A Memorial For America

[Toronado3800]

Nice random talk about poverty and socialism. Don't let post 34 from PC which mentioned poverty distract ya from the deficit spending comparison.

Anyone still want to compare the effects of deficit spending now and in the 80's? Stay on topic and there are points to be made pro Reagan and anti Obama. This crazy left/right communist talk has me worried.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain the "there is no poverty rate" statement. Did I mispeak? Is it termed poverty level now or rate of poverty? Your point #4 mentioned poverty rate.

1. Poverty= no home, no heat, no food.

2. Do you know how the bogus 'poverty rate' is determined?

so far as I know its determined by not using any of the income poor people get from government so they will not be poor

You are correct.


"The new Obama poverty measure fails. It flunks the test of political neutrality and is based on misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand, says columnist Robert J. Samuelson.

That's because the new calculation would measure poverty on a sliding scale. Thus, if the average income of families in the United States increases so too does the poverty threshold. Talk about keeping up with the Jones. This new measure provides the perfect climate for left-leaning politicians to promote equalization of wealth through redistribution.

The measure would bump poverty up 30 percent: more poverty equals more political fodder to argue for increased welfare.


Unfortunately, the method currently used to calculate the poverty rate is already skewed, creating a "crisis" of poverty in the United States:
This is because only a family's pretax income is included in total income when determining their poverty level.
Thus, despite the fact that the average poor household receives $28,000 dollars in welfare benefits annually, these benefits are not included in their income.

Not surprisingly then, even though the United States has increased welfare spending by thirteen-fold (adjusting for inflation) since the war on poverty began in 1965, the poverty rate has stayed much the same.
However, the standard of living for the poor has increased substantially...."
For Heritage text:
New Poverty Measure Doesn?t Add Up | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
For Samuelson text:
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Obama's poverty rate measure misleads

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nice random talk about poverty and socialism. Don't let post 34 from PC which mentioned poverty distract ya from the deficit spending comparison.

Anyone still want to compare the effects of deficit spending now and in the 80's? Stay on topic and there are points to be made pro Reagan and anti Obama. This crazy left/right communist talk has me worried.

Don't let reality impinge your opinions....

If post #42 was too long for you, here is the short version:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a famous statement of Karl Marx (1818-1883), written in 1875.



Or....updated:
"“From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed” was written by Henry Fairlie....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This crazy left/right communist talk has me worried.

why worried? Did the left spy for Stalin or not? Did Barry have two communist parents or not? As long as we realize that history is merely the war between left and right( government and freedom) and always has been we can defeat the left.

 

[Trajan]

When socialists thump their chests, and make obeisance to the collective, marginalize the efforts of the rugged individualist, the entrepreneur, e.g., "You didn't build that!," well, perhaps we should recall what made America great.



Carl Schramm is president of the [non-partisan] Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation, known to National Public Radio listeners and a few others as "the foundation for entrepreneurship.”
Carl Schramm Says Capitalism Allows Entrepreneurship to Thrive - WSJ.com

Mr. Schramm has written “Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity,” and “The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How America's Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World (and Change Your Life)” among others.






In an interview on May 20, 2009, he discussed the following.
1.Economic growth owes more to the forbearance of the state than to its intervention. Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do.

2. The $7.4 Trillion in federal debt works out to $508,000 per household. There is currently no plan to settle the debt, it is ongoing. [And Obama's promise to cut this debt???]

3. To see the result of government dependency programs, we can study Europe in the post-1960 period, and it becomes eminently clear that the result of government debt is slow growth in the economy. Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, after growing 3.2% a year from 1962 to 1973, sank to a 1% annual growth rate from 1974 to 1982 [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/economics_and_the_entrepreneur.html], ‘stagflation’ period based on Vietnam debt. .






We thought that the Japanese economic model was correct, and many in our government thought to use a central-planning model, here as well. But it proved dead wrong: the attempt to absorb risk into the state and grow the state government, has resulted in almost 15 years of slow growth.

4. The problem seems to rest in the human psyche, using the magical phrase “this time is different.” We are so needing to have certainty in an economic context, that any government official who speaks with authority rules in the current circumstances. We forget to apply this phrase: “Past is prologue.” Either economic growth will come in at 4-5-or 6% a year, or we will have to inflate our currency. With inflation in ’81-’82-’83 [16% CPI, 18% Medical Price Index, 15% housing mortgages] we paid for Vietnam and the Great Society.


5. Can the poor still get rich? Immigrants do it. As entrepreneurs, they accomplish the following: 1) Innovation, they bring out new things. 2) Almost all jobs are created by new businesses, firms less than five years old. 3) They drive efficiency into the system by competition.

It is interesting that John Kenneth Galbraith, a Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism, wrote in 1984, that entrepreneurs are no longer important to American development, and all economic innovation will occur in large labs, like Bell Labs. When he wrote that, Microsoft was four years old. “Galbraith had written in 1967 that the entrepreneur was a "diminishing figure": "Apart from access to capital, his principal qualifications were imagination, capacity for decision[making] and courage in risking money, including, not infrequently, his own.”
RealClearPolitics - Economics and the Entrepreneur






6. American capitalism is based on the entrepreneurs who risk their own capital, and produce the supply that causes demand as represented by Says Law of Economics.:
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Regulation and taxation are impediments to these entrepreneurs.




Memorial Day....in memory of the once great American culture......

Now? Saddled with socialists and whiners who believe that there is a 'free lunch.'

if you don't like America you can go back where you came from then and "enjoy" your culture as we have enough homegrown nutcases here

we sure do, need help packing? a lift to the bus station?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When socialists thump their chests, and make obeisance to the collective, marginalize the efforts of the rugged individualist, the entrepreneur, e.g., "You didn't build that!," well, perhaps we should recall what made America great.



Carl Schramm is president of the [non-partisan] Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation, known to National Public Radio listeners and a few others as "the foundation for entrepreneurship.”
Carl Schramm Says Capitalism Allows Entrepreneurship to Thrive - WSJ.com

Mr. Schramm has written “Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity,” and “The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How America's Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World (and Change Your Life)” among others.






In an interview on May 20, 2009, he discussed the following.
1.Economic growth owes more to the forbearance of the state than to its intervention. Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do.

2. The $7.4 Trillion in federal debt works out to $508,000 per household. There is currently no plan to settle the debt, it is ongoing. [And Obama's promise to cut this debt???]

3. To see the result of government dependency programs, we can study Europe in the post-1960 period, and it becomes eminently clear that the result of government debt is slow growth in the economy. Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, after growing 3.2% a year from 1962 to 1973, sank to a 1% annual growth rate from 1974 to 1982 [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/economics_and_the_entrepreneur.html], ‘stagflation’ period based on Vietnam debt. .






We thought that the Japanese economic model was correct, and many in our government thought to use a central-planning model, here as well. But it proved dead wrong: the attempt to absorb risk into the state and grow the state government, has resulted in almost 15 years of slow growth.

4. The problem seems to rest in the human psyche, using the magical phrase “this time is different.” We are so needing to have certainty in an economic context, that any government official who speaks with authority rules in the current circumstances. We forget to apply this phrase: “Past is prologue.” Either economic growth will come in at 4-5-or 6% a year, or we will have to inflate our currency. With inflation in ’81-’82-’83 [16% CPI, 18% Medical Price Index, 15% housing mortgages] we paid for Vietnam and the Great Society.


5. Can the poor still get rich? Immigrants do it. As entrepreneurs, they accomplish the following: 1) Innovation, they bring out new things. 2) Almost all jobs are created by new businesses, firms less than five years old. 3) They drive efficiency into the system by competition.

It is interesting that John Kenneth Galbraith, a Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism, wrote in 1984, that entrepreneurs are no longer important to American development, and all economic innovation will occur in large labs, like Bell Labs. When he wrote that, Microsoft was four years old. “Galbraith had written in 1967 that the entrepreneur was a "diminishing figure": "Apart from access to capital, his principal qualifications were imagination, capacity for decision[making] and courage in risking money, including, not infrequently, his own.”
RealClearPolitics - Economics and the Entrepreneur






6. American capitalism is based on the entrepreneurs who risk their own capital, and produce the supply that causes demand as represented by Says Law of Economics.:
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com

Regulation and taxation are impediments to these entrepreneurs.




Memorial Day....in memory of the once great American culture......

Now? Saddled with socialists and whiners who believe that there is a 'free lunch.'

if you don't like America you can go back where you came from then and "enjoy" your culture as we have enough homegrown nutcases here

we sure do, need help packing? a lift to the bus station?

dear, you are the socialist whiner, not political chick!!

How slow are you??

 

[Trajan]

if you don't like America you can go back where you came from then and "enjoy" your culture as we have enough homegrown nutcases here

we sure do, need help packing? a lift to the bus station?

dear, you are the socialist whiner, not political chick!!

How slow are you??

not as slow as you, you have me mixed up with someone else dopey......blow out your headgear...that was directed to the poster I quoted ...for god sakes....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we sure do, need help packing? a lift to the bus station?

dear, you are the socialist whiner, not political chick!!

How slow are you??

not as slow as you, you have me mixed up with someone else dopey......blow out your headgear...that was directed to the poster I quoted ...for god sakes....

sorry my scorn was directed at whoever the socialist whiner is

 

[Anitabeme]

Carl Schramm is an idiot. He may happen to be a useful idiot for your ideological stance--and a wealthy one at that--but he is still an idiot. Born on third base, and all that whatnot.

"Governments do not make wealth, only their citizens do."

But citizens do not make money, only the government does; hence, the source of all of the so-called debt you wring your hands over. Be very thankful for this; otherwise, we would have massive monetary deflation.

"The $7.4 Trillion in federal debt works out to $508,000 per household. There is currently no plan to settle the debt, it is ongoing."

That's right. There is no plan to "settle" the debt, because that would be deflationary. And it's not "debt" in any practical sense of the word. Politicians should stay out of economics.

American capitalism is based on the entrepreneurs who risk their own capital, and produce the supply that causes demand as represented by Says Law of Economics.:
“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”

Everything about this paragraph is fucked up. First of all, there was a HUGE amount of government assistance that went into the growth of this country (everything from military support to land confiscation/conveyence, special legislative "favors," government contracts, research/development, trade agreements, etc. etc.). Also, it isn't capitalism that provides a supply--it's labor. Capitalism merely exploits labor for profit.

Wow. I'm speechless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone:"That's right. There is no plan to "settle" the debt, because that would be deflationary. And it's not "debt" in any practical sense of the word. Politicians should stay out of economics."

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

 

[Toronado3800]

Someone:"That's right. There is no plan to "settle" the debt, because that would be deflationary. And it's not "debt" in any practical sense of the word. Politicians should stay out of economics."

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

Hey, thats Reagan's debt you are bad mouthing.

Be a good cheerleader now Edward and say no bad about him!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone:"That's right. There is no plan to "settle" the debt, because that would be deflationary. And it's not "debt" in any practical sense of the word. Politicians should stay out of economics."

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

Hey, thats Reagan's debt you are bad mouthing.

Be a good cheerleader now Edward and say no bad about him!

Conservatives mostly don't mind debt that defends the last best hope for freedom, and their lives.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nice random talk about poverty and socialism. Don't let post 34 from PC which mentioned poverty distract ya from the deficit spending comparison.

Anyone still want to compare the effects of deficit spending now and in the 80's? Stay on topic and there are points to be made pro Reagan and anti Obama. This crazy left/right communist talk has me worried.

Don't let reality impinge your opinions....

If post #42 was too long for you, here is the short version:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a famous statement of Karl Marx (1818-1883), written in 1875.



Or....updated:
"“From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed” was written by Henry Fairlie....

Once again, no one is defending the Soviet Union or communism. Get on board with the debt is bad conversation.

Look, Reagan used it as a tool. Good, bad or indifferent. He was inspired by FDR and judging by the bank bailout nomics he inspired "W" with the too big to fail theory of welfare for companies and deficit spending.

Now Obama's trend is headed in the right direction but painfully slowly and I don't recall "O" protesting the bailouts either.

Go talk about Marx whike I have both ends of theconversation here. I did not mean to hurt your feelings bringing up Reagan but this is disappointing on an Edward like level

 

[Anitabeme]

Someone:"That's right. There is no plan to "settle" the debt, because that would be deflationary. And it's not "debt" in any practical sense of the word. Politicians should stay out of economics."

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

I was quoting Freemason9

 

[Toronado3800]

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

Hey, thats Reagan's debt you are bad mouthing.

Be a good cheerleader now Edward and say no bad about him!

Conservatives mostly don't mind debt that defends the last best hope for freedom, and their lives.

Ok......

Lets approach this from a different angle.

In 1980 should Jimmy Carter have been surprised by having to spend money on the cold war? No. It had been going on for thirty years. It was 100% predictable and should be budgeted for.

In 2009 should Obama have been surprised by having to fund Homeland Security and the War on Terror? No, another political reality.

If I own a bank I must budget for security.
If I own manage a rock n roll band I must budget for security.
What is your point of disagreement with Reagan not knowing how to balance the books in a thread about the evils of our current deficit?

 

[Toronado3800]

actually if you pay off a car loan it is not deflationary and neither is paying off Federal debt. Also, it is debt in a very practical sense in that each household has to pay off $155,000 in higher taxes. Its like paying off a house you can never use.

A little Econ 101 for you. Sorry

Hey, thats Reagan's debt you are bad mouthing.

Be a good cheerleader now Edward and say no bad about him!

Conservatives mostly don't mind debt that defends the last best hope for freedom, and their lives.

Also I would ask if you consider this "war on terror" to be for our freedom also? Or is it just some game the Bush's play in the sand? 9-11 seemed pretty game changing.

In other words, does defense spending now count?

Do you think Obama is letting our military spending dip to inferior levels compared to Reagan?

Sorry for the multiple questions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is your point of disagreement with Reagan not knowing how to balance the books in a thread about the evils of our current deficit?

Reagan knew how to balance but the Congress would not allow him to although I will concede it would have been hard at best given the need to free 2 billion people, end the cold war, save us from possible nuclear annihilation, and introduce Republican capitalism to Russia and China.

Obama has no such needs, but merely wants to spend trillions and trillions on more and more crippling welfare, as a matter of philosophy, and, as a subversive way to buy votes.

 

[Toronado3800]

What is your point of disagreement with Reagan not knowing how to balance the books in a thread about the evils of our current deficit?

Reagan knew how to balance but the Congress would not allow him to although I will concede it would have been hard at best given the need to free 2 billion people, end the cold war, save us from possible nuclear annihilation, and introduce Republican capitalism to Russia and China.

Obama has no such needs, but merely wants to spend trillions and trillions on more and more crippling welfare, as a matter of philosophy, and, as a subversive way to buy votes.

So the defense/homeland security buildup of the 2000's was unnecessary is that what you are saying by stating Obama has no such needs?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is your point of disagreement with Reagan not knowing how to balance the books in a thread about the evils of our current deficit?

Reagan knew how to balance but the Congress would not allow him to although I will concede it would have been hard at best given the need to free 2 billion people, end the cold war, save us from possible nuclear annihilation, and introduce Republican capitalism to Russia and China.

Obama has no such needs, but merely wants to spend trillions and trillions on more and more crippling welfare, as a matter of philosophy, and, as a subversive way to buy votes.

So the defense/homeland security buildup of the 2000's was unnecessary is that what you are saying by stating Obama has no such needs?

please reread to know what I was saying, you fool! Your conversation never has any direction whatsoever. You go round and round in circles having no idea what you are doing or where you are trying to go. You're just wasting time here.

Why not work for many hours on a very very concise reason to be a liberal and then tell us that reason. It would be a good exercise for you and your Mom.

 

[Toronado3800]

Reagan knew how to balance but the Congress would not allow him to although I will concede it would have been hard at best given the need to free 2 billion people, end the cold war, save us from possible nuclear annihilation, and introduce Republican capitalism to Russia and China.

Obama has no such needs, but merely wants to spend trillions and trillions on more and more crippling welfare, as a matter of philosophy, and, as a subversive way to buy votes.

So the defense/homeland security buildup of the 2000's was unnecessary is that what you are saying by stating Obama has no such needs?

please reread to know what I was saying, you fool! Your conversation never has any direction whatsoever. You go round and round in circles having no idea what you are doing or where you are trying to go. You're just wasting time here.

Why not work for many hours on a very very concise reason to be a liberal and then tell us that reason. It would be a good exercise for you and your Mom.

Lessons From the Decades Long Upward March of Government Spending - Forbes

Ed, I think you have been reading books from folks with an agenda instead of looking at the numbers so I am trying to figure out what you mean.