Do Democrats Understand How An Economy Works?

I was hoping to go with a bit of lighter fare, a funny story about a guy bringing a barstool to a gunfight (guess who wins), alas, two other stories caught my eye, and highlight how clueless and inept Democrats are regarding jobs and the economy. Let's start with The Cluelessness Of Obama

President Obama unveiled plans Thursday to double U.S. exports over the next five years in hopes of spurring job growth, an ambitious goal that may rekindle the battle over free-trade policy.

The president acknowledged the formidable barriers to his goal: doubts in Congress over new free-trade agreements, misaligned currencies that make Chinese products cheaper on global markets, and continued weakness in global demand, all problems that could dwarf efforts to promote U.S. products and services abroad.

But, Obama said in a speech, "in a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative."

Pretty speech. Interesting idea. The only problem is, people have to be actually, you know, employed and producing products first. You can't double exports on products not being produced.

Next up, we have the Senate's $149 billion jobs bill (wait, didn't we have one of those in February 2009?), which does virtually everything that doesn't actually create jobs. It has plenty of tax breaks, but, not the kind that actually stimulate jobs production, as well as

Extending unemployment benefits to Americans out of work for more than a year, providing for a total of up to 99 weeks in most states.

Offering subsidies for unemployed workers in an effort to help pay for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Adding an individual income tax deduction for sales and property taxes, and a business tax credit for research and development.

Extending a variety of energy and alternative fuel tax credits.

$1.5 billion to help farmers affected by heavy rains, floods and other weather-related disasters.

There are primarily, at the top end, three ways government can stimulate a decrease in unemployment

Put them on the government payroll (which is what we have primarily seen with Stimulus, and a good chunk of those jobs were temporary or "saved"

Providing long term tax incentives/breaks

Companies have confidence in what the government is doing

Even if the tax breaks were perfect, targeted, and long term, there are so many worries about what government will do in the future, companies are staying in a "wait and see" mode. Cap and tax, health system change, a potential for increased taxes, illegal immigration reform, you name it, companies are unsure what will happen. No one wants to hire someone they will not be able to potentially afford. Without confidence, unemployment will remain high.

Other tax breaks in the bill include a deduction for college tuition for couples making less than $160,000 a year, and one for teachers who use their own money to buy school supplies.

That helps the unemployed get a job how, exactly?

Rose

Do Dims understand economics?
Absolutely.

Do Conservatives understand that Dim Marxists know full well that healthy economies, and financially independent strong healthy thriving families are not conducive to the fulfillment of Dim Marxist goals for a Marxist dictatorship headed up by an all-powerful Malignant Narcisist-in-Chief?

No. They haven't a glimmer.

Check out Chris Muir's offering for 3/14/2010, "Oui Oui'd Up!"

www.daybydaycartoon.com
Kingfisher

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-03-13 15:19:59

Hog, it's amazing how you can fit so much stupid into so few words.

Do you get your information from "Sesame Street?"
Kingfisher

I didn't refute the point? I didn't think I had too!

Because you can't, dumbfuck.

You should have shut your pie hole when you had the chance.

Your posts proved William's point.

You may now fuck off and die for you have served your purpose.
CavalierX

If the US government lowered their taxes, are any of you so naive to think that the oil companies would have lowered their prices?

Someone would, to undercut everyone else. And they would get huge amounts of business, which would bring them an even bigger profit. Then others would undercut that company, to take that business -- and the profit -- away from them. God, you Lib morons really don't undertand the first thing about the free market, and you've just proved it with that stupid question.
Power_System_Oper

simulcare is correct about the free market.

Northrop choosing to drop out of the bidding agianst Boeing to build the new Air Force mid-air refueling tanker at a fixed price is a prime example. Northrop planned to put the tanker together with a non unionized work force in Right To Work State Alabama. Boeing plans to build the tanker with a unionized work force in closed shop state Washington. At the end of the day, Northrop determined that the odds were just too great that it would lose money by building the tanker in Right to Work State with a non unionized work force. In this rare case, the free market actually triumphed over the political pork being pushed by GOP US Alabama Senator Shelby who tried to blackmail the Air Force into awarding the contract to Northrop when he put a hold on over 70 critical appointments that the Defense Department needed to fill in order to properly carry out its mission of protecting America against its foreign enemies.
MediumHeadBoy

And so the prodigal troll proves that no, Democrats do not understand how an economy works.
simulacre

fiza, you really don't understand competition and a free market economy...it is painfully obvious.

Of course a reduction in costs will allow a company to reap larger profits but sooner or later either your company or a competitor will start looking to move off their supply before there is a cost of goods increase or to capture more market share. You price your goods based on futures prices and what your competition (or the market) is doing. If future prices are down or your competitors are reducing prices, then you better drop your price and sell off your inventory or you're going to get stuck with high costed material and will start selling at a loss.
Christopher_Taylor

By fiza logic, oil companies have kept selling gas at nearly 5 dollars a gallon even though their costs dropped. Because they'd be nuts to not make even more profit. He's exhibit A of how the left does not comprehend free market economics. They just apply central planning economics to the market and presume they work the same.
fiza

Another comment, Simulacre - are you so naive that you actually believe GE would lower their appliance prices if their actual tax rate on their 2009 profits were reduced from 5.1% to, say, zero %? Would Microsoft reduce the price of Windows operating systems software if their corporate tax rate were reduced? Would Apple reduce the prices of their overpriced, high profit products if their tax rate was reduced?
fiza

"Jeebus, but I wish liberals would learn some economics, some history, and some common sense."
Posted by LampofDiogenes
2010-03-12 20:19:04

"and fiza, the goal of a corporation is to make a profit and to capture marketshare. If GE has a higher profit margin due to a lower tax, they can afford to drop prices to capture some of Electrolux's business...You can bet that if GE doesn't drop their prices, one of their competitors will."
Posted by simulacre
2010-03-12 23:12:55

Y'all need to learn something about real world economics. For example, all the major oil companies make a nice profit selling oil at $40/ barrel, or less. When the world price of oil was well over $100/barrel, the oil companies sold even their lowest price production at market price, and they made incredible profits. They would be stupid not to do so. If the US government lowered their taxes, are any of you so naive to think that the oil companies would have lowered their prices? If so, you are nuts! Did any of the oil companies lower their profits to gain market share? No, they are not nuts! Did any of the majors try to drive the price down? No, (again) they are not nuts!

Simulacre, Electrolux appliances are not even close to competitive in price with those made by GE. GE would love to sell their kitchen or laundry appliances at Electrolux prices, but they can't. Consumers buy Electrolux products for their perceived or actual quality. Have you priced a plain ol Electrolux vacumn cleaner recently? Their prices are obscene, and they don't work any better, or last any longer than a Hoover.
simulacre

fiza, the goal of a corporation is to make a profit and to capture marketshare. If GE has a higher profit margin due to a lower tax, they can afford to drop prices to capture some of Electrolux's business...You can bet that if GE doesn't drop their prices, one of their competitors will.
CavalierX

Jeebus, but I wish liberals would learn some economics, some history, and some common sense.

They often do, but then they stop being Liberals. Liberals by definition are the ones too stupid, too indoctrinated or too inexperienced to have learned anything useful yet.
Dick_Nixon

Are you satisfied Tricky, or are you going to throw some pink sheets at me.

Why? Are you a homosexual like whats_up? You know it is a lifestyle choice and you can change if you want to back to normal.
Dick_Nixon

I bet you know about Nixon's infamous "pink sheets", even though your mother probably wasn't even born then. You certainly were not born then, or you would have a different hero.

Posted by fiza
2010-03-12 18:35:18

Nixon is probably older than you, Kowalski.
LampofDiogenes

Posted by fiza
2010-03-12 18:35:18

Jeebus, but that is some world-class stupid, there, fiza. If you had ever actually taken an Economics class, you would understand that maximization of profit is NOT accomplished by charging the highest price possible, but by charging the price which will result in the sale of the most products at the profit margin which maximizes both sales and profits. If I could sell one GE double oven at a price of $1,001,000, and a profit of $1,000,000, or 1,000,000 GE double ovens at a price of $1,001, and profit of $1 each, what happens if I sell 100,000 GE double ovens at a price of $1,015, and profit of $15 each? And if my competitors at Amana sell their double ovens at a price of $1,012 and a profit of $12 each, which oven ya gonna buy?

Taxes are a cost of doing business. If a corporation pays taxes, the taxes are part of the costs it must recover to make a profit. If corporate taxes are reduced, the cost of doing business is reduced, and the corporation can make the SAME profit at a lower sales price. If they lower their costs, and do not lower their prices, the give their competitors an opportunity to steal sales volume from them by lowering THEIR prices, by slightly less than the reduction in costs, thereby increasing both sales volume and aggregate profits, at the expense of the company who refused to lower its prices. Unnerstand, idjit????

Jeebus, but I wish liberals would learn some economics, some history, and some common sense.
Christopher_Taylor

Well gee, Mike, he is actually doing all of those things.

Good lord Vega lay down the LSD long enough to come back to reality.
fiza

Nixon notices you didn't refute the point. Whats the matter, no balls?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-03-12 18:00:15

I didn't refute the point? I didn't think I had too! Is Kingfisher, or you, tricky Dicky, so naive to think a company like GE would gladly reduce the price of their products, for example, a GE built in double oven I recently purchased, if their corporate tax rate were decreased? No, the goal of GE, or any other corporation, is to make as much money as possible for their executives and stockholders. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. GE is not a charity. My argument here is to refute Kingfish's ridiculous claim that corporations willing reduce the price of their products if their corporate tax rate is reduced.
Are you satisfied Tricky, or are you going to throw some pink sheets at me. I bet you know about Nixon's infamous "pink sheets", even though your mother probably wasn't even born then. You certainly were not born then, or you would have a different hero.
Dick_Nixon

Dream on, little man, dream on!
Posted by fiza
2010-03-12 17:26:18

Nixon notices you didn't refute the point. Whats the matter, no balls?
Kingfisher

Dream on, little man, dream on!
Posted by fiza
2010-03-12 17:26:18

I'll take your intentional attempt of deflection as an admission of defeat. If you truly could refute my statement you would have done do by now.

Logic 101, dumbass.
fiza

"Perhaps the conservatives would have been happier with a corporate tax cut.

I hate to interrupt your little kiss-fest with Reallunatik (your sockpuppet) but any corporate tax increase or cut is passed through to the consumer.

Economics 101, dumbass."
Posted by Kingfisher
2010-03-12 16:16:08

Dream on, little man, dream on!
smelvertising

Well gee, Mike, he is actually doing all of those things.

Finally Vega admits he does not live within five dimensions of this reality.

PS: BOO!
ohioan

While I am for tax cuts (and most of the time "credits"), I am not for mixing them in with a bill that increases spending. Keep the same level, or better yet, reduce spending and also give people tax cuts while decreasing regulation at certain certain points (mainly to increase competition) and people will have more money to spend on items that are relatively cheaper than before (which will increase tax revenue).

This isn't hard to understand.
Kingfisher

Not Done and not done done. Obama as well as many others are ~~pulling~~putting us ~~out of~~ in the shithole.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-12 14:28:34

You're welcome for the corrections, Vega.
Dick_Nixon

Remember when Reagan was president and we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash? Well, now we have President Obama, no hope, and no cash.

Thats restaurant quality right there.
/golf clap
ohioan

Funny:
Remember when Reagan was president and we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash? Well, now we have President Obama, no hope, and no cash.

Not funny:
Trillions in debt, unemployment >10% (remember it wasn't supposed to get over 8.5%), and limited lending from bailed-out banks.
Kingfisher

Perhaps the conservatives would have been happier with a corporate tax cut.

I hate to interrupt your little kiss-fest with Reallunatik (your sockpuppet) but any corporate tax increase or cut is passed through to the consumer.

Economics 101, dumbass.
Dick_Nixon

From your lips and on into the future. We'll find out.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-03-12 15:10:18

It's here now. Thanks for playing.
fiza

"Ah so now that there is a bill that actually gives tax breaks (something that conservatives and Republicans have been screaming about for months) the right is still whinning.

Posted by whats_up"
2010-03-12 10:37:58

Right on, whats_up!

The same goes with the 700+ billion economic stimulus bill, one third of which was tax cuts.
Perhaps the conservatives would have been happier with a corporate tax cut. For example, GE's tax rate on their profits in 2009 was a whoopin 5.1%. That is way to high.
In the 1950's corporations used to foot about 40% of the US tax income. Now the corporate share is down to about 8%. I wonder who pays the rest.
Realpolitik

. . . quadrupling the deficit is not making the economy worse.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-03-12 15:06:34

From your lips and on into the future. We'll find out.
Dick_Nixon

Obama is trying something different - good on him. No one else was doing anything but making the economy worse.
Posted by Realpolitik
2010-03-12 14:52:13

In troll land quadrupling the deficit is not making the economy worse.
Realpolitik

Do Democrats know how an economy works? From how they act, I'd have to say no, not at all.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2010-03-12 14:46:29

And - obviously - neither does any one else. The Economy mess was a long time in the making. Obama is trying something different - good on him. No one else was doing anything but making the economy worse.
Mike_M

"Well gee, Mike, he is actually doing all of those things."

Uh, no vega. Obama is raising taxes, rapidly increasing government spending, sealing off huge tracts of land by abusing his power to create "monuments", trying to pass two of the biggest regulatory schemes in history in Obamacare and Cap and Tax, and has shown no indication at all of getting out of GM.

Your a pathetic liar vega. You've gone from a partisan cheerleader to a drooling idiot lately. Do you think anybody is buying this crap?
Christopher_Taylor

Do Democrats know how an economy works? From how they act, I'd have to say no, not at all.
D-Vega

Obama could certainly help spur economic growth by cutting taxes, cutting regulations, opening up land for resource exploration, controlling government spending, and getting the government out of the banks and GM.

Well gee, Mike, he is actually doing all of those things.

Feel free to refute Nixon's statement Martha, if you will.

Done and done. Obama as well as many others are pulling us out of the shithole.
Dick_Nixon

wookies are muscular
Realpolitik

the magnificence of his wife's arms.
Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-12 12:48:14

Ummmm - lucky lucky Barack.
Mike_M

"Feel free to refute Nixon's statement Martha, if you will."

You were a bit disrespectful Nixon. After all you forgot two of Obama's biggest qualifications: the pleasing cadence of his voice and the magnificence of his wife's arms.
Dick_Nixon

Feel free to refute Nixon's statement Martha, if you will.
Realpolitik

The bounds of Obama's inexperience and ignorance seem to know no limits.
Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-12 11:11:01

Conservatives warned about this. Yet, because of Obama being the Lightbringer of the left, small things like his total lack of executive experience, real world business knowledge, and over all common sense were ignored, because of his immaculate pant creases and ability to read a teleprompter if George Soros put the words on it.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-03-12 11:17:42

Youz guyz be soooooooooooo funny. LOL And you claim you don't take dope.
Dick_Nixon

The bounds of Obama's inexperience and ignorance seem to know no limits.
Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-12 11:11:01

Conservatives warned about this. Yet, because of Obama being the Lightbringer of the left, small things like his total lack of executive experience, real world business knowledge, and over all common sense were ignored, because of his immaculate pant creases and ability to read a teleprompter if George Soros put the words on it.
Mike_M

From the article: The U.S. economy has gone through spurts in which exports have doubled -- or nearly so -- within five years, most recently from 2002 to 2007

Know what else happened in that time period? The Bush Tax Cuts!

Obama could certainly help spur economic growth by cutting taxes, cutting regulations, opening up land for resource exploration, controlling government spending, and getting the government out of the banks and GM.

His only real concrete idea seems to be forcing the Chinese into domestic spending on US imports...hopelessly naive at best and grounds for a trade war at worst. Sounds like cowboy American arrgoance in either case (snicker).

Obama clearly has no idea what he's talking about, just like how he has no idea how insurance works. The bounds of Obama's inexperience and ignorance seem to know no limits.
Smithwick

And as we all know the economy functions by taxing the productive and giving to the unproductive. The higher the taxes on people actually making the stuff (and greater the handouts to those who do nothing) the healthier the economy. Liberal econ 101.
Smithwick

It's fairly disgusting what we're spending our money on. Yes a temporary increase in social benefits to cover the increase in unemployed makes sense, but that's not going to create jobs anymore than issuing parachutes creates pilots.

Why can't we build new transportation and energy infrastructure and repair the existing stuff? Remember those shovel ready jobs we were promised in the campaign?
Dick_Nixon

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-12 10:37:58

So you are ok with the spending that does not lead to the jobs. Thanks for admitting it. And you want to sidetrack that by claiming conservatives should be for this bill due to some "tax" breaks that won't have any real impact due to the offsetting deficit spending.

You really should try harder to impersonate a person with intelligence. Nixon knows that is hard for you to do, but, please stop beclowning yourself.

Thanks for playing.
whats_up

Ah so now that there is a bill that actually gives tax breaks (something that conservatives and Republicans have been screaming about for months) the right is still whinning.
Dick_Nixon

Ah yes, talking point #4 from the left: Conservatives should form a third party.

And Kingfisher is right, the left has been buying votes with entitlement programs since the War on Poverty started, in the 60's.
Kingfisher

Yes, I think they do. It is not their goal, however, to get the economy working. That doesnt benefit them at the ballot box.
Posted by tblrk2006
2010-03-12 10:22:04

The Democrats need support from the lazy and stupid for their entitlement programs.

A healthy economy needs jobs which require businesses. You cannot build a healthy economy from government entitlements.
Kingfisher

Obama knows what he's doing. His interest is to reduce this country to a fraction of it's former stature.

No society can sustain an economy as ours is right now with all of the entitlement programs. It is simply not feasible.

Obama wants to ruin this country because he, like his fellow leftists, are a bunch of selfish pricks who act out of hate, nothing more. The trolls here will question why conservatives didn't do anything when Bush was president, which is a complete lie. They have no right to question us when they intentionally support a president who encourages bigger deficits.
tblrk2006

Do Democrats Understand How An Economy Works?

Yes, I think they do. It is not their goal, however, to get the economy working. That doesnt benefit them at the ballot box.
Kingfisher

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-03-12 10:01:54

Hog's method of operation: wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.......repeat, repeat....
Power_System_Oper

OP: "Senate's $149 Billion Jobs Bill"

There they (the GOP)go again throwing fiscal conservatives under the bus. The fillibuster proof Senate is history, yet Repbulican Senators are still willing to cross over the line and support a liberal agenda.

Its time conservatives stand up and say enough is enough and elect politicans from a real conservative third party who will actully suuport them when the chips are down. Just look at the situation in the House of Representatives. Representative Paul Ryan has created a plan of detailed specific spending cuts which will balance the budget without having to raise taxes. What could be more conservative friendly than that? Yet only about ten GOP members of the House have had the guts to stand up and sign on to co-sponsor of Rep Ryan's plan.
michaelalan

Obama has inspired me to produce twice as many golden eggs as last year. I will do this in three ways.

First I will replace my chicken’s water with Goldschläger.
Second I will allow her to have 4 fifteen minute breaks instead of two.
And finally I will give her a whole month off a year, instead of two weeks.

Obama can't double exports and he is an idiot if he thinks he can.
Jack Schite

William is smart and economical, he should be president!

:D