Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dad2three]

LIAR. Nearly double. NOT 170%. You mean he PROPOSED a higher tax that CONGRESS gets to decide on? AND what's wrong with limiting bad behavior that costs ALL of US down the road?

Public health groups back Obama’s 94-cent cigarette tax hike

Public health groups back Obama s 94-cent cigarette tax hike TheHill

That would the SECOND tax increase on cigarettes during Obama's time in office, Dad...the first was from 39 cents to $1.01 back in 2009. Now he wants to raise it ANOTHER 94 cents. So you do the math...when you take the Federal tax from 39 cents to $1.95 how much of an increase is that?

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

MORE right wing crap. Shocking

That INCOME tax burden that has shrunk to near the lowest level of fed revenues since WW2? About 42% of revenues? lol

WANT THEM TO PAY INCOME TAXES? GET THE BOTTOM HALF OF US, WHO MAKE ABOUT HALF WHAT THE TOP 1% TAKE IN A YEAR (1945-1980 THE TOP 1% ONLY HAD 6%-9% OF THE PIE, TODAY 20%)


In 2011, 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes. Within that group, two-thirds still pay payroll taxes. The rest are almost all either (a) old and retired folks collecting Social Security or (b) households earning less than $20,000. Overall, four out of five households not owing federal income tax earn less than $30,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Here's another, slightly wonkier, way to think about the 47%. Divide the group into two halves. The first half is made tax-free by credits and exemptions, the vast majority of which go to senior citizens and children of the working poor. The half that you're left with is so poor, they wouldn't owe federal income taxes even if there were zero tax expenditures.

There are some not-so-poor outliers, like the 7,000 millionaires who paid no federal income taxes in 2011. But for the most part, when you hear "The 47%" you should think "old retired folks and poor working families."




From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.


The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic


The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent


YOU NEED TO GROW A FKKKKING BRAIN!

 

[Dad2three]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

 

[Dad2three]

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Yeah, we didn't have any high school drop outs pre Reaganomics right?


Look at these so called conservative guru's, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ( the three wise monkeys) you name it, everyone of them dropped out of college, too dumb possibly, but more likely too close minded to accept any other opinion or theory!!!



Many people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!

 

[Dad2three]

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, alleviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

As usual, you take what COULD be a valid position, and lead it all the way to absurd. In short, you are patently wrong ... and your last statement is laughably wrong.

Good rebuttal, so detailed and really not to lengthy on where ANY of my posits were wrong, and WHY? lol

Given the depth of your demonstrated knowledge, I figured that was as deep as I dare go. You know ... keep it simple, for the simple.

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

I can defend it ... you wouldn't understand it. You've demonstrated your ignorance quite ably.

Sure Bubba, sure. Run away and hide, you can't refute my posts ALL you have are ad homs. Shocking you are a conservative (NOT)....

 

[Dad2three]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

AGI PER FAMILY was little more than $14,000 for the bottom 50% of US. We know the poor have LOTS of deductions right? lol

I could explain personal exemptions and standard deductions, but you wouldn't understand. LOL!

I would ... so, go ahead. I'll check your work.

LOL, You don't know the AGI ISN'T exemptions either, AND the bottom 50% have VERY little to adjust their incomes from, IF they had those deductions? lol

 

[Dad2three]

LIAR. Nearly double. NOT 170%. You mean he PROPOSED a higher tax that CONGRESS gets to decide on? AND what's wrong with limiting bad behavior that costs ALL of US down the road?

Public health groups back Obama’s 94-cent cigarette tax hike

Public health groups back Obama s 94-cent cigarette tax hike TheHill

That would the SECOND tax increase on cigarettes during Obama's time in office, Dad...the first was from 39 cents to $1.01 back in 2009. Now he wants to raise it ANOTHER 94 cents. So you do the math...when you take the Federal tax from 39 cents to $1.95 how much of an increase is that?

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

 

[Spare_change]

I least I was able to contribute a well thought out post. That trumps your smart-ass remark which contributed nothing to the discussion.

Ignorance contributes nothing to the discussion, either, other than spurious noise. Well thought-out? Surely, you jest.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Wrong. They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because the 1% are taking all of the profits from their work. Jobs which used to pay a living wage, don't because all of that money goes to the top, not the people who produce the goods and services which are giving record profits to he corporations. It used to be that wages were equitable. The workers made a living, and those higher up made good money, and those at the top made an executive wage. Now those at the top take the lion's share, leaving good money for the managers and a pittance for the workers.

If wages had kept pace with GDP, people wouldn't need to work 2 or 3 jobs. People aren't paid according to their worth - they're paid the least amount their employers can get away with, and since minimum wages haven't been raised for years, that's not very much.

 

[Spare_change]

That would the SECOND tax increase on cigarettes during Obama's time in office, Dad...the first was from 39 cents to $1.01 back in 2009. Now he wants to raise it ANOTHER 94 cents. So you do the math...when you take the Federal tax from 39 cents to $1.95 how much of an increase is that?

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.

The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.

He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!

 

[Spare_change]

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Wrong. They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because the 1% are taking all of the profits from their work. Jobs which used to pay a living wage, don't because all of that money goes to the top, not the people who produce the goods and services which are giving record profits to he corporations. It used to be that wages were equitable. The workers made a living, and those higher up made good money, and those at the top made an executive wage. Now those at the top take the lion's share, leaving good money for the managers and a pittance for the workers.

If wages had kept pace with GDP, people wouldn't need to work 2 or 3 jobs. People aren't paid according to their worth - they're paid the least amount their employers can get away with, and since minimum wages haven't been raised for years, that's not very much.

You really DON'T understand the income gap, do you?

1) Instead of spouting Huff Post headlines, why don't you look at the real numbers? Check out how much the top 25% have increased. See where the money is going .... see if you can figure out that the largest increases are for those technically qualified workers who can contribute to the new economy.

2) Instead of trying to blame the 1%, why aren't you asking why over half the workforce is unqualified to work in today's environment? Why aren't you asking why their public education is designed to meet a goal 50 years old, instead of what they need today to compete?

3) Instead of spouting liberal talking points, why don't you ask yourself what would happen to that GDP if you raised wages at a rate commensurate to the increase of GDP?

4) Instead of rattling off nonsensical Dem political rally cries, why don't you ask why 92 million people have quit 'looking for jobs', and why the disability submissions increased exponentially the closer they got to losing their two-year grant of unemployment?

5) Instead of whining, why haven't you come up with a solution to compete in the high tech economy with workers who are only qualified to compete with third world workers?

Ok --- that's five. When you come back with the answers, there will be another five waiting for you.

 

[Spare_change]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

PRINT LARGER --- YOU'RE STILL SAYING STUPID THINGS!

Maybe it will seem less stupid that way.

 

[Spare_change]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

Instead of looking for the reason for this phenomena, you look for someone to vilify. It's a lot easier that way, isn't it?

But, let's discuss it ... WHY is it more difficult for lower class persons in the US to advance than it is in European countries? I know ... you don't have an answer, you only have somebody to vilify.

The American economy is significantly more technically advanced than Europe. Because of our increased labor rates (inflated, when compared to Europe), we have to be more efficient in production than do our European counterparts. The average annual household income in the US is about $51K, but in Spain, it is $22k, Italy $24K, England, it is $26K, France $28K, and Germany $29K. Obviously, in order for us to maintain that difference, we must be more efficient.

In order to be more efficient, we must be more technically advanced. We can't do it based on common labor; we need specialized labor. Specialized labor requires education. When you look at the list of European countries, as their technical capability increases, so does their average income.

So, we know what we need - an educated, talented, and dedicated workforce - something we don't have. Only about 33% of our workforce has education above the high school diploma level, and about 11% have some increased level of formal technical training. That means, simply, over 55% of our workforce is not qualified to perform meaningful work at the increased technical level. While there are still jobs for those with high school degrees, there are fewer jobs and greater competition for those jobs. These are increasingly service industry jobs, whether it be changing tires at the Big O or handling customer complaints at the call center. The time has passed for itinerant labor. It's not a case of employers being unwilling to train the uneducated - there just simply are fewer and fewer jobs of that type available.

Our education system is not equipped to provide the technical expertise necessary to advance in our economy today. If you look closely at the numbers for income growth, you'll find a different story than is popular with Democrats and liberals. The growth of income levels in the 5 - 25% level workers is amazing. These are the software engineers who make $150K a year, or the financial specialist who makes 6 figure salaries. People who are qualified to function in our economy do quite well.

What does this mean? It means either our unqualified workers have to get up the gumption to go get trained, or the government needs to carry whole generations of non-workers. We know that the government has programs to help people increase their expertise - but, we also know that the people who need it most, aren't availing themselves of it.

We have to ask ourselves why --- when I can make $60K on welfare in Hawaii, or a nationwide average of $41K, without working, without trying to advance myself, why would I do it? This is the permanent underclass that we have created - those who are unqualified (because of our failing education system) and those who are unmotivated (because of our welfare system).

THAT is the primary reason why we have such a significant wealth disparity. Of course, it's easier to just vilify somebody else, than to actually admit it and attack the problem.

 

[hipeter924]

The market will go plonk again, as it just needs a few bad traders and one bank spreading the bad news to another bank.

It is a new addition to the boom and bust cycle that already exists in capitalism. It's called the corporate welfare boom, followed by a corporate welfare bust.

 

[Spare_change]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

 

[Spare_change]

The market will go plonk again, as it just needs a few bad traders and one bank spreading the bad news to another bank.

It is a new addition to the boom and bust cycle that already exists in capitalism. It's called the corporate welfare boom, followed by a corporate welfare bust.

Look up "business cycle" - and get back to us.

 

[The Rabbi]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

You seem not to be one of them.
How is it a boost to the economy when government taxes profitable enterprises to subsidize unprofitable ventures?

 

[hipeter924]

The market will go plonk again, as it just needs a few bad traders and one bank spreading the bad news to another bank.

It is a new addition to the boom and bust cycle that already exists in capitalism. It's called the corporate welfare boom, followed by a corporate welfare bust.

Look up "business cycle" - and get back to us.

Look up bailout, and lose a home.

 

[Dragonlady]

Spare change assumes that those of us on the left want government spending and lots of it. That is what we call a "false premise". There were a lot of them in his post.

What is needed is government investment in infrastructure and education. And not education that views science as witchery and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old. U.S. Education starting lagging behind other countries when parents starting deciding what they wanted their children to learn.

It's long past the time for this experimental patchwork quilt of education with public, charter and religious schools competing for students, to end. It's been an unmitigated disaster, creating one of the most expensive education systems in the world, but with the result that U.S. students are falling behind Europe and Asia in terms of quality of education. And they fall further behind each year.

Spare change touts the conservative meme of unskilled American workers not deserving higher wages but then neither does management deserve the ridiculous deals that boards keep voting one another. Is anyone worth $20 million per year? Corporations are awash with cash while their workers need two jobs and food stamps to survive. Shouldn't some of that cash reasonably be spent on the workers who produce those goods and services in the first place.

Large multinational corporations have outsourced every possible job to Third World countries, many of which have turned workers into slaves to keep pace with production demands. North America used to have a thriving apparel manufacturing industry, employing thousands of workers. It's all but disappeared to China and Bangladesh.

China now has the world's largest economy because of outsourcing. India is in 3rd place. You want everyone who is currently unemployed to become s high tech worker, but not everyone is capable of doing this work. In order for a society to be successful, there needs to be meaningful employment available to suit all levels of intellect, education and interest, not just those at the high end of the intellect and ambition scale.

You compare wages between Europe and the U.S. As if those numbers have meaning out of context. It's not what you earn, but what you earn in relation to the cost of living that matters. Wages matter in terms of exporting goods to be sure, but US companies need more and more exports because fewer and fewer Americans can afford much beyond basic food and shelter costs.

I would be more open to your argument that low wage earners aren't worth higher wages if corporate profits weren't at record levels, corporations aren't awash in cash, and executive compensation in the U.S. didn't average 270 times that of workers. That wage gap is by far the highest in the world.

I note that your entire post is geared around increasing profits. Profits have become the Holy Grail for conservatives. If the rising tide only lifts the yachts and swamps the dinghies, we have a problem. Nowhere in you post do you discuss the effects of your proposals on people. A nation's first responsibility is to its people.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This was in stark contrast to Europe which was governed by aristocracy, to benefit the elite. Today, government is of the people, by the wealthy, for the corporations. Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind at all.


If you don't want people depending on government handouts, you need to ensure your minimum wage ensures low wage earners can at least sustain themselves on minimum wage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Spare change assumes that those of us on the left want government spending and lots of it. That is what we call a "false premise". There were a lot of them in his post.

What is needed is government investment in infrastructure and education. And not education that views science as witchery and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old. U.S. Education starting lagging behind other countries when parents starting deciding what they wanted their children to learn.

It's long past the time for this experimental patchwork quilt of education with public, charter and religious schools competing for students, to end. It's been an unmitigated disaster, creating one of the most expensive education systems in the world, but with the result that U.S. students are falling behind Europe and Asia in terms of quality of education. And they fall further behind each year.

.

You have your own fallacies.
Government does not "invest" in anything. Government spends money. Your call for a federal takeowver of the education system is a call for spending more money. So SpareChange was right on that count.
The Founders set up a system of a limited federal government, with most functions properly left to the states. They wanted the states to be laboratories of policy. And it works. Vermont just demonstrated that single payer won't work. At least that's out of the way.