Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If people don't have the money to spend....the economy will die a slow and painful death
... real, living wages...
u... our wealthy won't make as much (but still remain incredibly wealthy) to give Joe Schmoe a wage that he can raise a family on in reasonably comfortable fashion.
Labor "deserves" to live "decently & comfortably", i.e. are "Entitled" to the American Dream of a "good life"......The vast majority of our people will work their entire lives for someone else. Those people deserve a decently comfortable life too.
paid for by "other people's money (OPM)"...
since "they have plenty" ("they've got theirs, so gimme mine"), and "we will spend it well"...
in fact "we will spend it better", so that the entire economy improves... ??
you vouchsafe, that you are "better with money", than the "already-wealthy" ?? what happens, to 'my' country, if i believe-and-follow you ?? 'my' country will earn a world-wide reputation, for wise-and-astute handling of money ??
all war is deception (Sun Tzu)
all deception is war ? (widdy))
we won't talk straight, on Money ?? (widdy)
only Life-and-Limb trumps Property-and-Money; we'll start talking straight, somewhere between Limb & Life ??? (widdy)
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Ownership is a societal convention, not an absolute of nature.
Tell that to my two pet dogs, they are pretty possessive with their bones.
Ownership is a societal convention, not an absolute of nature.
Tell that to my two pet dogs, they are pretty possessive with their bones.
You do know that conscience and reasoning separate us from the animals, right? That, along with empathy, compassion, and sense of community.
But that's right....you're a conservative. So you don't posses those traits.
Tell that to my two pet dogs, they are pretty possessive with their bones.
You do know that conscience and reasoning separate us from the animals, right? That, along with empathy, compassion, and sense of community.
But that's right....you're a conservative. So you don't posses those traits.
Why, just because we don't chose to accept a system that enslaves people to the whims of the state?
Go peddle your faux compassion and phony baloney sense of community elsewhere...
serfdom = slavery...serfdom, in which one may rise out of their serf-dom if they are smart and cunning enough...
you have "empathy, compassion, and sense of community" for those "wealthy" Americans, against whom you dis-identify ??conscience and reasoning separate us from the animals...along with empathy, compassion, and sense of community.
you divide out those "few" wealthy Americans, from the "Popular Majority"the will of the People in favor of the whims of the few who are not only quite capable of taking advantage of every opportunity given, but also demand special treatment as a blood sacrifice to their greed and industriousness. Sorry if I feel that their lavish lifestyle and material possessions, not to mention their generational security, is recompense enough for their skills.
I'm more concerned with the vast majority of our population who is struggling while they see success like never before.
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
It's the "let him die" syndrome. Republicans on Medicare, Welfare, Disability, Social Security and Food Stamps don't believe they are "misusing" those government programs. They feel they "deserve" to get that money because they are citizens, they are white, they are "patriotic". When they say, "Let him die", they don't mean white Republicans.
Republicans feel it's blacks and Hispanics that are taking advantage of these social programs. Republicans feel if these programs are "stopped", they will only be stopped for blacks and Hispanics, not for people who deserve them, like Republicans, who are white and Christian, doubly blessed.
In fact, how many right wing members of the USMB are raking in money from these programs? I once guessed and talked to a right winger about the trailer they were living in and scored. If you could perform a spell that would make the right wingers of the USMB post which programs they were getting money from, POW, the thread would explode from the traffic.
serfdom = slavery...serfdom, in which one may rise out of their serf-dom if they are smart and cunning enough...
Taxes = slavery ("you work, we Take what you make")
you yourself are advocating "Taxes=slavery=serfdom" for those "wealthy" Americans against whom you dis-identify
you have "empathy, compassion, and sense of community" for those "wealthy" Americans, against whom you dis-identify ??conscience and reasoning separate us from the animals...along with empathy, compassion, and sense of community.
you divide out those "few" wealthy Americans, from the "Popular Majority"the will of the People in favor of the whims of the few who are not only quite capable of taking advantage of every opportunity given, but also demand special treatment as a blood sacrifice to their greed and industriousness. Sorry if I feel that their lavish lifestyle and material possessions, not to mention their generational security, is recompense enough for their skills.
I'm more concerned with the vast majority of our population who is struggling while they see success like never before.
you take credit, for "giving" those wealthy the "opportunities" that they have "received" (from you?)
you claim you are being "generous", for leaving them with some remnant of their wealth, and for providing their "protection" ("here's a buck back")
you denigrate their business "skills", whose value you (largely) dismiss -- you are better at business, than they ??
you advocate (technical) "Tyranny of the Majority", where >51% of voters can (largely) "do as they please" with <49% minorities
do you claim to support "rights for minorities" (as long as you like them, but not if you don't) ?
Taxes are forced labor on the people. The fact that a majority has supposedly accepted them doesnt change the fact that they are forced.
Taxes are forced labor on the people. The fact that a majority has supposedly accepted them doesnt change the fact that they are forced.
Stop paying them.......then stop driving on my roads, using my government subsidized energy and for that matter stop using all the cool gadgets that started as government funded projects.....including your computer and the Internet.
My tax dollars go to maintaining them and building them...that makesthem partially mine.Taxes are forced labor on the people. The fact that a majority has supposedly accepted them doesnt change the fact that they are forced.
Stop paying them.......then stop driving on my roads, using my government subsidized energy and for that matter stop using all the cool gadgets that started as government funded projects.....including your computer and the Internet.
you don't OWN the roads..
as for the rest, you REALLY do believe all that, don't you..
sheeesh
My tax dollars go to maintaining them and building them...that makesthem partially mine.Stop paying them.......then stop driving on my roads, using my government subsidized energy and for that matter stop using all the cool gadgets that started as government funded projects.....including your computer and the Internet.
you don't OWN the roads..
as for the rest, you REALLY do believe all that, don't you..
sheeesh
Furthermore...your post only illustrates your ignorance about technology.
My tax dollars go to maintaining them and building them...that makesthem partially mine.you don't OWN the roads..
as for the rest, you REALLY do believe all that, don't you..
sheeesh
Furthermore...your post only illustrates your ignorance about technology.
Really, all them geniuses in Government must of been the INVENTOR of all them "cool gadgets"
good gawd man..your post only illustrates your ignorance about your guberment
And until I see your name on a highway, you DON'T OWN the roads...good grief
"Taxes = freedom" ??you lost any credibility with your "taxes=slavery" bullshit.
how do wealthy Americans "hurt society" ??sure I support the rights of the minority. But when the minority knowingly hurts the rest of our society through their never ending quest for "more", then it becomes a problem.
what "damage" do i accept ?? (i don't subscribe, to either "Rightist" Fascism, or "Leftist" Communism)people like you are perfectly willing to accept that damage.
Ownership is a societal convention, not an absolute of nature.
Tell that to my two pet dogs, they are pretty possessive with their bones.
You do know that conscience and reasoning separate us from the animals, right? That, along with empathy, compassion, and sense of community.
But that's right....you're a conservative. So you don't posses those traits.
