Puncturing Another Progressive Myth

[PoliticalChic]

Had it not been for the progressives there would be little need for food stamps. As government grows, the private sector shrinks and the private sector pays the bills.

We aren't living in the 1950s anymore. Germany and Japan rebuilt and many other countries are all now part of the global marketplace we have to compete in. Jobs aren't going to happen the way we've been going and blaming overseas markets misses the point.

If American made appliances cost twice as much fewer people would buy them and even fewer overseas. Your analysis completely ignores the fact that Americans vote with their pocketbooks. I personally will and do spend more for a quality item. I want fewer well made things but most people are far more materialistic and short sighted and will opt for the cheaper alternative every time.

The annelid is as stupid as they come....

...notice that he didn't provide any stats about all the starving folks before food stamps.....

Uh, that would be because I did not make the quote, PC. You are soooooo slow. Attributing quotes to the wrong person makes your argument so much easier, eh, me poor ignorant con. That, following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults. Followed by a couple of posts made up of quotes provided you by your right wing heroes, in the bat shit crazy con web sites you love to troll. Imagine how much harder it would be if you ever had to actually make an economic argument in this economic forum. What WOULD you do.

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

 

[Rshermr]

The annelid is as stupid as they come....

...notice that he didn't provide any stats about all the starving folks before food stamps.....

Uh, that would be because I did not make the quote, PC. You are soooooo slow. Attributing quotes to the wrong person makes your argument so much easier, eh, me poor ignorant con. That, following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults. Followed by a couple of posts made up of quotes provided you by your right wing heroes, in the bat shit crazy con web sites you love to troll. Imagine how much harder it would be if you ever had to actually make an economic argument in this economic forum. What WOULD you do.

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh, that would be because I did not make the quote, PC. You are soooooo slow. Attributing quotes to the wrong person makes your argument so much easier, eh, me poor ignorant con. That, following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults. Followed by a couple of posts made up of quotes provided you by your right wing heroes, in the bat shit crazy con web sites you love to troll. Imagine how much harder it would be if you ever had to actually make an economic argument in this economic forum. What WOULD you do.

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

Nothing wrong with you that a little percussive maintenance wouldn't cure.

 

[Impenitent]

And yes, had it not been for food stamps, you would be stepping over bodies when you ventured out.

Had it not been for the progressives there would be little need for food stamps. As government grows, the private sector shrinks and the private sector pays the bills.

We aren't living in the 1950s anymore. Germany and Japan rebuilt and many other countries are all now part of the global marketplace we have to compete in. Jobs aren't going to happen the way we've been going and blaming overseas markets misses the point.

If American made appliances cost twice as much fewer people would buy them and even fewer overseas. Your analysis completely ignores the fact that Americans vote with their pocketbooks. I personally will and do spend more for a quality item. I want fewer well made things but most people are far more materialistic and short sighted and will opt for the cheaper alternative every time.

The annelid is as stupid as they come....

...notice that he didn't provide any stats about all the starving folks before food stamps.....

That's my quote, and yes, if the past can tell us the future, there will be starvation without social safety nets. I know you think the churches will all get together and care for the "truly" needy, and that Fox News will open a soup kitchen for fallen investment bankers, but here is an actual glimpse of what pre-social security was like:


"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

You see (oh, sorry, you are blind) even back then, Republicans were using sleight of hands tactics.

Read all of this:

Daily Kos :: Stossel: No need for Government Programs Cuz No One Starved to Death in Great Depression (Updatex2)

 

[Moonglow]

Why never any outrage against welfare for the rich?? TARP is/and was socialism for the rich and greedy..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Had it not been for the progressives there would be little need for food stamps. As government grows, the private sector shrinks and the private sector pays the bills.

We aren't living in the 1950s anymore. Germany and Japan rebuilt and many other countries are all now part of the global marketplace we have to compete in. Jobs aren't going to happen the way we've been going and blaming overseas markets misses the point.

If American made appliances cost twice as much fewer people would buy them and even fewer overseas. Your analysis completely ignores the fact that Americans vote with their pocketbooks. I personally will and do spend more for a quality item. I want fewer well made things but most people are far more materialistic and short sighted and will opt for the cheaper alternative every time.

The annelid is as stupid as they come....

...notice that he didn't provide any stats about all the starving folks before food stamps.....

That's my quote, and yes, if the past can tell us the future, there will be starvation without social safety nets. I know you think the churches will all get together and care for the "truly" needy, and that Fox News will open a soup kitchen for fallen investment bankers, but here is an actual glimpse of what pre-social security was like:


"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

You see (oh, sorry, you are blind) even back then, Republicans were using sleight of hands tactics.

Read all of this:

Daily Kos :: Stossel: No need for Government Programs Cuz No One Starved to Death in Great Depression (Updatex2)

I was wrong....slightly: you clearly aren't a moron.
You're an imbecile.



"But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; blah blah blah."


6,930,446....the population of NYC in 1930.
Dirty 30s! - The Big Apple



Do the math if you're capable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why never any outrage against welfare for the rich?? TARP is/and was socialism for the rich and greedy..

First....you've got a point:
1. According to John Stossel, the biggest welfare queens are farmers. Agricultural subsidies including direct payments, marketing loans, counter-cyclical payments, conservation subsidies, insurance, disaster aid, export subsidies, and agricultural research, taken together, have become one of the largest middle- and upper-class welfare programs in the nation.

a. “Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a “big government” bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.” The Latest from AgMag | Environmental Working Group

b. “From 1995 to 2009, the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients collected 74 percent of all farm subsidies, with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient – hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers. The bottom 80 percent of farmers received an average total payment of just $8,682 per recipient.” Ibid.



2. But you misunderstand the problem....as is your wont.

Stealing the money is bad enough, i.e., above, we on the Right understand greed.....but what really gets to most folks is the personal degradation caused by Liberal welfare policies:

a. family breakdown

b. drug use

c. crime

d. lack of schooling

e. illegitimacy

f. self-hate and hate of the nation that provided the welfare.


And....you Leftists turn a blind eye to the problem.

 

[oldfart]

Uh, that would be because I did not make the quote, PC. You are soooooo slow. Attributing quotes to the wrong person makes your argument so much easier, eh, me poor ignorant con. That, following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults. Followed by a couple of posts made up of quotes provided you by your right wing heroes, in the bat shit crazy con web sites you love to troll. Imagine how much harder it would be if you ever had to actually make an economic argument in this economic forum. What WOULD you do.

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.

 

[oldfart]

Why never any outrage against welfare for the rich?? TARP is/and was socialism for the rich and greedy..

The rich have paid apologists like PC. I think she is the secret love child of Leona Helmsley.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.

What are you doing here....you thought it was the incontinence hotline?


The only zero evident is your IQ.


As far as the rest of your post.....it should be chalked up to the 'Green-Eyed Monster' disease.
Keep on wishin'...



So....what is your condition today? Serious, Critical, Grave, Stable....can I get my hopes up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why never any outrage against welfare for the rich?? TARP is/and was socialism for the rich and greedy..

The rich have paid apologists like PC. I think she is the secret love child of Leona Helmsley.

You haven't seen my shoe collection, or you would have said Imelda Marcos.


And, speaking of names....is yours Maple Syrup? It should be, you sap.

 

[Rshermr]

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.

What are you doing here....you thought it was the incontinence hotline?


The only zero evident is your IQ.


As far as the rest of your post.....it should be chalked up to the 'Green-Eyed Monster' disease.
Keep on wishin'...



So....what is your condition today? Serious, Critical, Grave, Stable....can I get my hopes up?

Another profound post by PC. Believe me, oldfart, I am NOT holding my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC. That would be suicide, obviously. But then, she thinks she is clever. She is her own fan club. Kind of her form of mental masturbation.
The good thing for PC is that she can spend all the time in the world cutting and pasting right wing drivel and posting it, because that is all she has to do. Sad, but then, that's PC.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.

What are you doing here....you thought it was the incontinence hotline?


The only zero evident is your IQ.


As far as the rest of your post.....it should be chalked up to the 'Green-Eyed Monster' disease.
Keep on wishin'...



So....what is your condition today? Serious, Critical, Grave, Stable....can I get my hopes up?

Another profound post by PC. Believe me, oldfart, I am NOT holding my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC. But then, she thinks she is clever. She is her own fan club. Kind of her form of mental masturbation.
The good thing for PC is that she can spend all the time in the world cutting and pasting right wing drivel and posting it, because that is all she has to do. Sad, but then, that's PC.

1. "....she can spend all the time in the world cutting and pasting right wing drivel and posting it...."

Wrong, worm.....this is my hobby.


I have a great job in supervision at Teller-Morrow Automotive Repair, Charming, California.




2. "That would be suicide, obviously."

Don't get my hopes up like that!

 

[edthecynic]

I get such a kick out of Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University!

He regularly writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication in response to an absurdity, or an incorrect statement, offered up by a columnist or politician, and the following, totally skewers one of our Liberal White House hacks.




Here is one of Boudreaux's missives:

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, recently “displayed a chart showing how food stamps and other social programs had lowered poverty dramatically over the past half century.... But the graph also showed that the economy itself had done nothing for the poor: Only government dollars had” (“Economist Jason Furman is the wonkiest wonk in the White House,” Feb. 13).



.... Mr. Furman is mistaken to assert that, over the past half century, “the economy itself had done nothing for the poor.”

Here’s a link to a 2008 article with its own charts.... shows that the percentage of poor American households in 2005 to have refrigerators, stoves, color televisions, air conditioning, and automatic dishwashers is higher than was the percentage of all American households in 1971 to have these amenities. And my own research suggests an important reason for this happy fact: the amount of time that ordinary (“non-supervisory&#8221 workers must work in order to earn enough income to buy these (and many other) products is today is much lower than it was decades ago.

[link here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/how-are-we-doing/]




For example, to buy a 22 cubic feet refrigerator-freezer, such a worker in 1975 had to toil for 140 hours. To buy the same size refrigerator-freezer today, the typical American worker must work only 52 hours. To buy a 30” electric range and oven cost the typical American worker in 1975 125 hours of work; today such a range and oven costs the typical American worker only 21 hours of work.



Similar reductions in work-time costs have occurred for food, clothing, and countless other goods and services — a trend that is strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Nothing? Nothing At All?






"....strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans."


So much for the 'poor are getting poorer' trope.

I know that the above won't convince our Liberal pals......facts never do.

I don't know who is more stupid, the author for assuming the poor buy all those appliances, the poor are mostly renters so it is the landlords who are buying the appliances, or you for swallowing it without thinking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get such a kick out of Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University!

He regularly writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication in response to an absurdity, or an incorrect statement, offered up by a columnist or politician, and the following, totally skewers one of our Liberal White House hacks.




Here is one of Boudreaux's missives:

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, recently “displayed a chart showing how food stamps and other social programs had lowered poverty dramatically over the past half century.... But the graph also showed that the economy itself had done nothing for the poor: Only government dollars had” (“Economist Jason Furman is the wonkiest wonk in the White House,” Feb. 13).



.... Mr. Furman is mistaken to assert that, over the past half century, “the economy itself had done nothing for the poor.”

Here’s a link to a 2008 article with its own charts.... shows that the percentage of poor American households in 2005 to have refrigerators, stoves, color televisions, air conditioning, and automatic dishwashers is higher than was the percentage of all American households in 1971 to have these amenities. And my own research suggests an important reason for this happy fact: the amount of time that ordinary (“non-supervisory”) workers must work in order to earn enough income to buy these (and many other) products is today is much lower than it was decades ago.

[link here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/how-are-we-doing/]




For example, to buy a 22 cubic feet refrigerator-freezer, such a worker in 1975 had to toil for 140 hours. To buy the same size refrigerator-freezer today, the typical American worker must work only 52 hours. To buy a 30” electric range and oven cost the typical American worker in 1975 125 hours of work; today such a range and oven costs the typical American worker only 21 hours of work.



Similar reductions in work-time costs have occurred for food, clothing, and countless other goods and services — a trend that is strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Nothing? Nothing At All?






"....strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans."


So much for the 'poor are getting poorer' trope.

I know that the above won't convince our Liberal pals......facts never do.

I don't know who is more stupid, the author for assuming the poor buy all those appliances, the poor are mostly renters so it is the landlords who are buying the appliances, or you for swallowing it without thinking.

Hey....I can help you....I know who is more stupid: you are!


46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Poor Politics | National Review Online


Now, you may retreat to the "46%" still leaves 'mostly'....but that would be a quibble.

The truth is that you were implying that more is almost all.....weren't you.



Not knowing the above isn't what makes you stupid....

....it's the fact that you and I both know that, having been so informed, you will continue to post the drivel that you do.

 

[Darkwind]

I get such a kick out of Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University!

He regularly writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication in response to an absurdity, or an incorrect statement, offered up by a columnist or politician, and the following, totally skewers one of our Liberal White House hacks.




Here is one of Boudreaux's missives:

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, recently “displayed a chart showing how food stamps and other social programs had lowered poverty dramatically over the past half century.... But the graph also showed that the economy itself had done nothing for the poor: Only government dollars had” (“Economist Jason Furman is the wonkiest wonk in the White House,” Feb. 13).



.... Mr. Furman is mistaken to assert that, over the past half century, “the economy itself had done nothing for the poor.”

Here’s a link to a 2008 article with its own charts.... shows that the percentage of poor American households in 2005 to have refrigerators, stoves, color televisions, air conditioning, and automatic dishwashers is higher than was the percentage of all American households in 1971 to have these amenities. And my own research suggests an important reason for this happy fact: the amount of time that ordinary (“non-supervisory”) workers must work in order to earn enough income to buy these (and many other) products is today is much lower than it was decades ago.

[link here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/how-are-we-doing/]




For example, to buy a 22 cubic feet refrigerator-freezer, such a worker in 1975 had to toil for 140 hours. To buy the same size refrigerator-freezer today, the typical American worker must work only 52 hours. To buy a 30” electric range and oven cost the typical American worker in 1975 125 hours of work; today such a range and oven costs the typical American worker only 21 hours of work.



Similar reductions in work-time costs have occurred for food, clothing, and countless other goods and services — a trend that is strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Nothing? Nothing At All?






"....strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans."


So much for the 'poor are getting poorer' trope.

I know that the above won't convince our Liberal pals......facts never do.

How very libertarian of him!

HOW DARE THOSE POOR PEOPLE ENJOY A BETTER LIFER THAN THEY DID IN 1970! SHAME ON THEM!

AND HOW DARE THEY HAVE FANCY NICETIES LIFER REFRIGERATORS AND STOVES!!!

HOW DARE THEY!

Went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"....following a couple of really childish posts made up of insults."


Wrong again, worm.


I don't insult, I accurately describe.

Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.

PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.

Its always the same - the long and disjointed OP shredded by those who can actually read and think, followed by pages of childish name calling.

Why do some rw's work so hard to keep others down?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I get such a kick out of Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University!

He regularly writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication in response to an absurdity, or an incorrect statement, offered up by a columnist or politician, and the following, totally skewers one of our Liberal White House hacks.




Here is one of Boudreaux's missives:

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

You report that Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, recently “displayed a chart showing how food stamps and other social programs had lowered poverty dramatically over the past half century.... But the graph also showed that the economy itself had done nothing for the poor: Only government dollars had” (“Economist Jason Furman is the wonkiest wonk in the White House,” Feb. 13).



.... Mr. Furman is mistaken to assert that, over the past half century, “the economy itself had done nothing for the poor.”

Here’s a link to a 2008 article with its own charts.... shows that the percentage of poor American households in 2005 to have refrigerators, stoves, color televisions, air conditioning, and automatic dishwashers is higher than was the percentage of all American households in 1971 to have these amenities. And my own research suggests an important reason for this happy fact: the amount of time that ordinary (“non-supervisory”) workers must work in order to earn enough income to buy these (and many other) products is today is much lower than it was decades ago.

[link here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/how-are-we-doing/]




For example, to buy a 22 cubic feet refrigerator-freezer, such a worker in 1975 had to toil for 140 hours. To buy the same size refrigerator-freezer today, the typical American worker must work only 52 hours. To buy a 30” electric range and oven cost the typical American worker in 1975 125 hours of work; today such a range and oven costs the typical American worker only 21 hours of work.



Similar reductions in work-time costs have occurred for food, clothing, and countless other goods and services — a trend that is strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Nothing? Nothing At All?






"....strong evidence that “the economy itself” continues to improve the living standards of middle-income and poor Americans."


So much for the 'poor are getting poorer' trope.

I know that the above won't convince our Liberal pals......facts never do.

I don't know who is more stupid, the author for assuming the poor buy all those appliances, the poor are mostly renters so it is the landlords who are buying the appliances, or you for swallowing it without thinking.

Hey....I can help you....I know who is more stupid: you are!


46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Poor Politics | National Review Online


Now, you may retreat to the "46%" still leaves 'mostly'....but that would be a quibble.

The truth is that you were implying that more is almost all.....weren't you.



Not knowing the above isn't what makes you stupid....

....it's the fact that you and I both know that, having been so informed, you will continue to post the drivel that you do.

Thanks to President Obama, they have a much better chance of actually keeping their home. Bet you just hate that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Darkwind]

Not giving credence to your little graphic, but for the sake of argument, lets say that the number of people far outweigh the number of jobs available.

Tell Me, does this then inform you that the private sector, which your ilk are trying to do away with, is far too small and over regulated? Or are you just going to go with the usual "Rich greed" argument?