Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Have You Thrived Under Obamanomics?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:08:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been employed for six, going on seven years and have experienced a financial life under two Presidencies, Bush and Obama.

I was hired during Bush a year and a half before the financial collapse (thank god), but barely survived Obama's first term. Nearly 300 people were laid off in the devastating year of 2010 and I was spared because I played my cards right and pieces fell into place.

Financially, things were flat during Obama's first 4 years, but in 2012 I quadrupled my earnings. But it had nothing to do with Obama. As good as that was, it would have been better under someone more fiscally responsible and the fruits would be even more plentiful.

2013 is approaching and I'm not sure what to expect.

Does anyone have a realistic, yet optimistic look at 2013 or do you seriously see it as a crash and burn like the European nations?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 2:54:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

Are you calling your hero Ron Paul a thief?

Btw, Nevada's tax system is very Libertarian. NO INCOME TAX and high sales tax rate.

That is precisely what Gary Johnson proposes, no income tax, rely on consumption tax.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 7:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:58:22 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

You should read this: http://lesswrong.com...

I read that!
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 7:58:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:58:22 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

You should read this: http://lesswrong.com...

Rather obvious, correct? Wallstreet wouldn't say something like that in an actual debate; anyone who did on this website would get called out pretty quickly. The "noncentral" fallacy, as they call it, isn't generally something that infects the more rational-minded.

Also, what is your username on Lesswrong?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

The Lockean Proviso only permits the usage of a natural resource when there is as much of equal quality left available to anyone else who might need it. When land or any other resource is scarce enough to have a negligible market value, then it is an act of aggression to prevent others from using it without compensating them somehow.

Read something other than Rothbard. It might help. :D
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:12:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 8:07:41 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Lockean Proviso only permits the usage of a natural resource when there is as much of equal quality left available to anyone else who might need it. When land or any other resource is scarce enough to have a negligible market value, then it is an act of aggression to prevent others from using it without compensating them somehow.
My intuition told me this was copy-pasted. Which happens to be true: http://forums.civfanatics.com...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:15:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 8:12:10 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/31/2012 8:07:41 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Lockean Proviso only permits the usage of a natural resource when there is as much of equal quality left available to anyone else who might need it. When land or any other resource is scarce enough to have a negligible market value, then it is an act of aggression to prevent others from using it without compensating them somehow.
My intuition told me this was copy-pasted. Which happens to be true: http://forums.civfanatics.com...

Yeah, so? I really am reading Locke.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:43:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 7:48:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/31/2012 5:58:22 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

You should read this: http://lesswrong.com...

I read that!

Dammit Greyparrot! I told Wallstreetatheist to read it, not you!
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:45:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 5:58:22 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/31/2012 2:40:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You work for the government. You are payed with stolen money.

You should read this: http://lesswrong.com...

Fortunately taxation shares all the negative attributes of all other forms of theft so WSA is ok (he was also being facetious - I'm pretty sure as an individualist he would be fine with people working for the government as long as they themselves were acting non-aggressively)
Actually I don't know many burglars who fund murder with their illegally acquired goods so if we are going to apply some utilitarian metric I think they stack-up better than the US (or UK) government.
I've seen you post this before, are you some how deluding yourself that this is an adequate response to the assertion that taxation is theft? All it does is merely shift the metric by which the action is being judged, and considering that most anarchists are nihilists anyway, seems rather redundant.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:55:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 8:15:14 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/31/2012 8:12:10 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/31/2012 8:07:41 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Lockean Proviso only permits the usage of a natural resource when there is as much of equal quality left available to anyone else who might need it. When land or any other resource is scarce enough to have a negligible market value, then it is an act of aggression to prevent others from using it without compensating them somehow.
My intuition told me this was copy-pasted. Which happens to be true: http://forums.civfanatics.com...

Yeah, so? I really am reading Locke.

Don't become one of those blowhards that thinks parroting the words of philosophers gives their poor arguments some gravity. If you truly believing in something, and are not simply engaged in posturing, you should be able to produce an argument and defend it yourself, only referencing someone else's work for added support....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:06:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 7:19:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
I have no complaints.

Care to expand? Have you been flat, gained, or lost financially in the past 4 years?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 10:45:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I got lucky that I did not get cut at IBM in 2011. They laid off everyone less senior than me (minus 2 people) in my department. I should be fine now because we are making the Wii U chips. I still don't like obamanomics though!
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:14:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 10:06:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/31/2012 7:19:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
I have no complaints.

Care to expand? Have you been flat, gained, or lost financially in the past 4 years?

Personally, I am making, now, about 20% more than I was 4 years ago. I recently took a decrease in salary, but by choice. I decided to take a job closer to home at a slightly less pay. I can probably get a job anywhere I want in the tri-state area, and have plenty of connections, so I am not particularly worried about my employment status.

My wife has seen similar gains, or more so, depending on if you are measuring absolutely or relatively. So, together, we are doing rather well for ourselves. It'll be interesting to see what the new taxes bring come this year and the next, but income-wise - there are no complaints.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:08:27 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have been employed for six, going on seven years and have experienced a financial life under two Presidencies, Bush and Obama.

I was hired during Bush a year and a half before the financial collapse (thank god), but barely survived Obama's first term. Nearly 300 people were laid off in the devastating year of 2010 and I was spared because I played my cards right and pieces fell into place.

Financially, things were flat during Obama's first 4 years, but in 2012 I quadrupled my earnings. But it had nothing to do with Obama. As good as that was, it would have been better under someone more fiscally responsible and the fruits would be even more plentiful.

2013 is approaching and I'm not sure what to expect.

Does anyone have a realistic, yet optimistic look at 2013 or do you seriously see it as a crash and burn like the European nations?

Un-employed for six months now. No thanks to O'bummer.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:25:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Un-employed for six months now. No thanks to O'bummer.

Well, Obama and the Dems are fighting to continue Unemployment benefits, so that is good for you.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:31:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:25:05 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Un-employed for six months now. No thanks to O'bummer.

Well, Obama and the Dems are fighting to continue Unemployment benefits, so that is good for you.

I support unemployment benefits but Obama's desolate economy is the cause of job loss and low job market. Obama increased the number of people on welfare and food stamps by millions in his first term.

We need less government dependency and more self-sufficiency.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:33:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:25:05 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Un-employed for six months now. No thanks to O'bummer.

Well, Obama and the Dems are fighting to continue Unemployment benefits, so that is good for you.

I don't draw un-employment. I never have, never will.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I personally can honestly say that I've done about as well as I probably would have with any other president in office, all things considered. I mean, I am me, after all, and the president doesn't really change that (hehe).

On the other hand, I can't say that things would have been quite the same if we had a different Congress, or House of Representatives.

Say, for example, a recent bill that the House Republicans recently introduced: http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Now, surely, you must realize that this is because controlling the economy and writing legislation that will affect it is not the President's job. It is instead, his job to represent, protect, and lead Americans. Accordingly, in terms of the law and the economy, the best he can do is defend American interests on citizen's behalf.

That's why I'm glad that President Obama does do his job, so while the House is presenting bills such as what I linked above, President Obama is trying to counteract such financial stresses, such as: http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Can't say I believe you work for the government, chum.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:37:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:31:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:25:05 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Un-employed for six months now. No thanks to O'bummer.

Well, Obama and the Dems are fighting to continue Unemployment benefits, so that is good for you.

I support unemployment benefits but Obama's desolate economy is the cause of job loss and low job market. Obama increased the number of people on welfare and food stamps by millions in his first term.

We need less government dependency and more self-sufficiency.

You realize that the economy entered a great recession just as Bush left office and while the economy has not gotten a full recovery yet, GDP and most economic indicators improved since Obama.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.

This is true, however, the reason there is a recession is because lack of demand. This can be seen as prices remain low. 2012 inflation has come in below target. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...

Businesses are not expanding because there is no demand, not because prices are increasing. In the 80s, when the price of oil increased, this was a supply driven recession, notice there was really high inflation. But, because prices, GDP and interest are low, this is a demand driven recession. So, government spending is needed for a recovery.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:11:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:00:55 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.

This is true, however, the reason there is a recession is because lack of demand. This can be seen as prices remain low. 2012 inflation has come in below target. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...

Businesses are not expanding because there is no demand, not because prices are increasing. In the 80s, when the price of oil increased, this was a supply driven recession, notice there was really high inflation. But, because prices, GDP and interest are low, this is a demand driven recession. So, government spending is needed for a recovery.

1. Our Government is 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.
2. The ONLY money our government has to SPEND is money that it prints (with NOTHING to back it up and which results in the money being worth LESS) and the money that it TAKES FROM the economy in the way of taxes.

Taking money from an economy to stimulate that economy makes no sense at all.

Printing money which devalues that currency and then dumping that devalued currency into the economy makes even LESS sense.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.

I see your point, and raise you a clarification. A tax on BUSINESS is a tax on us. A tax on the rich may have indirect consequences, but not necessarily ones that can be passed to us. For example, the rich may invest less or give less to charity. If they invest less, and those investments are NOT initial investments (IPO), I don't see who is harmed, except commissions for stock brokers.
My work here is, finally, done.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:15:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.

I see your point, and raise you a clarification. A tax on BUSINESS is a tax on us. A tax on the rich may have indirect consequences, but not necessarily ones that can be passed to us. For example, the rich may invest less or give less to charity. If they invest less, and those investments are NOT initial investments (IPO), I don't see who is harmed, except commissions for stock brokers.

You make a good point in that it varies as to how and how much a tax on the rich will be felt by the less fortunate. However, my point remains the same. They are not just going to take the loss, shrug their shoulders and not do something about it. Working people have their retirements for the most part locked up in 401K's. When investments decline (as you mentioned above) it affects those retirement funds greatly. More so, when taxed too heavily, the Rich stop buying things (luxury items). This causes loss of jobs for those who make those items... and causes secondary losses to the businesses those workers buy from,... etc.

It's a chain reaction that never seems to be taken into consideration.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:37:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:27:04 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 12:15:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:50:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:38:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only people that would be "worse off" under Obama are maybe the top 1%. Everyone else would do better.

CupCakes,... I am not rich (financially) and I probably never will be. But I know that a tax on "the rich" is a tax on me and on other people like me. The rich are not stupid. They are smart enough to pass DOWN their added costs of doing business. If you raise their taxes... they raise their prices on their products, cut their overhead in other ways, lay people off and basically do what they have to do to maintain their profit margins.

If they DON'T, they will not be "rich" for very long.

A tax on them is a tax on YOU.

I see your point, and raise you a clarification. A tax on BUSINESS is a tax on us. A tax on the rich may have indirect consequences, but not necessarily ones that can be passed to us. For example, the rich may invest less or give less to charity. If they invest less, and those investments are NOT initial investments (IPO), I don't see who is harmed, except commissions for stock brokers.

You make a good point in that it varies as to how and how much a tax on the rich will be felt by the less fortunate. However, my point remains the same. They are not just going to take the loss, shrug their shoulders and not do something about it. Working people have their retirements for the most part locked up in 401K's. When investments decline (as you mentioned above) it affects those retirement funds greatly. More so, when taxed too heavily, the Rich stop buying things (luxury items). This causes loss of jobs for those who make those items... and causes secondary losses to the businesses those workers buy from,... etc.

It's a chain reaction that never seems to be taken into consideration.

I am not saying their wouldn't be an effect, just that the tax isn't passed on, or at least passed on in any tangible way, unlike a business that increases its prices to match a tax increase so profitibility is unaffected. I assume the rich would tighten their belt on other things before lifestyle, which would have an effect.

The retirments accounts I don't think would be too affected though, but I am aware that the stock prices need to be high. As I said, IPOs may be affected, which hurt business growth, but what is the damage to investment (or even retirement accounts) if I buy stock a XYZ company's IPO, then no one buys it or I never sell it? The company has the investment regardless if I sell my shares or not.
My work here is, finally, done.