Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But YOU poclaimed the data on the CBO home page showed a surplus because it showed changes in a PERCENTAGE of federal spending.. Now you are admitting they are completely different things. All I did was show you how the CBO chart was wrong and not relevant.
You got that wrong. You had said that GDP is a precentage, and I said it is an absolute amount. That is what I said regarding two different things. Even your own chart states GDP in billions of Dollars by the way
And indeed according to that other CBO chart (which I assume is correct and official, since the site has a .gov ending) there should have been a surplus during that time, which however does not say anything about an already existing debt.
If that chart contradicts other charts, well, I am not in the position to tell which one is right, nor are you.
Regardless of whether there was a surplus or not, debt was not a problem then because the economy was doing ok, there was low unemployment, no expensive wars to finance...
Of course those things such as national health care were Obama's ideas (or at least he picked them up). The bailout thingy was not his idea alone, he already worked on it with Bush's administration if I remember correctly. And he would have to do the same thing again today. And now when he wants to implement tighter controls on bankers etc. in exchange for the help, conservatives were complaining.
The things he wants to do are the things he promised before the election. People knew what he wanted and a majority voted for him anyway. So why complain now? If Republicans were cooperative rather than trying to topple him, there would be enough room for compromise.
Henry Ford was successful in creating his empire because he believed in paying workers a wage high enough to buy the produce they were building.
Not exactly true.. Henry Ford paid his employees so much because he detested unions so much, and because of the cost to train an employee. It was cheaper to pay more, than keep retraining new employees.
The fact that "he paid more to allow them to buy his own product" is a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Today's manufacturers care nothing about the people that work for them. It's all about going where they can pay the lowest wages. American workers could work for $3.00 an hour but the companies would still go off shore if they could get the work done for $2.00.
You might have missed that little law which says american works cant work for $3.00 an hour even if they wanted to.. Its called "minimum wage"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Haiti had a thriving t-shirt factory before the hurricane, producing for quality name companies. They were paying their workers $3.00 a day. Who here in America is willing to work for that?
Are you now supporting people working for $3.00 a day in america? I'm glad you made that argument, not me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Corporate greed is causing many of the problems we have today so talk all you want about what the railroad taught you but you still have a few things to learn about what the current breed of capitalists are doing to this country. Obama is not the problem.
The fact that "he paid more to allow them to buy his own product" is a myth.
"When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[19]" - H Ford wiki entry
You got that wrong. You had said that GDP is a precentage, and I said it is an absolute amount. That is what I said regarding two different things. Even your own chart states GDP in billions of Dollars by the way
The chart that YOU listed to on the CBO home page was a chart of PERCENTAGES..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And indeed according to that other CBO chart (which I assume is correct and official, since the site has a .gov ending) there should have been a surplus during that time, which however does not say anything about an already existing debt.
No, because the CBO chart showed PERCENTAGES.. Not dollars.. if spending goes down, and income goes up, the PERCENTAGES change, but they do not create a surplus unless you spend less than your income. As you so nicely stated in your first paragraph, DOLLARS matter, not PERCENTAGES, which is why the CBO chart is worthless for the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
If that chart contradicts other charts, well, I am not in the position to tell which one is right, nor are you.
The CBO does not contradict other charts.. The CBO shows PERCENTAGES while the Treasury Department shows ACTUAL DOLLARS. In one paragraph you discredit any "percentage" chart because you claim dollars matter, and then in the next, you keep supporting the validity of a chart which shows percentages. Which is it? You have no clue about my qualifications, so dont assume to speak for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Regardless of whether there was a surplus or not, debt was not a problem then because the economy was doing ok, there was low unemployment, no expensive wars to finance...
Debt is ALWAYS a problem because debt creates future problems.. Have you ever compounded debt interest on anything in your life? I'm not blaming Clinton for his deficits, because all presidents have them, I'm simply disputing the fact that many believe deficits didnt exist in all 8 years of the Clinton Presidency.. Dont feel bad, its a common error, individuals look at a graph which shows percentage change and then believe this equates to dollars, but you yourself has admitted this isnt true. The CBO chart is meaningless for the conversation of debt, it does hold meaning in discussing cutting spending and increased revenue, but percentages of the GDP are meaningless in discussion of debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Of course those things such as national health care were Obama's ideas (or at least he picked them up). The bailout thingy was not his idea alone, he already worked on it with Bush's administration if I remember correctly.
Bush created the bailout and then left 1/2 of it for Obama ($350B each).. It was Obama and Obama alone who took these "loans" and converted them into equity. We can debate if this was a positive or negative, but its a fact. On top of the $350B, Obama asked for and received an additional $787B. These are direct actions Obama took which had NOTHING to do with Bush.. Obamas biggest criticism comes into play by taking american dollars and buying up companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And he would have to do the same thing again today. And now when he wants to implement tighter controls on bankers etc. in exchange for the help, conservatives were complaining.
There isnt a dam thing conservatives could have done to stop Obama from doing such things. Conservative "complaining" is not a very valid excuse for incompetence and failure to take action..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The things he wants to do are the things he promised before the election. People knew what he wanted and a majority voted for him anyway. So why complain now? If Republicans were cooperative rather than trying to topple him, there would be enough room for compromise.
Republicans had no need to cooperate.. Again, Democrats held EVERY branch of government, EVERY SINGLE ONE.. Are you able to comprehend this very simple fact that Republicans could stop NOTHING Democrats wanted to do? This is what makes you blaming Republicans laughable while you attempt to spin the Democratic failures into Republicans to blame..
The fact that "he paid more to allow them to buy his own product" is a myth.
"When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[19]" - H Ford wiki entry
Try reading a biography on Ford, something more than "wikipedia"..
The man almost shut down "Ford Motor Company" when the employees decided to unionize because they often worked 12-15 hour days and only got paid for 8..
He paid nicely on an 8 hour work day, but rarely did employees work 8 hours, and the high pay was to keep people from complaining and willing to work the extra hours.
The man that many on the left LOVE to sight as an example of a true business hero because he paid "$5 a day" at a time when that was generous, likes to ignore the various reasons he did so. It was NOT so they could afford to buy his products.
Not exactly true.. Henry Ford paid his employees so much because he detested unions so much, and because of the cost to train an employee. It was cheaper to pay more, than keep retraining new employees.
The fact that "he paid more to allow them to buy his own product" is a myth.
Ford was a Welfare Capitalist and nothing like the capitalists of today.
"When Ford started the 40-hour work week [1926] and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[19] He labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages."
This had nothing what so ever to do with unions at that point in time, unless you want to refute his own book on the topic. The rest of the rebuttals in your post to me (#82) are too silly to reply to.
I seen "H Ford wiki entry" which picked and chose one quote from a book to suit an argument while ignoring other facts.
Employees were paid $5 for an 8 hour day, but were often required to work 12-15 hours. He later changed to 8 hour work day but thats only because it became more profitable to run the factory 24 hours a day, 3 shifts.
If the plant was shut down for 5 minutes, employees had to sign out for an hour, giving Ford 55 minutes of unpaid labor.
Employee rate as his factories was over 50% because no one would work for him and the costs to train employees were too expensive, which is when he doubled the wage to $5 a day.
If you complained about such policies, you were fired.
The man treated his employees like dirt.. but liberals like to hold him up as a fabulous example as to how employees should be treated..
I seen "H Ford wiki entry" which picked and chose one quote from a book to suit an argument while ignoring other facts.
Employees were paid $5 for an 8 hour day, but were often required to work 12-15 hours. He later changed to 8 hour work day but thats only because it became more profitable to run the factory 24 hours a day, 3 shifts.
If the plant was shut down for 5 minutes, employees had to sign out for an hour, giving Ford 55 minutes of unpaid labor.
Employee rate as his factories was over 50% because no one would work for him and the costs to train employees were too expensive, which is when he doubled the wage to $5 a day.
If you complained about such policies, you were fired.
The man treated his employees like dirt.. but liberals like to hold him up as a fabulous example as to how employees should be treated..
The topic we were discussing was your claim: "The fact that 'he paid more to allow them to buy his own product' is a myth."
It was not a myth, per his autobiography.
So that issue looks resolved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But YOU poclaimed the data on the CBO home page showed a surplus because it showed changes in a PERCENTAGE of federal spending.. Now you are admitting they are completely different things. All I did was show you how the CBO chart was wrong and not relevant.
