Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Question
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
Question
I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, basically libertarian views but don't go for the crazy wing nut stuff. My first recollection of stating that position was in my alumni interview for Rice, when I was asked if I were liberal or conservative and I responded conservative on fiscal issues, liberal on social issues. I don't think that has changed much, if at all, since then.

Among the major policies I probably align most closely with the Main Street, business-friendly republicans. I have little use for the religious right, and can't really support that part of the republican platform. I could be a democrat of they had anybody who was friendly to business. So here's my question, primarily addressed to lefties, but anyone feel free to chime in. Are there any business-friendly democrats left?

I know they had some at one time. I would consider Bill Clinton one while he was president, but he was the last, and his views have shifted left with the rest of the party since. JFK was one, but not Teddy. Anyhow, does anybody know any now?
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2018 11:11 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-04-2018 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


InterestedX Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 713
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Oxford
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Question
I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.
01-04-2018 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?
01-04-2018 01:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
erice Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 798
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location: Chicago

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #4
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

I’m a Business-friendly Democrat, but that won’t do you or anyone else much good. I wish there were more Dems in power who leaned that way like Bill Clinton did (preferably without the intern fetish) but fear the growing influence of people like Bernie Sanders is pushing the party the other way.

(For the record I’m good with a more business-friendly tax system but definitely favor a progressive personal income tax structure. And I’m in a tax bracket where im doing more giving than receiving, to your question about greed).

And your point about Capitalism is spot on, IMO. Quotable!
01-04-2018 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #5
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

This is a combination I have rarely seen, and I am curious about the details.

If you are the opposite of fiscal conservatives, does that mean you favor more spending fueled by more taxes? Are you opposed to reducing business taxes?

if you are the opposite of socially liberal, does that mean you oppose gay marriage and other social policies usually deemed to be liberal?
01-04-2018 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #6
RE: Question
I am politically similar to Owl69+. IMO, the answer to his question is NO, there are no leading Democrats who are business friendly. The vote on the recent tax bill shows this, as does their rhetoric.
01-04-2018 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #7
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.
01-04-2018 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

I guess we can classify you with the mainstream, not-so-business-friendly Democrats.
01-04-2018 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #9
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

I guess we can classify you with the mainstream, not-so-business-friendly Democrats.

I'm not up in arms over the drop in the corporate tax (although I would have preferred an increase in revenue to have coincided with said drop).

But if you want to classify thinking that we have too few worker protections as being not-so-business friendly, then sure, classify me that way.

I guess I'll classify you as an anti-working class Republican?
01-04-2018 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.
Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?
And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.

As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.

Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.

So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.

Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 10:18 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-04-2018 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSA Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,895
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 16
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Question
It depends on the exact definition of "business friendly."

I would say the late Bob Lanier.
01-04-2018 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  It depends on the exact definition of "business friendly."
I would say the late Bob Lanier.

Operative word, unfortunately, is late.

I think there may still be some at state and local levels. But not so much in DC.
01-04-2018 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.

Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

I guess we can classify you with the mainstream, not-so-business-friendly Democrats.

I'm not up in arms over the drop in the corporate tax (although I would have preferred an increase in revenue to have coincided with said drop).

But if you want to classify thinking that we have too few worker protections as being not-so-business friendly, then sure, classify me that way.

I guess I'll classify you as an anti-working class Republican?

And that would be new? I think for a lot of people on the left, being Republican/conservative/pro-business is synonymous with being anti-working class. I'm used to it, though.

Balance needs to be achieved. You don't want to kill the goose. Having owned a manufacturing plant, I am familiar with some of the things you advocate. There is only one outlet for the costs of the things you advocate - higher prices. I would not worry much about losing my competitive advantage, as my competitors would be facing the same cost inflators as me. So all the prices go up. Yeah, that helps the working class. They can spend their extra wages a bit faster.

Back to greed. It is normal for people to want better returns for what they do. Same for bosses as workers. Your agenda addresses only one side, and that is what I was noticing.
01-04-2018 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #14
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.
Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?
And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.

As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.

Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.

So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.

Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?

And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.

Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.
01-04-2018 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #15
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.
Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?
And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.

As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.

Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.

So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.

Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.

I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?

And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.

Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

Now i am confused about your point. However, we are in danger of hijacking the thread, so I suggest we go to PMs.
01-04-2018 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #16
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?

And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

I guess we can classify you with the mainstream, not-so-business-friendly Democrats.

I'm not up in arms over the drop in the corporate tax (although I would have preferred an increase in revenue to have coincided with said drop).

But if you want to classify thinking that we have too few worker protections as being not-so-business friendly, then sure, classify me that way.

I guess I'll classify you as an anti-working class Republican?

And that would be new? I think for a lot of people on the left, being Republican/conservative/pro-business is synonymous with being anti-working class. I'm used to it, though.

Balance needs to be achieved. You don't want to kill the goose. Having owned a manufacturing plant, I am familiar with some of the things you advocate. There is only one outlet for the costs of the things you advocate - higher prices. I would not worry much about losing my competitive advantage, as my competitors would be facing the same cost inflators as me. So all the prices go up. Yeah, that helps the working class. They can spend their extra wages a bit faster.

Back to greed. It is normal for people to want better returns for what they do. Same for bosses as workers. Your agenda addresses only one side, and that is what I was noticing.

It addresses one side because one side has been ignored for too long...

It's not as if wages and wealth creation have decreased across the board for the American public. We've literally seen wages stagnate for average workers while they have increased astronomically for those at the top. We seen nearly all of the income gains since the 2008 go to those at the top, while those at the bottom have been left behind.

If my left leg is hurt, I don't avoid treating it because my right leg might get injured later and not treating may increase that risk. I treat my left leg.

This isn't about punishing people for being successful, it's about trying to make sure a whole generation of US citizens are not left behind and are not left worse off than their parents. I'd rather be active about that than hope that those at the top decide to spend and invest in ways that actively drive wealth back to the lower and middle class. And if that leads to some higher prices, so be it (economists still debate the exact effect of minimum wage increases because of how complicated the macro-economy is).

I'm about building a strong working and middle class, through smart and intentional policy, and appropriate taxation and spending. I don't see us getting there by continuing on the economic path we're on (which hasn't really changed since Bush).
01-04-2018 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #17
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.

You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.

People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.

And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.

I guess we can classify you with the mainstream, not-so-business-friendly Democrats.

I'm not up in arms over the drop in the corporate tax (although I would have preferred an increase in revenue to have coincided with said drop).

But if you want to classify thinking that we have too few worker protections as being not-so-business friendly, then sure, classify me that way.

I guess I'll classify you as an anti-working class Republican?

And that would be new? I think for a lot of people on the left, being Republican/conservative/pro-business is synonymous with being anti-working class. I'm used to it, though.

Balance needs to be achieved. You don't want to kill the goose. Having owned a manufacturing plant, I am familiar with some of the things you advocate. There is only one outlet for the costs of the things you advocate - higher prices. I would not worry much about losing my competitive advantage, as my competitors would be facing the same cost inflators as me. So all the prices go up. Yeah, that helps the working class. They can spend their extra wages a bit faster.

Back to greed. It is normal for people to want better returns for what they do. Same for bosses as workers. Your agenda addresses only one side, and that is what I was noticing.

It addresses one side because one side has been ignored for too long...

It's not as if wages and wealth creation have decreased across the board for the American public. We've literally seen wages stagnate for average workers while they have increased astronomically for those at the top. We seen nearly all of the income gains since the 2008 go to those at the top, while those at the bottom have been left behind.

If my left leg is hurt, I don't avoid treating it because my right leg might get injured later and not treating may increase that risk. I treat my left leg.

This isn't about punishing people for being successful, it's about trying to make sure a whole generation of US citizens are not left behind and are not left worse off than their parents. I'd rather be active about that than hope that those at the top decide to spend and invest in ways that actively drive wealth back to the lower and middle class. And if that leads to some higher prices, so be it (economists still debate the exact effect of minimum wage increases because of how complicated the macro-economy is).

I'm about building a strong working and middle class, through smart and intentional policy, and appropriate taxation and spending. I don't see us getting there by continuing on the economic path we're on (which hasn't really changed since Bush).

do you want to continue this here?
01-04-2018 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #18
RE: Question
Continue the conversation here or in PMs, I don't care much. It's in line with the original question about there being any "business-friendly" Dems left.

The issue with that question is that the definition of business-friendly appears to be really distorted. That if you want any worker protections you become anti-business. This is just an example of the perpetuation of the black and white nature of politics - you're either completely on one side of the debate, or completely on the other. We no longer are able to see that people can be both for creating a strong business and labor environment - instead it's viewed as either/or.

Obama was actually quite friendly to businesses in many ways (see: bail out and lack of Wall St regs, green energy initiatives, attempt to pass infrastructure spending, training programs) while also trying to be pro-consumer/worker (Consumer Protection agency development, overtime rules). Business-friendly is just a proxy word for low regulation.
01-04-2018 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #19
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Continue the conversation here or in PMs, I don't care much. It's in line with the original question about there being any "business-friendly" Dems left.

The issue with that question is that the definition of business-friendly appears to be really distorted. That if you want any worker protections you become anti-business. This is just an example of the perpetuation of the black and white nature of politics - you're either completely on one side of the debate, or completely on the other. We no longer are able to see that people can be both for creating a strong business and labor environment - instead it's viewed as either/or.

Obama was actually quite friendly to businesses in many ways (see: bail out and lack of Wall St regs, green energy initiatives, attempt to pass infrastructure spending, training programs) while also trying to be pro-consumer/worker (Consumer Protection agency development, overtime rules). Business-friendly is just a proxy word for low regulation.

Any? ANY? speaking of distorting...

Check your PMs.
01-04-2018 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #20
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Obama was actually quite friendly to businesses in many ways (see: bail out and lack of Wall St regs, green energy initiatives, attempt to pass infrastructure spending, training programs) . . .

Huge, market-ignoring, taxpayer handouts to hand-picked favorites may be a Democrat's idea of "business-friendly", but it is not mine.
01-04-2018 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.