cybergeek

Another Liberal con job of focusing on tax rates. BUT the health of the Economy is BY FAR the OVERWHELMING determinate of Gov tax revenues, not these changes in tax rates, Stupid. Lower income taxes leads to a healthier economy and more Revenue. This was proven absolute f.e. with the JFK tax cuts of the 60s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s. The 90s recovery due to Reagan tax cuts, the one that Slick Willy stepped into due only to his superior used car salesman skills over Bush SR, proves the economy is independent of tax rate changes. It had such strong momentum before Clinton took office that even his '93 record tax hike couldn't slow it down. Anybody putting emphasis on the debt at a time like this is brainwashed by the New liberal thinking. And why don't they look for spending cuts first? Especially on the Pork. Its, "the economy is slow so lets take MORE $$$ from those who can still produce even in times like these, because we can spend it better and motivate workers more for the good of the economy. Who believes this nonsense? LOL First the Liberals scare everybody with the budget deficit, then they look first to OUR pockets. Funny thing is, their massive unwillingness to cut THEIR massive unnecessary Fed spending is why we have deficits in the first place. Scare citizens and play on their jealousy of others, while also using ignorance of common sense economics against them. What a large type ponzie scheme they have going. LOL ------------------ live long & prosper This message has been edited by cybergeek on 08-12-2002 at 12:19 PM

Forrest, Obviously these "intellectual elite" slackers only want to philosophize with their idealogies forever. They don't appreciate real world examples and getting right to the heart of the matter. Liberals live in Camelot and LaLa Land. They don't have time for truth or reason. "Boston was one of the first cities to pass a so-called "living wage" law. Now city contractors must pay employees $10.54 an hour - over twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15. Well, as a result of this living wage law, low-income families in Boston could suffer a living hell. This is how feel-good theory meets reality. One of the city's largest day-care providers, Action for Boston Community Development or ABCD, is in trouble. They estimate that paying their employees the living wage would add a half-million dollars to their payroll. They can't afford it. So they'll have to cut staff. As a result, low-income parents - many former welfare recipients - face losing their child-care services. Robert Coard, the CEO of ABCD, says: "These parents are working people. They will not be able to keep their jobs without this child care." Both childcare providers and living-wage advocates agree, of course, that the solution is to force taxpayers to pick up the tab. But surprisingly, that doesn't look likely. Boston political officials say they can't afford it. They also admit that the law was passed without fully studying the economic impact. Who needs a stupid study? I predicted that dire economic consequences would result from this misguided "living wage" idea. It's axiomatic! Now, those who can least afford it face a living hell, not a living wage - all thanks to a bunch of well-intentioned liberals." MD will say this is only one city or a skewed example, or its not in CA LOL, but citizens these days know better. The Liberal lies of a free lunch for everyone are now recognized for the big lies they are. The Liberal agenda relies on the "intellectual prowess" of their opinion leaders together with the stupidity of "their" masses. MD displays this concept brilliantly. As well Crash demonstrates how the liberal dominated media controls his judgement of intelligence and charactor. But how can we expect more on an Audio bbs dominated by blue collar mentality? Hopefully Klipsch isn't forced to go union some day and raise our prices by 30%. ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, you're nothing but a smug Liberal that doesn't know anything about business or economics. What you do know is grossly outweighed by your Liberal roots and the piss poor environment you live in. And you think you can get away with the BS because you're a master spinner. Bet i just paid you a compliment because that's your motivation - salesmanship of stupid ideas. LOL You follow the same tired logic that because the GOV already has done a bad job of regulating and interfering with the economy, it should do more. You make my point. If the Gov is a lousy fiscal manager and are not chartered to interfere with business management, then they sure as hell shouldn't be given expanded powers to do so. Forrest quoted Clinton well. And this is the exact view you have of our founding document. Twist it to suit your ideals of Bigger Government. Your warped view of the constitution will die along with communism. You are a lost cause that can only succeed with a revolution by the proletariot. You do need to move to France. ------------------ live long & prosper

Forrest, Great chart. Guess we do need pictures to explain. And you're right. They will manipulate the very figures they cause (the high inflation Carter years) to their own benefit. And use the timeframe that best works for their con job. MD has only proven that he can't use reasonable, well-balanced discussion tactics, but only manipulation and spin. Guess he can say he's not a Liberal, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...LOL I'm sure MD will say these figures are too short a time-frame and the Constant Dollars are in '82 (more reasonable for today) and don't show much hourly increase. But it does show real income is not falling as he would want his "audience" to think with his skewed chart. In fact it shows real income is now rising at an increasing rate. The Liberals do want a return to the Carter years and high inflation. They think their dumb targets in the populace don't understand the disasterous effects of high inflation and only look at the dollar figure on their paychecks. I agree. It is trend that will only snowball as the country's workers get more productive on merit and due to the increased competition that only makes us better, and as prices fall relative to income due to free market forces. What MD is saying is that we can't compete. We can and will. The GOV can't compete because its the worst business manager in the world. MD appears to me like the GOV. He doesn't understand competition. Must have been a book worm in school that hated the athletes that could compete. LOL More Hands off policy in trade and global trade is best for all and both parties are embracing it wholeheartedly. MD has no audience in Washington nor much place else. Only amoung the far left whackos does he have any support. His argument is old hat, moot, and extinct. He'll be left behind along with Karl Marx and other Command Economy supporters. ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, where did I say that you said that? That's my opinion on how you explain away inflation. You don't understand inflation. You merely blurt out from some text book. And you count on the fact that we haven't had true inflation since the Carter years, which you so schemingly include in your real income chart. Take away the inflation years and see what you get for real income. Massive uptick in real income which only shows how detrimental inflation can be, not that our pay system is broke. Everyone can see how you skip over the relavent arguments and emphasize the negatives that support your own premise, or in most cases you try to divert from the issue. That's how a saleman sells a bad product/idea. That's an old Liberal trick that's now common knowledge and only makes you appear the loser. Look where it got/gets Al Gore. LOL I suggest you go back and read the counter arguments to your premise. Then actually and directly give reasonable replies. That alone should keep you busy for a few days. LOL Even Forrest explained numerous times how higher wages raise the demand for money with more consumption. Moves more to M1 and the Fed must then move in to inject more into the system for liquidity. Then when we have to pay more money for certain goods and services, we don't have as much for others. Then jobs are lost. Stagflation. More scarce resources raise the prices of goods and services throughout the system and raise our prices. And you're not raising productivity by regulating or cohercing higher wages. Still more inflation and stagflation. You've got the stagflation spiral covered on all bases. What are you a reincarnation of Billy Carter? LOL You can't do a breakdown like this because either you can't, or it ruins your premise. Just trying to help you do real analysis. Not glamorized spin. This isn't suppose to be a word contest, no? You and TB only accentuate the negatives to support your agendas. Everyone knows if you work harder and better yourself you get more pay. Any company that ignores this basic principle will go bust. You guys make it sound like the American worker is a slave. Such political BS, and the people know it. Business owners takes risks with THEIR money. Don't knock it til you try it. Certain American workers' expectations are the problem. Too many expect to take no risk with their money and just walk into a comapany for a job with high pay as if its owed to them. You guys are so out of touch with reality. Must be that Liberal brainwashing. If you want to be wards of the state or the big unions then that's your right. But don't expect to take any money out of my pockets for such horse crap. You have a big fight in your future that you'll never win. ------------------ live long & prosper This message has been edited by cybergeek on 08-07-2002 at 03:35 AM

"By your account, the "incentive" for accomplishment is always the threat of lower wages. Interesting. Now, where there are 100 programmers, there will be perhaps a dozen systems analysts. Where do the other 88 programmers work?" In the new jobs created by exporting more high tech products to countries that now have higher incomes. "In essence, your argument breaks down into a dishonor of honest labor. Maybe some people WANT to be train conductors or garbagemen and don't WANT to be systems analysts or Cubical Captains? Are they bad? Are they simply to be tossed to the wolves of globalism because their pursuit of happiness is found in digging a ditch or picking grapes?" No they're not bad. That's what we need immigrants for also. We'll have many more high skill, high pay jobs available with more exports. They will soak up the current supply of labor. If someone wants to be a garbageman then they can accept the lower pay. That's their choice. Money's not everything. What makes the GOV the entity to decide what people want to do with their working lives? More dependency on the GOV, the worst run business in the universe? I think that's the true political goal here. "This constant "intolerance" of whatever you deem substandard "motivation" is blinding you. There is always room for climbers -- we need all of them. But there are also girls in the flower shops, seamstresses, garbage collectors, bus drivers and all manner of honest laboring people who are happy to give their day's work and quite content with the job they do. You seek to penalize them all with the lowest pay possible by threatening them all with cheap foriegn labor because they don't aspire to become systems analysts or globe-trotting financiers." And these will mostly be replaced with machines and technology. You can't deny the trend to a service economy. And kids need these entry level jobs too. "You are several others here are simply caught in a dogma preached by those who've taken over the controls and are selling you out cheaply at their gain. You can see it isn't working -- there are no results of all your "productivity" - just longer hours, more work and more debt." Well like I said, i appreciate the lower prices that stretch the buck so much further. I work for myself. The only dogma i listen to is common sense. Yours is one of more Gov control, higher prices/inflation, and less world progress. Just because most of the politicians and world are following common sense doesn't mean its bad at face. ------------------ live long & prosper

"Anyway, I'm sorry you are so anti-patriotic and such an uncommitted American as to sell off our soveriegnty for a few pair of cheap Nikes and some Nag Champa incense. I'm sorry you believe that only the "smart" Americans who work 12 hours a day like you are worthy of your ....?....support? Or "tolerance"?" Again, sell off our soveriegnty? We don't need no stinking WTO. The buck doesn't stop when we buy those Nikes. That means more income for that Korean worker & he can then better buy what we do best - High-tech products from us that are made with higher skilled, higher paying US jobs. What goes around comes around, but it can't go in the 1st place unless you prime the pump overseas. A worker that works 12 hours a day doesn't need our support and has my respect. One that betters themselves through better training and education also. Forcing higher wages into lower skill jobs, besides raising our prices, runs the risk of paying more to someone that doesn't want or need the money. Isn't that a decision for the individual? Whether they want to make more money. IOW, this could also be a ploy of the GOV to make workers more dependent on the Gov and not themselves. Unmotivated workers or sloth is something I have no tolerance for. And they only require support. Support that comes from our pockets in higher prices, which MD tries so hard to trivialize and hide. ------------------ live long & prosper

"As for skilled and unskilled - - it makes no difference. Sun Micro hires 20,000 programmers in India because the "supply" of skilled labor in programming is vastly greater in India than in the United States. Especially when you want to pay $40 a week for it." Exactly. We get lower prices and an incentive for workers to better themselves into systems analysts. "Lose the emotional content of the standard Liberal/Conservative dichotomy (which doesn't even exist in reality) and just do some analysis of the facts of what is going on." Spin and degradation of opponent. "It's hard to see how I am pinned as the "Devil" here for wanting a better standard of living for all Americans. It's odd - - - everyone is so emotionally charged about being able to call me a liberal, that they are all missing the primacy of the argument." Well if we only had more specifics rather than this kind of bravado. "Great - you and yours want a lower standard of living. Fine. You and yours want lower wages and lots of imported goods. Fine. But, I'm not going to suffer the loss of American soveriegn rights in order for you to have that wish." More politicing & bravado. And your policies mean higher prices on the imports we love. I don't think I surrender my sovereign rights by getting a Denon receiver. If there weren't some quality and value, imports would not sell at any price. Imports don't have a patriotic buy-American value. Most Americans will always buy an American made product if equal price and quality. Many buy American for even less quality for the price. Imports don't have this going for them. ------------------ live long & prosper

"Government Intervention And Its Disadvantages Should our economy be run by a doctrine that was made popular by a group of French writers called physiocrats in the mid-1700s? This doctrine is called laissez-faire and it literally means to let or allow to do(The Family Education Network). It is a theory of economic policy which states that government generally should not interfere with decisions made in an open competitive market. These decisions include policies such as setting prices and wages. According to the doctrine of laissez-faire, workers are most productive and a nation's economy functions most efficiently when people can pursue their own economic interest freely. The economy of the United States is no where close to being a laissez-faire system. In fact, government spending and intervention in the economic sector has ballooned. According to the Federal Money Retriever, in 1998 alone, the government spent over $37,733,526,000 in agricultural commodities, loans, marketing, and stabilization. The role of government has grown to a point where the benefits of government intervention are far outweighed by the negative effects on the economy as a whole. One of the major areas in which the government intervenes is in the agricultural sector of the economy. The government has three ways it can intervene and help its producers. These ways include price policies, direct payments, and input policies. Price policies have the largest effect on producers. Tariffs, quotas, and taxes are just a few examples of price policies. While these policies bring revenue into the government, in the end they hurt consumers. Each of these policies raise the prices of both imported and native goods. They are designed to help stabilize prices and give the native producers a chance to compete with foreign goods. Under the doctrine of laissez-faire, the government would not interfere with prices and the native producers would be forced to lower their prices, giving the nation's citizens a better deal in the market. The use of taxes is one of the government's favorite ways to make its presence known in the economy. While this method seems blatantly obvious, many of the ways the government uses the money collected by taxation is not. Some of the money it takes is used to fund other programs designed to "protect" consumers and to "create" jobs. Because of the money taken away from the consumer through taxes, there is less money movement in the economy. This money movement is what creates jobs in the economy. "So, each person's money lost to taxes helps fail to create their part of a job" (Kaz). Direct payments are another way in which the government attempts to help its producers. Deficiency payments, diversion payments, disaster payments, and marketing loans are all types of direct payments. Deficiency payments are payments based on the difference between the legislatively set target price and the lower national average market price during a specified time. Diversion payments are payments made to farmers who voluntarily reduce their planted acreage of a program crop and devote the land to a conservation use. Disaster payments are payments made to a producer when a disaster, such as a flood or drought, occurs and the producer's crop is either destroyed or severely damaged. Marketing loans allow producers to repay nonrecourse loans at less than the announced loan rates whenever the world price or loan repayment rate for the commodity is less than the loan rate(Arthur & Mabbs-Zeno, 2). There are many different types of input payments implemented by the government. They range from below-market grazing fees and below-cost rural electrification to fertilizer and irrigation subsidies to loan interest rebates. These input policies are designed to give the nation's native producers an edge by making various commodities more accessible to them. Many of these input payment tactics are implemented to lower costs and maximize output for producers. These policies help the producers, but the consumers feel the draw-backs. The consumers are forced to pay for the policies. In a sense, the way the government is involved in the agricultural sector is a necessity. If these procedures and policies were not in place, the native producers would quickly go bankrupt. While the people are now forced to "pick up the bill" for these policies, it would be very difficult to completely dismantle the current system. If it were dismantled, the goods the producer produces would come at a much higher price to consumers, and yet government spending in the sector would decline. Of course, through taxes, consumers had already been paying to have lower priced goods. The government not only intervenes in the agricultural sector of the economy, it also intervenes in the business sector. The ways it can do this are innumerable, but some of them are strict safety and health regulations, tariffs, and subsidies and government loans (Ringer, 149-151). Politicians always try to make everyone "happy." Because of this, lobbying by special interest groups normally brings about stringent safety and health regulations. In this sense, the government is allowing itself to be manipulated by people who feel others should go along with their ideas. The use of tariffs is another way that government intervenes in the business sector. They help inefficient domestic producers by forcing consumers to pay unnecessarily high prices for imported goods. The use of tariffs forces people to pay higher prices for certain goods and thus resulting in less money the consumer has to spend on other goods and services. This results in less employment in the industries that produce such goods and services. The hidden reality is that a job protected by a government tariff is at the expense of a worker in another industry(Ringer, 150). Subsidies and government loans are another method of intervention for the government. In this method, money is taken from efficient producers and workers to keep inefficient producers in business. Consumers pay for this method in the form of high prices. "As Henry Hazlitt has noted, it is important that antiquated, inefficient companies die out so that new, efficient companies can grow faster; i.e., so capital and labor will find their way into more modern industries" (Ringer, 151). A country cannot grow if modernization and technological advances cannot be made because of an immobile work-force. Small and big businesses are guilty of inviting government intervention in the free market. They continually ask the government to step in and "protect" them. Small businesses ask for less regulation on small business and more regulation on big business. Fair-pricing laws are a way both large and small businesses keep the government involved and hurt the consumer. These laws keep prices high and hurt efficient competitors. Wage-and-price controls are another way government can intervene in the business sector of the economy. Of course, these controls never fully work It is impossible to put price restrictions on every product and service that exists in an economy. "The result is that producers will produce fewer of those products that are restricted, thus people will have more money available for other products, which in turns will cause the prices of the non-restricted products to rise faster than normal" (Ringer, 167). High wage levels are a compilation of minimum-wage laws and laws which force employers to negotiate with unions. By simple laws of supply and demand, if wages are forced up, businesses hire less people, thus increasing the unemployment level. Once again, government intervention has hurt those whom it was designed to protect. Price-fixing is a policy designed to help the "poor" and "needy" in the economy. In this policy, the price of a product is "fixed," or set at a level below the equilibrium point, so as to allow each consumer the ability to afford it. To be able to pull this off, the government must provide the producers with help in the form of subsidies in order for the producers to maintain the supply. This method is very expensive, and there are many cheaper alternative ways to help the "poor." Cash allowances to the needy would be a much cheaper way than trying to fix prices (Robbins, 112). The negative effects of government intervention in the economic sector outweigh the benefits of policies and methods implemented to help the consumer. These policies are found in both the agricultural and business sectors of the economy. On the agricultural side, these policies range from price policies to direct payments to input policies. On the business side, the government can intervene by implementing strict safety and health regulations, tariffs, and subsidies and government loans. While all of this policies seem to have beneficial short-term effects, they never have positive long-term effects. In the end, the government's spending and intervention in the economy is detrimental. So, should the government stay out of the economy and let it be run by the doctrine of laissez-faire, or is government intervention necessary to the survival of the economy? Many would argue that some intervention is necessary, but in a completely competitive market, there is no need for the government to intervene. works cited: Dommen, Arthur & Carl Mabbs-Zeno. 1989. Subsidy Equivalents: Yardsticks of Government Intervention in Agriculture for the GATT. United States Department of Agriculture: Washington D.C. Federal Money Retriever. 1998. U.S. Federal Funding Numbers/ By Subject Terms. "http://www.fedmoney.com/fs-subj2.html" Kaz. 1998. How the Government Spending Creates Jobs. "http://hotbot.lycos.com/director.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esmart%2Enet%2F%7Ekaz%2Fspending%2Ehtml%3Fpt&id=10&userid=4EvOxepkQhws&query=MT=government" Ringer, Robert J. 1979. Restoring the American Dream. Harper & Row: New York. Robbins, Lord. 1976. Political Economy: Past and Present. Columbia University Press: New York. The Family Education Network. 2000. "Laissez-faire." "http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE029401.html" So MD, your rational seems to be along the lines that, because of Liberals, our Gov is already screwing up the economy, so why shouldn't we just let them go even further toward socialism or even communism. Thanks, though you chose to ignore the positives i pointed out for free trade, at least you tried to explain a few of your premises. That companies will not pass on higher wages to us in higher prices is absurd. If Klipsch became unionized and had to pay $100 per speaker for labor now rather than $50 before, and tariffs were now $50 more on competing foreign speakers, you don't think it likely that klipsch would raise the speaker price by $50? Come on. LOL You're talking about a huge systematic change across all industries that employ low skill workers. You don't address high skill Vs low skill jobs and incentives for workers to get more training and education. Your tariffs on low skill labor goods only encourage keeping our labor force more unskilled with artificial high wages for having less skill. You can't write off inflation as simply some monetary phenomenon that only happens when venus and mars are out of allignment. LOL It has causes. Deglobe takes away the supply of resources and labor from the pool. When those are more scarce prices rise. I'd like to see your example of Deglobe causing lower prices. We know its too much money chasing too few goods. Obviously globalization is deflationary. The cure is Americans getting more training so we have the good jobs and the developing countries have the low skill jobs where they do the most good. We can't produce everything for the US and the world. Why not encourage policy where we produce the high ticket/high tech goods and services which also encourages our workforce to be higher skilled and higher tech? Don't you think your thinking is a step back if not a total reversal from this goal? I think deregulation and globalization has created the best environment the American consumer has ever seen. We have more choice for phone service, long distance, tv, automobiles, power companies. Prices on most goods are going down. I just paid $2 for a 12-pack of Mountain Dew. Lowest price ever. Low inflation is best. Remember that all workers are also consumers. And now more than ever workers are also investors and owners. Do people realize that if they have any shares of stock or a mutual fund or 401k that they're also a shareholder and owner in a company? Do people even realize what they own these days? We're in a transition from a country of economic isolation and low-skill jobs to one of global free trade and higher skilled labor with higher pay. Deglobalization is a step back not to mention how it would effect world tensions and transformations to democracy. Yes MD, consumers know your theories come with a high price. 94% ARE employed. Prices are going down for the consumer. You might have an audience if unemployment gets up to 30%, but you're doomed and you know it. You are preaching metaphysics. ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, Didn't intend to give you another opportunity to spin out. You obviously don't want to directly retort the logical counterpoints to raising tariffs on our imported goods, such as the skewed inflation figures in the chart that you use as your basis that the system is evil, the taking away of incentives for US workers to get training for higher-skilled jobs, the supply of labor for lower skilled jobs, and out of control inflation and higher prices for the consumer in general. How do you raise real income with tariffs? Do you really want to shut down the borders? You never answered that. How do you keep the low skilled labor from following the low skilled jobs? Maybe you'd like to just talk about yourself and continue the grandstanding. Did your company fail and was it because you couldn't compete? How much of your wealth have you given to charity? At least 3/4 so far i would presume. Do you send the government an extra 50% of your income to spend on their pork and social programs? Is every product you own from a company at least headquartered in the USA? You know, lower quality and higher priced or not. Just to ensure jobs and higher pay for US workers. BTW, i consider politicians a necessary evil. I truely believe that by starting a company and creating something from nothing, expanding the labor force with good pay and benefits, and paying numerous taxes and GOV fees, I have already done more economic good for this country than Al Gore or his like kind of career politicians will ever do in their lifetimes. I'm all for GOV spending that primes the pump in our own country. Student loans and grants for those that really need them. I don't support spending for wards of the state - those that can, but choose not to better themselves. I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth for equality, but I do believe in equal opportuntity for all. What incenses me about Liberals is the first place they look for money is in other people's pockets. The new Democratic party now being guided by the new socialists like Gore, Hilly and Tom & Dick is based on jealousy of wealth and income. Extreme populism. The first place they look is more spending and higher taxes. Not from a better economy, which is by far the primary source of tax revenues. And not by cutting spending elsewhere, such as with unconstitutional pork projects, and social programs that only encourage sloth. What we're seeing now is a bit of adjustment until our workers get off their can and get better trained, and foreign workers in the developing countries grow their incomes and wealth so they can buy more of our higher tech products and employ more of our workers. What needs to be regulated is not wages or tariffs, but the expectations of the American workers. The Liberals are constantly offering the easy way out. As in don't better yourself or try to achieve the American dream with education, training and hard work & personal initiative, because we'll take care of you by playing Robin Hood. The system is unfair and broke, so why try? But the majority in the middle know better. They know there's no such thing as a free lunch. Now specifically MD, how do we de-globalize and overcome all the specific problems presented to you? You really don't want to argue the facts or use reasonable specifics now do you? After all this is politics. But when you behave like a politician, don't expect to be taken seriously. ------------------ live long & prosper This message has been edited by cybergeek on 08-06-2002 at 10:07 PM

" benefit YOU instead of some unknown guy in China who wants your job but doesn't want the associated responsibility of paying for your defense." That's horse hockey. What it means is I already worked hard and made it, and you want to raise my prices so somebody who doesn't want to work hard or better themselves can get paid more. Not by their own initiative but by the Big GOV, and the bleeding hearts that have feelings of guilt or anger to get over. That's it in a nutshell. What you do is take away competition for both companies and workers to better themselves. You take away the incentive for workers to better themselves for higher paying, higher skilled jobs. And you take the low skill jobs from overseas where they more benefit developing countries and put them right back here. Then the developing countries low skilled workers incomes don't grow & they can't purchase more high tech products and services from us to spur higher paying job growth. As you can see MD suggests taking current progressive trade policy & economics moving in a positive spiral & throwing it on its head into a negative spiral. He advocates higher prices for consumers, more low paying jobs, less high-skilled job training incentive, less exports and less higher-paying jobs. We don't need more employment per se. We need more employment in higher paying jobs so that we get resultant efficiences while letting the low-skilled jobs go overseas where it betters their economies and they become better customers of our advanced exports. Maybe this is why both GOP & democrats embrace global trade. Because it makes so much common sense. LOL And how about that trade authority for W. Bush? Bipartisan effort there. Sometimes the GOV suprises me & actually gives the Prez some authority to actually match his responsibility. MD is a lone voice in the minority. A regular Don Q. indeed. Keep living the dream and chasing your windmills. But this thread is an exercise in nonsense and obviously all about politics. If somebody continuously slams something in such an unfair and unbalanced argument, & patently ignores obvious critisisms, you can bet you bottom minimum wage dollar that they have an agenda. ------------------ live long & prosper

See how the Liberals operate. Go after the messenger & not the message. They have no rational answers nor solutions. In their subtle way they attack the messenger and the delivery and the style but don't have answers. LOL. The only thing this whole thread has proven is how Liberals operate when trying to dupe the listeners toward the adsurd. How else do salesmen sell you a $hit product? ------------------ live long & prosper

That's correct. Anyone that can say nothing but negative about the greatest economic system the world has known must have some agenda. Doesn't even lend itself to good discussion to be so over the edge and unbalanced. I know the economy is slow and the liberals see big opportunity. But grassroots campaigning for the Democratic Party on an Audio/Video discussion board? Come on, get a life people. How long will it take these losers to get past their big loss in the 2000 election? ------------------ live long & prosper

REPEAL THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX to begin with. Double and triple income tax is something only the Demoncrats could come up with. ------------------ live long & prosper

I find more irony here. Forrest has said he owns Klipsch, McIntosh and SVS. All-American by choice, not by interference nor cohersion. On the other hand, i'll bet anything more liberals own foreign cars and electronics. No that's the case around Seattle and CA. Saturated with liberals and imports. Live free. ------------------ live long & prosper

I find TBrennens last post to be sad irony that only solidifies anti-union sentiments. I see most of his targets thinking "well, I'll show him & be a success". On the other hand, I would think TB's response to Forrest would be something along the lines of "well, I'll show him and get more money from the man, the system, the risk-taker, the educated, by working less". That's why Unions are dieing out. They're not in synch with modern american thought any longer. Technology and global trade are the solution and the true unionists now find themselves at odds with even the Democratic party leaders who must now be more moderate to survive. I'm not saying some union workers can't and don't work hard. What I'm saying is the Union itself as a structure does not support harder work for more pay. Most of us were not brought up with such a lack of work ethic. But you can't blame the workers, its the unions. Unions are becoming a non-issue by death from natural causes anyway. Unions are a nonissue, except for the few union workers left. But they can't blame their demise on the GOP. They must blame it on the modernization and wising up of America. ------------------ live long & prosper This message has been edited by cybergeek on 08-01-2002 at 05:22 PM

The best social study to do here is why the Klipsch forum is overrun with Liberal Socialists or the same that claim not to be but think just the same. LOL 2 guesses here: 1) Klipsch is the speaker for the working man - best value for the money. 2) the same guys that look to the Gov and unions for handouts obviously have a lot of free time on their hands. Here's the real kicker. Klipsch LLC is non-union. God bless America. LOL Now if spending by Gov was cut down to the vital expenses necessary only to protect people from external elements, & not themselves as with social programs pushed by democrats and liberals so they more control people's lives. Then at that time eliminate the fed income tax and replace it w/ tariffs, excise & sales taxes only for the bare essentials. Same way more or less it was at the turn of the 1900s before the Socialists conditioned the nonproductive income tax on into the psyche of this country. Be free comrades. LOL ------------------ live long & prosper This message has been edited by cybergeek on 07-26-2002 at 03:53 PM

Oh TB, the press workers are pure liberal all in all. They hate the moral majority and attach it to the GOP. One would have to be a brainwashed gimp to not realize that the mainstream media has a heavy liberal bias. That or they're Liberals just going along with the Liberal scheme. But the People are wising up now. You'll see. LOL ------------------ live long & prosper

Md: "When I owned my own manufacturing company, I paid every worker far above the minimum wage even though I did not have to. I sought out the best workers, and gave them the best pay they could earn for their skill level in our local area." OK then great. Thanks for supporting freedom in pay with no Gov intervention. You can create your own tarrifs then. Higher prices. LOL Sorry I had you pegged for a populist. Now its obvious you instead have the I'm rich enough to be a Liberal/Economic Socialist mentality. ------------------ live long & prosper

Funny how an otherwise reasonable person like TB goes rabid when you mention any idea toward taking away the artificial supports to his pay. Earth to TB. You wouldn't be paid nearly as much in a true free market. And globalization is the key to free markets and a way around artificial wage supports that only make things more expensive & harm our ability to compete in the free markets. Without politics and the support of the Democratic and Socialist/Communist Parties, unionism would be extinct. MD, maybe the reason you hear what i'm saying so much is because it makes the most common sense. Maybe the reason nobody but the whackos mention your policies is because they are bad. ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, and yours are the same old soundbites of Tom & Dick and the Liberals including the Liberal dominated mainstream media. If you ideas are so novel why aren't you working with the DNC? LOL And if you're truely a lover of mankind why do you stop at our borders. Should not foreign workers enjoy somewhat higher incomes than f.e. $1/day? Ever hear of priming the pump? Let them have those low paying jobs while we strive for the higher paying jobs. Your logic only provides a copout for those making minimum wage or overpaid union workers not going out to better themselves and work harder. You even support above not working harder. You have obviously developed a doom & gloom outlook on your own financial future. Glad you're in the very slim minority. But with your attitude you should be supporting LESS Gov interference in the private sector. Gov just doesn't mix with business, economics & common sense. Take a little risk, start up your own company & see how it works. ------------------ live long & prosper

Md, Again a little problem with your logic. Its called freedom and if you can dig it, it transcends over to everything including our economic system. As both a business owner and a consumer, noone can tell me whom I have to buy from and where I can invest. And its the same as telling me whom i can sell to because if we shut our doors to imports I sure as hell won't be able to sell internationally. Its called retaliation. Btw, I determine my own "wage" just as everyone has the freedom to do as free individuals. Why do liberals insist on personal freedom for immorality yet when it comes to economics the Gov is to be responsible. Though I'm sure North Korea or Cuba would welcome your brand of thinking with open arms. Sorry you've hit a personal roadblock and feel you need the Gov's help, but hopefully you find the power within to go forth and determine your own satisfaction. ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, Big problem with your reasoning is that the Gov doesn't control pay except for the relatively minor effects of minimum wage and government jobs. I know you mentioned closing the borders and that makes as much sense as a tax hike. Tax cuts do have the same motivational effects as a pay raise and, as I said, a positive effect on the economy. Now, when did the personal income tax begin? 1934? How did the Gov ever function before that? Lordy. Eliminate income taxes and replace with excise & sales taxes. That's the ticket. ------------------ live long & prosper

And BTW, the health of the Economy is by far the greatest determinate of Gov Tax Revenues. Don't let the Democrats fool you into thinking that tax rates are the biggest factor. Raise taxes on us in a slow economy. Takes an awful amount of spin to make that plausible, but leave it up to the Democrats to spin that into sound policy. LOL ------------------ live long & prosper

MD, You have to major flaws in your biased thinking, mot to mention numerous others. First, your statement that we will never have a surplus is a guess and cannot be proven. Merely, wishful thinking on your part by chance. You give no credence to that tax cuts have & will provide economic stimulus. Can you prove that the economy would not be yet worse off if the tax cuts would not have taken place? Can you prove that the tax cuts will not do so in the future as they put more $ in our pockets, though i know you don't want to notice it. Again, think cumulative effect on our economy, not the measly amount you wish to ignore now in your own pocket due to tax cuts. If folks put down the amount they have in tax cuts that means they're not doing very well in most cases. Think cumulative effect from those who are productive & pay most of the taxes. Two, thanks to your Dem Liberal buddies the tax cuts are currently not permanent. So you're just flat out wrong on that. Please write your congresspeople folks & get these permanent so they will continue to make us richer while improving the economy. ------------------ live long & prosper