Warren Buffet on Bush Tax Cuts and "Trickle Down"Follow

bsphil,

And MOST of the deficit has been created over the last 2yrs.

This could possibly have anything to do with anyone but Obama, of course. Right, guys? Am I right?

Is that supposed to prove your point or something? Why'd they stop at Reagan? Probably because Reagan borrowed more than every president before him combined. Bush (43) further doubled the public debt by spending over 5 trillion, more than every president before him combined and sent us into a recession to boot. So no, MOST of the deficit has not been created in the last two years.

Article says



Well, I don't know about you lot, but I came.

Yea, I agree. I just "built" an Altima SR, since there is apparently no SER available, and compared it to a Hyundai Sonata 2.0T. The Sonata has 4 more HP, costs $6000 less, and gets better mileage than their 4 cylinder version.

Kao SMASH!!!!

That's not universally true.

floyd,




Fact is Obama makes W look like an amateur when it comes to spending the american peoples money.







Edited, Dec 8th 2010 9:13am by varusword75

Ah, that makes sense, but it's a systemic problem rather than a fundamental one, so there are surely workarounds if policy is adjusted.

A fundamental problem; however, would be that certain professions are highly dependent on expertise. For example, it's probably still in the nation's best interest if doctors still work 40 hour weeks. So rather than some universal change to the overtime legislation, you'd need an elaborate system of exceptions, I suppose. Still very manageable.



Does the term "predatory lending" mean anything to you?

I think it'd be less of an issue either way if the government were more efficient with its spending. Business owners need capital to spend on expanding their businesses, but the lower/middle class also need money in order to buy the products that said businesses offer.

A lot of problems would be solved in my opinion if we were able to get rid of all the inefficiencies in government. The redundant spending, the cushy jobs/pensions for friends of politicians or lobbyists and just a general streamlining of the government in general.

I believe he drives an '09 Pontiac G8, but I could be wrong.

The workarounds tend to introduce similar problems though. And frankly, none of this addresses the core flaw with the idea. How is having more people work for less hours actually help things? Sure, you'll decrease relative unemployment, but people will earn less money relatively speaking. I vividly recall back in the 2004/2005 time period when we'd have debates about the economy, and I'd point out that unemployment was good, the liberals on this board would insist that it was a false statistic because more people were working part time and minimum wage jobs.

Um... So imagine my surprise when this is hailed as the "solution" to our employment problems. Hmmm!



I'm not sure what you're talking about. Before you propose a solution, it might help to actually define the problem and what you hope to gain by making changes. The "problem" is that right now employers are not sure if hiring more workers will net them more profits. It's a pretty clear cut "cost of employing someone compared to the profit their labor will create" equation. Anything which makes employing someone more expensive, or which reduces the profit generated by employing someone is "bad" in the context of employment. Anything which makes employing someone less expensive or increases the profit generated by employing someone is "good".

Now, look at the policies that the Dems have been pushing consistently in this area. Why is anyone surprised that unemployment has gone *up* since they took control? They have done exactly the opposite of what you should do if you want to help people keep and/or gain jobs.