Progressive Economics = Poverty

[Valox]

What do expect from party that passes a trillion dollar stimulus that consists of paltry tax cuts and massive welfare benefits.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our money should go towards investment, such as infrastructure, education, and health. Instead, progressives rather rely on tax cuts and handouts.

They are fucking idiots in the first degree.

And they said it failed because it was too small

Which is BS. They had a trillion dollars. They should have used it more wisely. Paltry tax cuts and welfare benefits are not keys to economic success.

They spent enough, but the diagnosis was wrong. They thought our economic calamity was less severe than it actually was. Hence, their band-aid of a fix. However, it doesn't take a genius to realize that a global banking and housing crisis is a severe economic problem that shouldn't be address with $13 tax cuts and welfare handouts.

 

[Lakhota]

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

 

[Valox]

......

Which is getting worse under liberal policies. Corporations are breaking record profits with ~9% unemployment rate.


p.s. I cannot fully quote you since you posted a link. I am not qualified yet to post links or quote links.

 

[DaGoose]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best change to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

Guns and butter from 1970 hurt purchasing power of the middle class. The weaknesses of the Reagan era were repaired during the Clinton era, then the Bushies collapsed the whole system.

You are going to have a hard time convincing liberals and conservatives that you have the slightest idea of what you mean, kiddo.

Reagan Presidency started in 1981, Dear. Did you see what happened during his tenure and as long as we kept a lid on Gubbamint spending that ended when Dubya became President?

And how many of you dumbasses have said the reason for Clinton's economic success was because of Reagan's policies?

Translated: You're willing to skew the facts and change your opinions depending on what evidence is being looked at.

 

[bripat9643]

If it weren't for Socialism corporate america would be without their tax dollar moochin subsidies and pork barrel projects.

Locally developers would be without tax abatements,rax rebates,secret sales tax, Tax Increment Financing,tax payer funded water lines for new housing projects

That's true. All of that is a product of socialism. Are you saying you're in favor of it?

 

[Wiseacre]

Progressives have learned absolutely nothing about the failures of the social democratic economies in Europe. Looks like they're headed for a recession or depression this year, depending on how long they can keep kicking that can and how much our Fed loans them.

 

[Care4all]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best chance to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

I skimmed it but it doesn't appear to be very substantive. I doubt many people would believe we are no better off than we were in 1980.

The methodology assumes it has a better calculation of purchasing power by using commodities as a barometer for "real" value of currencies. That, of course, is ridiculous, because if you study commodities you know that commodity markets go through long booms and busts. Commodities as a group barely earn any real return over many decades. However, they can have 10-20 year structural bull and bear markets. It also makes the assumption of no changes in fundamental supply and demand, which you'd have to isolate from the monetary affects. That's silly. China sucks up something like half of the world's iron ore, up about 10x from a decade ago. Chinese oil consumption has risen from 4 million barrels a day to 8 million in a decade. Of course, that has an enormous affect on the price of oil. So its hard to take seriously.

Also, they makes some very dubious statements. For example, the authors say

Consider, for example, annual sales of automobiles. Auto sales peaked in 1985 (11 million) and have been declining at a fairly steady rate since 1999. In 2009, Americans bought just 5.4 million passenger cars.

But that excludes leases and light truck sales. If you include both, there were 14.6 million sales and leases, which is the same as 1990 but down from 20 million a few years earlier, the decline occurring because of the deepest economic downturn in 80 years. This isn't permanent. It is cyclical.

RITA | BTS | Table 1-17: New and Used Passenger Car Sales and Leases

So the methodology is bad and its best to dismiss it.

good info!

happy new year Toro!

 

[Lakhota]

The Absurd Zombie Lie About the Economy Right-Wingers Desperately Cling To -- And Why It's Totally Wrong | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

 

[J.E.D]

What do expect from party that passes a trillion dollar stimulus that consists of paltry tax cuts and massive welfare benefits.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our money should go towards investment, such as infrastructure, education, and health. Instead, progressives rather rely on tax cuts and handouts.

They are fucking idiots in the first degree.

And they said it failed because it was too small

BS. Only the right claims the stimulus failed. The left have said all along that it should have been bigger, but they don't say that it failed.

 

[auditor0007]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best chance to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

I have to say this is laughable. A quote from the article you use to support your statement;

Consider, for example, annual sales of automobiles. Auto sales peaked in 1985 (11 million) and have been declining at a fairly steady rate since 1999. In 2009, Americans bought just 5.4 million passenger cars. As a result, the median age of a registered vehicle in the U.S. is almost 10 years. Our data shows that real per-capita wealth peaked in the late 1960s. Guess when we find the absolutely lowest median age of the U.S. fleet? In 1969. At the end of the 1960s, the median age of all the cars on the road in the U.S. was only 5.1 years. Even as recently as 1990, the median age was only 6.5 years. Rich people buy new cars. Poor people do not. Most important, our data “proves” something I know many of you have felt or perceived for many years. You’ve seen the decline of your neighborhoods. You’ve gone years without being able to earn more money in your job. Or you’ve seen your purchasing power decrease to the point where you’re now substituting lower-quality products on your grocery list for the brand-name products you used to buy.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

So it states that auto sales peaked in 1985, and then the author goes on to site how new car sales plummeted to 5.4 million vehicles in 2009. Of course 2009 was the worst year of the recession as we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. What a major fail. BTW, new car sales in 2011 are expected to top 13 million, still not where we would like them, but improving dramatically.

Next, the author shows us how things were so much better in 1960, because the average age of vehicles on the road was only 5.1 years, where today the average age is almost 10 years. Again this is a major fail, for two reasons. The first reason is obvious; cars built back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were crap that didn't last very long. If you got a little over 100,000 miles on a car, you were happy that the car lasted that long. Today, if your car doesn't make it past 200,000 miles, you got yourself a lemon. Cars are built much better today and last much longer. The second point is that in the 60's and moving forward, people owned fewer cars, so they would upgrade more frequently. Moving into the 70's and 80's, as more women began working, families began having two and three cars where in the past they only had one. This led to many more new car sales and reduced the average age of cars on the road, at least for a while. But as we progressed, and cars were better made and began lasting much longer, of course, then the average age went up.

I stopped reading the article after getting this far into it, because it's obvious the person who wrote it is clueless. But hey, keep giving us these great sources to prove your points.

 

[auditor0007]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed ever single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how totally Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best change to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

This graph is no indication of "progessive economics". As you can see, during the Bush years GDP was still in the decline.

But yes, you are right - socialism and communism do not work.

If government serves any other purpose than to provide a national defense, it is Communist or Socialist.

 

[auditor0007]

I didn't look at the chart, but common knowledge says i don't have to. Socialism has never worked.

Ever notice how those socialist countries don't have a middle class? They use the middle class in thier class warfare rhetoric to get socialism to power then it's the few elite party members that are filthy rich and everyone else is impovershed.

It's amazing how Europe has no rich people and how almost everyone lives in poverty.

 

[kiwiman127]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best chance to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

What would be interesting would be a graph highlighting the trend of the per capita GDP by income percentiles. It would probably look something like this:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What do expect from party that passes a trillion dollar stimulus that consists of paltry tax cuts and massive welfare benefits.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our money should go towards investment, such as infrastructure, education, and health. Instead, progressives rather rely on tax cuts and handouts.

They are fucking idiots in the first degree.

And they said it failed because it was too small

BS. Only the right claims the stimulus failed. The left have said all along that it should have been bigger, but they don't say that it failed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

The chart is essantially meaningless as evidence of Cru's POV.

PER CAPITA numbers are pretty much worthless in determining how people are doing.


The, per capita average GDP can be climbing even as the average person's life is going down.

That's why things like equity distribution are so much more enlightening, really.

And that is really only one complaint about FRranks POV.

Another is based on his ignorant premise that the state of the economy at a given time is entirely the responsibility of current times.

How one can be so ignorant as to NOT KNOW that economic consequences can span GENERATIONS, I surely do not understand, but posts from people like Cru lead me to believe that many of you don't quite get that.

My advice?

Go read a book.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.

I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best change to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

Guns and butter from 1970 hurt purchasing power of the middle class. The weaknesses of the Reagan era were repaired during the Clinton era, then the Bushies collapsed the whole system.

You are going to have a hard time convincing liberals and conservatives that you have the slightest idea of what you mean, kiddo.

Reagan Presidency started in 1981, Dear. Did you see what happened during his tenure and as long as we kept a lid on Gubbamint spending that ended when Dubya became President?

Sonny, government grew, expenditures grew, taxes were raised three times, the deficit increased 18 times, and the deficit increased during Reagan.

Since you can't refute that your OP is a miserable fail.

 

[Dragon]

Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"

Thoughts? Comments?

We had progressive economics in this country from the late 1930s until 1981. Your graph left off the 1940s, 1950s, and most of the 1960s, cherry-picking dates to show the decline of the mid-late 1970s as if it were typical of the period of progressive economics, which is -- as usual from you -- a lie.

If you take the entire period of progressive economics and compare it in terms of per capita GDP growth to either period of non-progressive economics (1900-1940 or 1980-present), you find that progressive economics outperformed either of the other periods by more than two to one.

 

[Dragon]

The chart is essantially meaningless as evidence of Cru's POV.

PER CAPITA numbers are pretty much worthless in determining how people are doing.

I disagree. Per capita numbers are the best measure. His chart is misleading for an entirely different reason, which I explained in my last post.

In fact, when income gaps are narrower, per capita economic growth is higher, all other things being equal. So while your argument is technically true, it's not at all necessary. The data that he is choosing to use DO NOT support his position, so there's no need to introduce competing data sets.

 

[ba1614]

The chart proves nothing. This theory of yours would not get a passing grade in a 10th grade economics class.

Probably because most of the grading is being done by the same academics that benefit the most from the progressive wet dream.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The chart proves nothing. This theory of yours would not get a passing grade in a 10th grade economics class.

Probably because most of the grading is being done by the same academics that benefit the most from the progressive wet dream.

The above opinion of ba1614 is worthless, adding nothing to this discussion.