes, and Gingrich's association with the truth, suffered because of it. He was working with hardball politics, and that's how the game is played. Politics is not a particularly polite field of endeavor. ;) The voters eventually saw it was b.s., and let him go. He had his own skeletons in the closet, from the way he treated his first wife and son, after he left them. (Quite mean spirited, if I do say so. Gingrich is NOT a nice guy.) He is a smart guy, but his problem is, he has a lot of wacko idea's, stacked right next to the great idea's. When he reaches for one, he frequently gets the other kind.

Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.

I like the term "statist", because he's trying to move the fed state, into every part of our lives.

And I don't WANT the state into every aspect of my life. That requires a LOT of tax money to support it, and THAT leaves me with both little money, and little freedom.

Does "little money" and "little freedom" sound like something you want?

And consumers can't spend money, unless they HAVE money to spend!

Which is why we need JOBS, and yes, small businesses are the most efficient (fastest), new jobs creators, in the private sector.

It's not the Republican party's theory, it's straight out of economics. I understand your hesitancy to accept it, because it's a FACT, and liberals don't generally mix well with facts.

Businesses change as they compete, and sometimes get into entirely new markets, or new ways to serve their same market. The competition is a fantastic way for us consumers, to get better products and services, and THAT also gets the money moving -----> ZOOM!!

He's not the one trying to put the state into womens' bodies.

MUCH LESS left than a liberal.
Center to center right. It's hard to think of something he's proposed or done that wasn't proposed or done by the moderate Republicans of yesteryear. The Overton window strategy has worked; Obama's a big disappointment to liberals, but he'll get the votes because in every way Obama failed them, Romney's worse.

I thought you said you weren't an economist?

Point is, making rich people richer does not directly translate to "job creation".

And yeah, I'd probably call Obama a centrist. Certainly not a liberal of any flavor.

That was me.

Yes, because as an academic discipline, economics is a politics/ideology free zone.

Economics is a little like history: one part 'science' to one part interpretation and one part art.

this.

this.

this.

Let me ask you a question Flint, regarding supply and demand in our economy at this time. Buck Strickland aside for the moment, do you think the current limit on our economic growth is related to--in any way--insufficient supply? Like, there's not enough stuff out there to buy? Empty store shelves, stores that could sell it if only they had it? Not enough propane, anywhere??

I'll tell you what it looks like from here, in my house, and in the economic lives of everyone I know. We're all spending *as fast as we can*. There is plenty of supply, there's plenty of demand, what there isn't is plenty of money. The balance of money has tipped dramatically toward businesses and away from workers, spenders, buyers, customers.

Big_V. This lecture by Elizabeth Warren (1998) may interest you. It talks about why the middle class does not have enough money to spend. It is long, 1 hour, but extremely informative. The first 10 minutes are introductions so that can be skipped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

this is the core problem I have understanding Romney's tax plan. He says reduce rates, reduce deductions, revenue neutral. Where is this "more money" coming from?

ph45! I have neglected to thank you for this *extremely informative post*. Thank you. They are good articles, no crap, lots of detail well explained.

have started the vid, but it's gonna be preempted by the debate. I'll report later though. thanks.

Obama has stated that under his system of cap and trade, our electric rates "would necessarily skyrocket". He wants to also run all our coal fired electric power plants so "they would go bankrupt".

I call that VERY liberal.

But today, we have YET ANOTHER stimulus money being flushed down the shitter, to the tune of 249 Million Dollars!

Let's hear it for Obama's stimulus plan!!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6f9fb2b7fac279

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN, will Obama stop flushing our money, down the toilet, by the hundreds of millions of dollars? :mad:

Cap and trade was a Republican invention.

Want to try again?

Adak, you can call it what you will. That doesn't change what it is, or isn't.

Not only could I spend a full hour listing bullet points - i could write for an hour each about each of them. Why can't that ever be something I do?

Here's something I posted on my tumblr as a slightly but only slightly tongue-in-cheek post at 3:30 in the morning, when i should be sleeping so I can do my homework in the morning but instead I'm drinking a tripel ale and tequila. and smoking up. My middle school ex I've been skypefucking with the last few weeks is texting flirtily with me again but very slowly while she writes her thoreau essay due tomorrow and, well, i'm not going to sleep until I know if she's gonna take a study break.

So, instead, I'm listening to the first four Ramones albums [Ramones, Leave Home, Rocket to Russia, Road to Ruin] in chronological order and indulging vices - i think im going to have a cigar in a minute - and #nightblogging on tumblr.

oh my god i sound like tw on drugs what is going on?
also i'm loving this Deadpool-style two-voice commentary agh somebody make me go to bed i have class tomorrow

Oh, I'm sure a national tax on a product of any kind, is a Republican invention, because we WANT the government to get more of our money.

You sure know your Conservative ideas, don't you?:rolleyes:

Are you drinking, smoking some wacky tobacky, or what?

No, really, dude. Cap and trade was the CONSERVATIVE response to a FLAT CAP on emissions! Cap and trade was not the deal between two parties, or a liberal idea - it was a REPUBLICAN plan built of a compromise between free-market Ayn Rand lunatics who wanted to seem to want a market alternative, hence the TRADE part of Cap and Trade, and the INSANE FRINGE - that now DOMINATES the republican party - that denies the proof of wide-scale climate change and didn't see why caps should be there in the first place and wanted to subvert them as much as possible.

Learn your modern fucking political history, you idiotic shill.

I'm doing both, and I'm STILL right. And I dunno how old you are, but I'd guess by your get-off-my-lawn embarrassing-older-relative political positions that compared to you, i'm just a kid. and I'm STILL RIGHT.

why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling donut?

I will certainly agree.

And what we have here, is 3 1/2 years of failed fiscal policies.

If Obama could have gotten his fiscal policies smartened up, he'd be a shoe-in for re-election. But now? It will be a very close race.

The races in the House of Rep. and the Senate, will also be very important. If I have to listen to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, I'll be investing in earplugs and noise cancelling headphones. :p:

I believe they could use Pelosi for gentle coercion, down at Gitmo. A few hours listening to her gobbletygook, and they'll be jumping at the chance of confessing their crimes, just to make that irritating sound of her voice, stop. :D

because the current house isn't a textbook case of failed leadership or anything.
Clinton/Pelosi 2016 #misandry 4 lyf #fuckthepatriarchy #fuckthekyriarchy

Both the in the House in DC and in republican state houses across the country the focus has been jobs jobs jobs by which they mean ABORTION. There have been more anti-abortion bills introduced this session than in ANY other session in the HISTORY of our nation. If that isn't an utter failure of national leadership and policy I don't know what is. On the other hand, landmark reforms of health care, fair pay, non-discrimination, and, from the end of the recession, the sharpest rise in private sector job growth since the WPA and the War on Poverty without growing government jobs sounds like Obama knows what's right for this country.

Yes. C. Boyden Gray, a Reagan and GHW Bush lawyer, first signed into law by GHW Bush.

A. The rate is a rate of income being taxed, so when you reduce rates there is more money left to individuals as income, and less money received by the government as taxes.

B. Deductions are (in effect) a method of giving money back, so when you reduce deductions, there is less money received by individuals as returns, and more money recieved by the government as taxes.

Whereas A. and B. have opposite effects, the net effect is neutral (theoretcially--I'm not arguing feasability, just describing a simple flowchart), meaning no change. Neutral doesn't mean more.



I'm still struggling to identify the area which is difficult to understand.

Neutral? Then what's the point?
When you make $50,000, your mortgage deduction is a very big deal.
When you make $50 million, not so much.

Good question. The point, as I understand it (and insomuch as this is a valid theory) is that since tax rates have gone down, business has been stimulated. Tax revenues have gone up, beause of the increase in commerce. But individuals are paying the same amount, since rate and deduction changes have offset each other.

Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.

deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to taxation. a deduction is an amount of money you've spent during the year on a given thing(s). If those things fall into certain categories, the amount spent can be deducted from your gross income, repeat as necessary, until you get to your adjusted gross income, the amount that is subject to taxation. deductions are like exemptions, a certain kind and amount of income is exempted from taxation.

more deductions, more exemptions, more money excluded from taxation, and for a given rate of taxation, less tax collected.

by eliminating deductions, fewer deductions, fewer exemptions, less money excluded from taxation, for a given rate of taxation, more tax collected.

***
So. "Neutral doesn't mean more", neutral is neutral, ok, ok. Then where does *this* more money (in the pockets of people) come from?

Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate. He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral. How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?

What is it? Is it paying less in taxes or is it revenue neutral?

Revenue neutral may mean (for Romney) the total $ of revenue stays the same.

So if an upper part of the middle class pays less:
---(e.g., no taxes on stock dividends, interest income, capital gains,
no taxes on estates handed down to family members, etc.)

and bottom half pays more:
---(e.g., loss of deductions for home mortage, charity, education, etc.)

to Romney, if the $ amount remains the same, this is "revenue neutral"...

But for those in the bottom half, somehow it doesn't quite feel that way.

Well, "revenue neutral" means changing the tax structure so that the revenue stream for the government remains unchanged. If Romney will not raise taxes on the wealthy, the only other option is to raise them on the non-wealthy.

Sounded to me, last night, like he is trying to claim that he isn't "raising taxes" on the non-wealthy, instead, he's eliminating loopholes.

Same effect on your take-home pay, if you are non-wealthy.

I know you're talking, we are all talking about Romney's plan, not Flint's political philosophies.

Romney's tax plan is NOT incomprehensible. Romney's tax plan is arithmetically impossible.

He's said things that taken together are contradictory--they can not all exist at the same time.

A guy walks up to a pretty girl at the club. "You're gorgeous! Let's go back to my place and I'll f*ck your brains out. I promise I'll respect you in the morning. Don't worry, your virginity will remain intact."

Not all can happen.

Romney's promised to reduce tax rates (by 20%).

Romney's promise to eliminate deductions by an equal amount (undefined--vagueness prevents precise calculations, so estimates are used).

Romney's promised to keep proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers in top 5% the same (60%).

Romney's promised to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the middle class ($200,000/year income).

Romney's promised to reduce the deficit (no amount given that I could find).

How can all of these be managed? No one has produced an explanation that provides room for all these promises.

What I take from this is that Romney tells the audience he's in front of the thing they want to hear. Fine, they all do that. But as the audiences change, the main story changes. Also fine, different people can have different high priorities. However, Romney's just the one guy, and if he's elected, he can only do one thing, produce one net result, and when the statements are incompatible, something's going to get broken. What promise will be broken?

What promise will be broken?

the promise that we're all going to live on planet Mormon (kudos to Els for that one)

Romney's going to do it all - make everything work and not cost us a dime, balance the budget, get people back to work, reduce taxes and...and...in what country is 200,000 the "middle class"- ? coz either I'm in the wrong damn country or I'm being butteffed. With no lube.

I know! We'll sell all the unwanted children women are forced to have to the Irish so they can eat them (they do that over there, you know. Nasty folk. Small hands. Smell like cabbage).

Romney will do what the Koch brothers tell him to do.

and what about this republican majority we've had for two years? why aren't things better now since they are BMOC?

Here's a fun fact:

Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration. He didn't personally know any more that were qualified, but the women's groups had info on several qualified candidates.

And Mitt did - wound up with a high of 42% of his administration filled with women - which was the highest percentage in any state, at that time.

He didn't talk about it, he didn't canvass and run it by test voters, he didn't wait for some law to be passed to require it.

He just did it. Done! :cool:

What would you guess Obama's hiring rate for women in his administration is?

About 8%.

Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.

You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.

Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.

A lot of people, in order to climb that ladder, will sell their soul to the devil. That's nothing new. I just hope it doesn't hurt too much when they bang their heads on the ridiculously low glass ceiling.

You won't convince this smart woman that Romney gives two poos about any of us. You might convince some women like, I don't know, Ann's ilk that he cares greatly about women's issues. Unfortunately some haven't come such a long way baby and still have stars in their eyes, blinding any sense of reality. Who still believe that a man knows what is better for women than we emotional little ladies know.

That's accurate, and also the opposite of his claim during the debate, where he said that he had noticed the lack of women, and approached the women's groups to get his binders.

:lame:

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. That's the beauty of Conservatism (and good Liberalism). The FACTS are right there, for you to see.

What state Governor has hired more women into his administration - and many of these jobs were SENIOR management positions.

Oh, It was Mitt Romney!

Not Obama with his daughter, who wants the glass ceiling removed - someday - but doesn't care enough to do it in his administration. NO, NO!

Mitt managed it, in one fell swoop.
There was no court order, no law was required, no focus groups had to be consulted, none of the hand-waving and hot air, that is SO COMMON with politicians.

If we don't elect Romney & Ryan in Nov., we will have missed a rare opportunity for a great President, and a great V.P., as well.

Strip clubs also hire a high % of women. They make a special effort to do it too.

That's a good article, but I :lol: at the ad for a speed dating site at the bottom!

thank god Ibby found that article. I heard about that bullshit last night but I'm notorious for not being able to link shit so thank you, Ibby, for that.

Mitt hired women for positions he didn't give a shit about and really, he just wants us all to vaccuum and make more Mormons. Kinda like the Catholic Church, really.

Here's another fun fact:

This smart woman will not be changing her preference and voting MR. In fact, plenty of other smart women feel the same. Actually, MR did more harm than good as far as the women's votes are concerned, during the debate.

Undoing gains

Never fails to astound me how different people can see the same thing so completely differently.

Yeah. Silly thing to say, but I think he was led into it somewhat. It was a question about how he feels when his Dad is called a liar by Obama. Instinctive emotional response to an attack on his Dad.

An unfortunate thing to say, and possibly indicative of something unpleasant in the attitudes of Romney's people, but...equally likely to be indicative of nothing more than a strong sense of family loyalty coupled with a degree of rashness.

I have no problem with the son saying that. The way that debate was set up, with the audience in a circle around the combatants, and the combatants able to walk around each other, it really had the vibe of a boxing match. He verbalized what I think many people were feeling. That it was a fight.

I think what's more indicative of Romney's attitude is that he was a bully in school who was the ringleader to get a gang together to pick on a different kid, pin him down, and cut his hair off against his will.

Obama for another four years, would not be good - he's promised us more of the same policies that have not been effective at improving the economy. Also, he's burdened us with over a Trillion of dollars of debt, every year he's been in office.

You can't keep that up, I don't care WHAT. A monetary crisis the likes of which we have never seen, WILL be the sure result if we keep it up.

Mitt Romney will change things, and he knows business, and how to get it going. One thing he mentioned in the debate was supporting an eVerify hiring system, so illegals will not be drawn here to get a job. Living in a border city and state, that will be a BIG help for us.

Mitt will fix this problem, when many other politicians wouldn't, afraid it might hurt their popularity, and companies like the cheap labor illegals offer, and lobby to have it kept this way.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Nobody would implement eVerify, but Mitt Romney will - and that's the kind of positive change that we need to help limit this on-going illegal traffic across the border.

Y'know, from outside America looking in, it looks a lot like the Obama administration has managed to navigate very stormy economic seas and get the ship headed back in the right direction.

Romney and his ilk are part of the financial and commercial casino culture that all but shattered the global economy. In no way is it at all wise to invite them to apply the outdated and failed economic ideology that created this mess in the first place.

This is factually wrong.

Obama's policies, to the extent that he's been able to enact them, have been effective at improving our economy.

I don't know where in the world you could come up with such an utterly wrong assessment of what has happened in this country for the last few years. In the immortal words of President Obama "Governor, that's just not correct."

Stop lying.

Edited for accuracy, in bold...

Cuz... yknow... the Executive Branch doesn't actually make the laws. They just champion the ideas then signs/doesn't sign the paper once it gets to his desk.

You make a valid point about American Civics, but I am ashamed to admit I've given up hope for such a fine distinction to be noticed much less understood in the clamor of the season.

You get full credit from me at least for being right.

Appreciated, V.

It's been a long while since I ever believed any candidate's campaign promises as anything they WILL do, since they aren't the be-all-end-all for law- and policy-making. There are 535 other cooks in that kitchen.

How far outside are you? Pluto? :rolleyes:

Because the liberals (and that includes Bush Jr., who was a liberal in spending), has spent us into the poor house, failed to secure our borders, and in order to get their large campaign contributions, failed to rein in the Wall St. types getting into very risky and highly leveraged derivatives.

And to top it off, they allowed FHA to buy mortgages from unqualified home buyers, like it was free candy!

Romney is a Conservative basically, and KNOWS business. He'll run us back into the black ink.

When you overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.

Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.