"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

[Shogun]

your quote: According to 2004 statistics roughly 85% of paid americans already make over the minimum wage.


from your source:


Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2004

According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2004 data.reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)



do you really think that a survey estimate is realyl any more solid n what it coneys than second hand smoke studies that rely on projection and estimates? Further, how would you say that "total reported" compares to the "population" of the united states workforce. I don't see that this source differentiates among standard variations from the minimum (and less) so that we can see of their data indicates five cents above minimum wage being included in your 85%. Not to mention that, given the pattern of outsourcing within the last 8 years, I don't put much weight on weather you think a solid USPS job is worthwhile. The question was if the Government spurned the economy and I don't think this source validates your disregard for the economic impmact and utility of positions like this. Certainly, when compared to the same job in the private sector your argument falls flat on its face.


and no, one simply doesn't have all the power of castle greyskull when deciding their employer. It;s retarded to insist as much. If such were the case there would be no unemployment lines. No education dynamics and resume selling points. No layoffs. No bankruptcies. No affirmative action. No discrimination laws. It's simply not true that every unemployed american is merely lazy. I'll remind you that the same argument was used when validating child labor.

 

[Shogun]

"Do you think you can actually quantify that? I doubt it. "

I bet the DOT can quantify it. I'm sure HR in every government job can. Do you think that a nation of city employees have NO economic impact? hehehehe..


It already is a monopoly. The government has two of the largest monopolies there are in the USPS and education. Your not so much oppossed to a monopoly as to who has it.

public education is not a monopoly at all. Are there not private schools? Are there not Private universities? Is there not homeschooling? Does the government hold a patent on education?

the USPS? HA!
the competition is not capable of handling small mail. Thier fleets are geared towards parcel ONLY. A good friend of mine owns a couple fed ex routes and I've had this conversation before. In fact, the government doesn't force anyone to use the USPS at all. You COULD send all your mail using competition if you wanted to pay them to deliver it as a package.


Why don't you tell me how come we don't outsource fire and police protection out like the KBR of every small town if private enterprise is the epitome of economic benevolence. Why don't you tell me about the standards in Nursing Homes that private enterprise creates. Indeed, I want to know why it's better to let granny be man-handled by minimum wage employees that lets some scurvy piece of shit make a buck in the geriatric field than regulating a standard that validates a larger spread of better compensated employees whtat have more spending power than the 5 dollar piece of trash feeing granny the beef tripe sandwitch.



Totally backwards. Government shows time and time again they spend way more in projects then what it would cost to pay for the same in the free market.

uh, like fire protection? police? the MILITARY? Again, the rhetoric is great and all but...



Like I said. The free market isn't a cure all. It isn't the apex of our civilization. It isn't 100% applicable. Capitolism has it's downside too. You may not give a fuck about a tripe eating granny in a cheap mid -west nursing home while someone is making 3% profit off of the contract, let them eat cake indeed, but I assure you that a larger group spending hundreds in expendable money beats a smaller group spending thousands any day.


ps.

DID CAPITOLISM GET US OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION? WHAT HAND DID CAPITOLISM PLAY IN CREATING THE DEPRESSION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

[Bern80]

I don't need to, its fucking obvious. Ask any economist and they will tell you. Africa isn't poor because it lacks resources, its poor because it lacks infrastructure. Its poor because it lacks a legal system, predictability, and decent government.

The U.S. and Africa aren't really analgous. Of course I'll grant that if there weren't infrastructure are economy would suffer. But we aren't comparing some spending vs. no spending. Were comparing what would happen to the economy if government increased spending on such things above and beyond what it is already.

Umm, no. Ever heard of private school?

Given who can afford it and ration of public to private, yes the government pretty much does have a monopoly

There is a huge difference between a state run monopoly and a private monopoly.

Why?

We aren't talking about how much they spend in projects, we are talking about how much they *charge*. And by the way having a monopoly is not the "free market".

Either way it is still over fair market price.

 

[Bern80]

your quote: According to 2004 statistics roughly 85% of paid americans already make over the minimum wage.


from your source:


Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2004

that made no sense

and no, one simply doesn't have all the power of castle greyskull when deciding their employer. It;s retarded to insist as much. If such were the case there would be no unemployment lines. No education dynamics and resume selling points. No layoffs. No bankruptcies. No affirmative action. No discrimination laws. It's simply not true that every unemployed american is merely lazy. I'll remind you that the same argument was used when validating child labor.

It also isn't true that every unemployed American is spending the effort they should be to find a job. it is typical leftist victim mentality that your displaying. It is a simple fact that people have far more control over their destiny then the left would like to admit. Because if people did, realized it and acted upon it, what would we need the left for?

 

[Larkinn]

The U.S. and Africa aren't really analgous.

Not anymore. Thats because the government here works and has built all of this infrastructure.

Of course I'll grant that if there weren't infrastructure are economy would suffer.

Glory be.

But we aren't comparing some spending vs. no spending. Were comparing what would happen to the economy if government increased spending on such things above and beyond what it is already.

Care to point to where it was specified that we were comparing the present with the future only? Or is that just an assumption you made? This is fun...accuse me of more shit that you do all the time.

Given who can afford it and ration of public to private, yes the government pretty much does have a monopoly

Actually around 10% of the country is enrolled in private schools. Thats not a monopoly.

Why?

Governments are there to serve the people. Corporations are there to make money. Corporations will jack up the price as much as they can with NO repercusssions to them. Government won't.

Either way it is still over fair market price.

Sure in a perfect world where having 5 roads that could compete with each other going from the same place to the same place is somehow viable. Lets stick to the world we actually have, yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Larkin writes:

Governments are there to serve the people. Corporations are there to make money. Corporations will jack up the price as much as they can with NO repercusssions to them. Government won't.

The original percentage of social security collected was 1% with a low threshhold beyond which it would not be collected. We were guaranteed that it would pay for itself at that rate.

The top marginal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%. It subsequently grew to 91% and currently stands at 35% with the Democrats promising they will increase it once they get a Democrat back into the White House.

In 1913 the Federal government collected 1 penny on a gallon gasoline. Now it gets almost 20cents.

Tell me again how Government won't?

 

[Larkinn]

Originally Posted by Larkinn View Post
and no, one simply doesn't have all the power of castle greyskull when deciding their employer. It;s retarded to insist as much. If such were the case there would be no unemployment lines. No education dynamics and resume selling points. No layoffs. No bankruptcies. No affirmative action. No discrimination laws. It's simply not true that every unemployed american is merely lazy. I'll remind you that the same argument was used when validating child labor.

Actually this was posted by Shogun. Assuming again Bern ?

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin writes:


The original percentage of social security collected was 1% with a low threshhold beyond which it would not be collected. We were guaranteed that it would pay for itself at that rate.

The top marginal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%. It subsequently grew to 91% and currently stands at 35% with the Democrats promising they will increase it once they get a Democrat back into the White House.

In 1913 the Federal government collected 1 penny on a gallon gasoline. Now it gets almost 20cents.

Tell me again how Government won't?

Well, first off corporations aren't able to tax people so your analogy is irrelevant. But for the future if you attempt to correct your analogy, when government fucks up and gouges people the people can vote them out of office. Tell me what options do people have against a monopoly?

 

[Shogun]

that made no sense

that was a clarification of your postion before I waded into your source. Perhaps you should have pounced on my observations of your source instead.





It also isn't true that every unemployed American is spending the effort they should be to find a job. it is typical leftist victim mentality that your displaying. It is a simple fact that people have far more control over their destiny then the left would like to admit. Because if people did, realized it and acted upon it, what would we need the left for?


Show me where I said anything about every soul in america using every waking moment of the day to look for a better paying job. I didn't. Why don't you spare me the strawman before tossing rhetorical shit at me? If DISECTING your source is a LEFTIST mentality then so be it. Would that make throwing worthless mud into the debate a Righty mentality? Sure, people have options when compared to, say, Ethiopia. This IS the united states, yes? But to pretend that every individual has total control over their employment opportinities just so you can wave a capitolism flag is beyond retarded and as logically fit as HIDING behind statistics that don't say what you insinuate. By not reporting variations in standard deviation (five cents above the minimum wage) you are hiding behind statistics. In fact, it's funny that this is the response I get after disecting a source that was supposed to validate your claim that government doesn't spur the economy. Hey, i guess a little shit talking goes a long way to avoid the errors of your own logic!

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, first off corporations aren't able to tax people so your analogy is irrelevant. But for the future if you attempt to correct your analogy, when government fucks up and gouges people the people can vote them out of office. Tell me what options do people have against a monopoly?

Give government the power, and it will create its own monopolies as it chooses and has the power to levy whatever taxes it wishes to pay for them. Private enterprise, however, is prohibited from having a monopoly except as necessary on the local level (utility companies, cable companies, etc.) when such is expedient for the welfare of the people. In such cases the government allows the contract for a specific period and is required to conduct oversight to be sure the people are getting their money's worth. It is debatable how efficient that usually is.

It has no difference in effect on the citizen if he pays a $1 in taxes to the government or pays it to somebody else providing goods or services; therefore whether we pay taxes or price makes no difference dollar for dollar. The difference comes when private enterprise can usually provide the goods and services more economically because the free market sets the price and not some opportunistic politician in Washington. I have provided services to government and to private enterprise. The government typically offers twice as much for my services as does private enterprise. Your taxes pay what I do for the government. You don't have to pay for what I do for private enterprise.

The more people people you have providing goods and services, however, the more people you have paying taxes which, if government is good, lowers the tax burden for everybody without increasing costs for the goods and services we buy. Government should be doing NOTHING that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically in the private sector and that is just about everything other than limited social services, regulation of trade and interstate commerce, and national defense.

Surely you are not advocating turning everything over to the government and letting government in turn take care of us?

 

[Bern80]

Show me where I said anything about every soul in america using every waking moment of the day to look for a better paying job. I didn't. Why don't you spare me the strawman before tossing rhetorical shit at me? If DISECTING your source is a LEFTIST mentality then so be it. Would that make throwing worthless mud into the debate a Righty mentality? Sure, people have options when compared to, say, Ethiopia. This IS the united states, yes? But to pretend that every individual has total control over their employment opportinities just so you can wave a capitolism flag is beyond retarded and as logically fit as HIDING behind statistics that don't say what you insinuate. By not reporting variations in standard deviation (five cents above the minimum wage) you are hiding behind statistics. In fact, it's funny that this is the response I get after disecting a source that was supposed to validate your claim that government doesn't spur the economy. Hey, i guess a little shit talking goes a long way to avoid the errors of your own logic!

The only thing my source was suppossed to do clarify was who makes minimum wage and who doesn't. You believed that if those that currently made the minimum wage or less were paid a quarter (that supposedly being what the government pays it would spur the economy. But you only have 15% of the population to work with. Even if that group did make what you suggest, that is hardly enough to kick start the economy.

Secondly, show me where I said all people have complete control over their destiny. Again, this isn't an all or nothing debate. it is one of degrees. The left thinks most people simply can't survive without their help. the right believes most people are capable beceomeing/earning whatever they want to.

I have said this a million times. We are an instant gratification society. That mentality being the case most people will go for 'easy' 9/10 out of time. They will do what they need to do to maintain a lifestyle that is acceptable to them, Some won't even do that. Very few will take the extra effort to become completely financially independant. All of those people may be perfectly content, but the fact remain most won't put forth the effort. Not because they can't. it is because they won't.

That is why all these statistics about how the economy is hurting people is BS. The vast majority of people have the ability to change whatever discomfort they are feeling (self induced via their choices by the way).

 

[Larkinn]

Give government the power, and it will create its own monopolies as it chooses and has the power to levy whatever taxes it wishes to pay for them.

Incorrect, actually. The government technically does have that power, which it doesn't use. Why? Because there are checks on it (elections) which there aren't on corporations.

Private enterprise, however, is prohibited from having a monopoly except as necessary on the local level (utility companies, cable companies, etc.) when such is expedient for the welfare of the people. In such cases the government allows the contract for a specific period and is required to conduct oversight to be sure the people are getting their money's worth. It is debatable how efficient that usually is.

Yes, which is an incredibly useful function of the government. To keep monopolies from forming is extremely important.

The more people people you have providing goods and services, however, the more people you have paying taxes which, if government is good, lowers the tax burden for everybody without increasing costs for the goods and services we buy.

Notice that the industries I mentioned generally are monopolistic industries, by definition, and to de-monopolize them would be incredibly inefficient. As I said, we don't need 5 roads all going to and from the same place so we can spur competition. That is ludicrous.

Government should be doing NOTHING that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically in the private sector and that is just about everything other than limited social services, regulation of trade and interstate commerce, and national defense.

Efficiently is not always the same as effectively.

Surely you are not advocating turning everything over to the government and letting government in turn take care of us?

Umm, no, not even close. But industries that are naturally monopolistic should be run by the government. Between a corporate monopoly and a governmental monopoly I will take the governmental one each and every time.

 

[Shogun]

The only thing my source was suppossed to do clarify was who makes minimum wage and who doesn't. You believed that if those that currently made the minimum wage or less were paid a quarter (that supposedly being what the government pays it would spur the economy. But you only have 15% of the population to work with. Even if that group did make what you suggest, that is hardly enough to kick start the economy.

That's just it. You rely on the 15% as if it means something while hiding behind the statistics that do not convey the standard deviations FROM the minimum wage. Are you going to sit there and insist that I would ONLY be working with 15% is the stats went on to show that another 25% of the population make less than a dollar MORE than the minimum wage? Can you provide a source that isn't trying to polish the turd of the bush economy while willfully ignoring the ridiculously WIDE RANGE that is (a penny above min. wage - wealthy)? Holding onto the 15% as if it means anything won't really help your argument after I've clarified what the stats do and do NOT say.


Secondly, show me where I said all people have complete control over their destiny. Again, this isn't an all or nothing debate. it is one of degrees. The left thinks most people simply can't survive without their help. the right believes most people are capable beceomeing/earning whatever they want to.

It also isn't true that every unemployed American is spending the effort they should be to find a job. it is typical leftist victim mentality that your displaying. It is a simple fact that people have far more control over their destiny then the left would like to admit. Because if people did, realized it and acted upon it, what would we need the left for?

You have more control over what your job opportunities are then job opportunities have over you. As with many lefties you think people have little to no control over their future. Your future (financially, economically, etc.) is what you make it, period.



served.

But, I'll agree with the premise of that particular statement. Im no fan of laziness and abuse of systems meant to help the lower classes. I don't advocate cable tv on foodstamps. But, it's simply a logical fallacy to insist that the government DOESN'T help parts of the economy. it's simply not true to insist that capitolism and the free market are the cure all for our economy. I entered this conversation looking to make those points and it looks, considering where we are at this point, that i've done just that.




I have said this a million times. We are an instant gratification society. That mentality being the case most people will go for 'easy' 9/10 out of time. They will do what they need to do to maintain a lifestyle that is acceptable to them, Some won't even do that. Very few will take the extra effort to become completely financially independant. All of those people may be perfectly content, but the fact remain most won't put forth the effort. Not because they can't. it is because they won't.

thats an awful lotta theory on human nature. I think i'll play the source card on you again. 9/10, eh? Are you sure you are not simply projecting your opinion here?

That is why all these statistics about how the economy is hurting people is BS. The vast majority of people have the ability to change whatever discomfort they are feeling (self induced via their choices by the way).

again, do you have a source that backs up what you think the "vast majoirty" have the ability to change? Certainly, your 85% course doesn't come close. Hell, it doesn't even compare variables outside of who makes min wage or less vs. who makes a penny above min. wage and more. if you can't fathom how outsourcing, minimized wages, a shrinking middle class and it's spending power, and failure to control inflation (GAS, HOUSING, FOOD, LIVING GOODS) have a negative impact on Americans who enjoy their DOT jobs then so be it.


Consumers Offset High Gas Prices With Food Budgets
U.S. consumers may have little choice but to bite the bullet at the pump when gasoline prices rise, but they aren’t completely powerless when it comes to limiting its effect on their household budgets.

That’s the conclusion of a trio of economists in a recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper which found that consumers respond to higher pump prices by opting toward eating at home and foregoing higher-priced grocery items in favor of sales.

“A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on our results implies that consumers offset about 70% of the increased expenditures when gasoline prices double by substituting away from eating out towards groceries and by substituting towards promotional items at the grocery store,” economists Dora Gicheva and Justine Hastings of Yale University and Sofia Villas-Boas of the University of California, Berkeley wrote.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/12/03/consumers-offset-high-gas-prices-with-food-budgets/


Life is harder now, some experts say
Generation gap: After paying the bills, middle-class pockets are emptier
Bankruptcy law expert and Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Warren spent a lot of time crunching consumer spending numbers for her popular books, "The Fragile Middle Class” and “The Two-Income Trap.” In both, she makes this point: Despite all those $200 sneakers you hear about and the long lines at Starbucks, consumers are actually spending less of their income — much less — on discretionary items like clothing, entertainment and food than their parents did. In fact, after taking care of essentials like housing and health care, today’s middle class has about half as much spending money as their parents did in the early 1970s, Warren says.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309318/

Middle class feels the squeeze
Rising costs of health care, housing, and education are forcing middle-class families to work harder and longer, says a new report.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Middle-class households in America have to work harder than ever to maintain their standard of living, according to a report released Wednesday.

Sixty nine percent of middle-class households are at risk of losing their standard of living in the long term, says Demos, an advocacy group for lower and middle-class Americans.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/28/news/economy/middle_class/

The Real Middle Class Squeeze
Let's face it: Price hikes for key goods and services are taking a toll
Who lives in "The core"? That's the twilight zone -- core inflation land -- the Federal Reserve visits every month to measure America's inflation rate. In the Core, people aren't worrying about rising energy or food prices because those necessities aren't counted in the official statistics for core inflation. And if they aren't counted, they don't exist. Taxes don't exist in the Core, either, so rising property taxes aren't bothering anyone. In the land of the Core, inflation is rising at only 1.9% annually.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_31/b3894165_mz029.htm


Middle-class incomes dwarfed by Bay Area's high housing costs
Even with a family income of nearly $60,000 and 17 years of steady employment, it took a five-year search for Manuel Navarro, his wife and three children to find a safe, affordable and clean apartment in San Jose.

The $1,300 rent in the new Gish Apartments, a subsidized complex with chic, futuristic architecture, has allowed the 47-year-old electronics assembler a more comfortable life. Still, he's tapping his 401(k) account to pay off old bills.

"I don't really care about retirement," he said. "I know if I keep doing things the right way, I'm going to be OK. . . . I'm always going to be poor."
http://www.mercurynews.com/realestatenews/ci_7200727?nclick_check=1


Piggybanks Full Of Pesos
Mexico's middle class is exploding, and that's good for U.S. business
Lucia Jimenez and Benjamín Macias have been married for just a month, but they're already buying their first home: a newly built two-bedroom bungalow in an attractive subdivision a half-hour's drive from Mexico City. Lucia, 23, a clothing store clerk, and Benjamín, 24, an office worker at an eyeglass retailer, have a combined income of nearly $650 a month, enough to qualify for a 30-year loan to buy their $25,200 house. "Before, it was much more difficult to buy your own home," says Lucia. "Things have gotten a lot better."
http://www.businessweek.com/@@bR4qQoYQBgaIVR0A/magazine/content/06_11/b3975071.htm

 

[Shogun]

Question: How has government intervention and regulation beyond the free market EVER spurred the economy?


Answer:

The New Deal


Shortly after President Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, drought and erosion combined to cause the Dust Bowl, shifting hundreds of thousands of displaced persons off of their farms in the midwest. From his inauguration onward, Roosevelt argued a restructuring of the economy would be needed to prevent another or avoid prolonging the current depression. New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending, by:

* Reforming the financial system, especially the banks and Wall Street. The Securities Act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. This was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Though amended, the key provisions of both Acts are still in force as of 2007). Federal insurance of bank deposits was provided by the FDIC (still operating as of 2007), and the Glass-Steagal Act (which remained in effect for 50 years). The institution of the National Recovery Administration remains a controversial act to this day. Although it only lasted until 1935, it made a number of sweeping changes to the American economy until it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

* Instituting regulations which ended what was called "cut-throat competition," which kept forcing down prices for everyone (done by the NRA).
* Setting minimum prices and wages and competitive conditions in all industries (done by the NRA).
* Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class (done by the NRA).
* Cutting farm production so as to raise prices and make it possible to earn a living in farming (done by the AAA and successor farm programs).
* Forcing businesses to work with government to set price codes (done by the NRA).
* Creating the NRA board to set labor codes and standards (done by the NRA).

These reforms (together with relief and recovery measures) are called by historians the First New Deal. It was centered around the use of an alphabet soup of agencies set up in 1933 and 1934, along with the use of previous agencies such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to regulate and stimulate the economy. By 1935, the "Second New Deal" added Social Security, a national relief agency (the Works Progress Administration, WPA) and, through the National Labor Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labor unions. Unemployment fell by two-thirds in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933 to 1937), but then remained stubbornly high until 1942.

In 1929, federal expenditures constituted only 3% of the GDP. Between 1933 and 1939, they tripled, funded primarily by a growth in the national debt. The debt as proportion of GNP rose under Hoover from 20% to 40%. Roosevelt kept it at 40% until the war began, when it soared to 128%. After the Recession of 1937, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, by 1943, had abolished all of the relief programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#The_New_Deal

 

[Bern80]

That's just it. You rely on the 15% as if it means something while hiding behind the statistics that do not convey the standard deviations FROM the minimum wage. Are you going to sit there and insist that I would ONLY be working with 15% is the stats went on to show that another 25% of the population make less than a dollar MORE than the minimum wage? Can you provide a source that isn't trying to polish the turd of the bush economy while willfully ignoring the ridiculously WIDE RANGE that is (a penny above min. wage - wealthy)? Holding onto the 15% as if it means anything won't really help your argument after I've clarified what the stats do and do NOT say.

That stats quite clearly say minimum wage or below. We can argue all you like about how much more over the minimum wage it would take in that group to help the economy, but I think we can agree that a quarter probably won't cut do much.

served.

because you changed font colors? oookaaay.

But, I'll agree with the premise of that particular statement. Im no fan of laziness and abuse of systems meant to help the lower classes. I don't advocate cable tv on foodstamps. But, it's simply a logical fallacy to insist that the government DOESN'T help parts of the economy. it's simply not true to insist that capitolism and the free market are the cure all for our economy. I entered this conversation looking to make those points and it looks, considering where we are at this point, that i've done just that.

Again this is not an all or nothing debate. I have neve advocated that we go full blown capitilism on everything we do.

thats an awful lotta theory on human nature. I think i'll play the source card on you again. 9/10, eh? Are you sure you are not simply projecting your opinion here?



again, do you have a source that backs up what you think the "vast majoirty" have the ability to change? Certainly, your 85% course doesn't come close. Hell, it doesn't even compare variables outside of who makes min wage or less vs. who makes a penny above min. wage and more. if you can't fathom how outsourcing, minimized wages, a shrinking middle class and it's spending power, and failure to control inflation (GAS, HOUSING, FOOD, LIVING GOODS) have a negative impact on Americans who enjoy their DOT jobs then so be it.

The above was never meant as a statement of be backed with fact. It is my opinion based on observation. Which is essentially the vast majority of people do not make the effort to realize their full potential. Some conciously. Some are perfectly happy that way. what people acheive financially is a small fraction of what they could acheive if they have a) the desire and b) put forth the effort. Again just my opinion based on observations of pretty much everybody I've ever met.

That is why all the below little snipets are meaningless to me, because again they all assume the same thing; people have no control or cause for recourse to those events.

 

[Shogun]

That stats quite clearly say minimum wage or below. We can argue all you like about how much more over the minimum wage it would take in that group to help the economy, but I think we can agree that a quarter probably won't cut do much.

Clearly the stat you used only states min wage and below of surveyed Americans. However, the assumption that 85% of the American workforce, from one penny above min wage to the uber rich, can't feel the impact of government spurred economic forces RELIES upon ignoring the unreported chasm between one cent above minimum wage and the bottom of upper-middle class salaries. You are trying to ignore the 8 dollar an hour wage in the private sector that is vastly inferior to the Average yearly salary of a USPS worker as if the 15% at min. wage or below, somehow, validates an 8 dollar an hour standard of living. Given a couple standard deviations from min. wage I can almost guarentee we'd be talking about more than 15-25%. Even if that were the case, 15-25% making the avg. govt salary instead of the wal mart 8 dollars an hour would exponentially increase the spending power of MORE people overnight which would hardly be a mosquito bite. Like I said, hiding behind stats.




because you changed font colors? oookaaay.

no, because I wanted to quote your own words with as much white glove delicacy as necessary. Your words, my choice in reflective color.



Again this is not an all or nothing debate. I have neve advocated that we go full blown capitilism on everything we do.

Then where are YOU willing to draw the line? Opinions and assholes, right?

I'll agree with you on this one point: Capitolism is not the cure all but it's positives can work. Socialism is not a Cure all but it's positives can work. I admit, I enjoy taking the baseball bat of logic at hardliners for either. There IS a trade off with historic examples of each. I don't want ghetto queens living off the governemtn and have made NUMEROUS suggestions on welfare reform but I also don't want morporate Non-entities dominating American options with stranglehold market strategy.



The above was never meant as a statement of be backed with fact. It is my opinion based on observation. Which is essentially the vast majority of people do not make the effort to realize their full potential. Some conciously. Some are perfectly happy that way. what people acheive financially is a small fraction of what they could acheive if they have a) the desire and b) put forth the effort. Again just my opinion based on observations of pretty much everybody I've ever met.



Well, at least we can agree that it is your opinion. And, again, I AGREE that some people validate the bumper sticker "I work hard so others don't have to" but i'd rather not obfuscate the details with misleading statistics when considering class economy.



That is why all the below little snipets are meaningless to me, because again they all assume the same thing; people have no control or cause for recourse to those events.



No, they convey the reality of an economy that doesn't reflect what you are describing. Opportunity is not merely a matter of how hard one works. That is the social fact. It's not an excuse but it sure as hell ins't a reason to throw our society to the wolves of capitolism while using fallacious stats like a shield.

 

[AllieBaba]

Maybe if you bothered to follow the links I provided to the articles, you would see how......what word do I use?......silly?......your first sentence is.

You also would have seen that there would most likely have been less revenue without the tax cuts. That would have required reading a paragraph or two though.

The home foreclosures were a result of consumer stupidity or willingness to gamble--well over half were homes bought on spec as investments with hopes of turning a good profit--coupled with unscrupulous lending practices by mortgage companies. NONE of it had anything whatsoever to do with the tax increases other than that interest rates rose in response to a galloping economy.

Now perhaps you would like to take any one of those articles apart and show any evidence you might have other than hot air to show that any are full of sh*t?

I couldn't have said it better myself.
The economy is clicking along just great...and the fact that record numbers of people who are first-generation, first-time home owners were ripped off is not evidence that it isn't. In fact, just the opposite. Any time you have growth, you have speculation. It's actually a sign of a healthy economy, if you think of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Incorrect, actually. The government technically does have that power, which it doesn't use. Why? Because there are checks on it (elections) which there aren't on corporations.



Yes, which is an incredibly useful function of the government. To keep monopolies from forming is extremely important.

The government not only has the power and the monopoly that increases the power, but it has the motive to use your money to buy your votes out of some notion that the government will then help you. The fact that we have poured more than 6 trillion - that trillion with a capital T - into the war on poverty and the government tells us that we have more poor than ever should be our first clue that we're being bought. Everything the government does that could be done in the private sector removes jobs and economic incentive from the private sector.

I am not in a favor of government increasing its power by turning over ANYTHING else to it, and there's quite a lot I would like to be returned to the private sector.

Notice that the industries I mentioned generally are monopolistic industries, by definition, and to de-monopolize them would be incredibly inefficient. As I said, we don't need 5 roads all going to and from the same place so we can spur competition. That is ludicrous.

Efficiently is not always the same as effectively.

Umm, no, not even close. But industries that are naturally monopolistic should be run by the government. Between a corporate monopoly and a governmental monopoly I will take the governmental one each and every time

Legitimate functions of government are to facilitate a well planned and adequate infrastructure including streets and roads, but the building should be done in the private sector. It even makes sense to license limited monopolies such as public utilities so that the existing infrastructure can be managed and operated more efficiently and effectively. (I'm not going to split hairs with you on that as I think efficent, effective, and economical are all worthy goals and rarely need to be considered separately.)

It is in government getting out of the way and encouraging growth and excellence in the private sector that prevents monopolies from occurring. Every now and then a company is so innovative and cutting edge or so good at what it does that it becomes a monopoly naturally. Halliburton is a good example of that--there is maybe one other corporation in the world that can do what Halliburton does and that other company is French. Another is Microsoft who took on the giant Apple corporation and developed a product that has pretty much been king of the mountain ever since. The government should not interfere in these natural monopolies as sooner or later somebody will be brave, bright, and and perceptive enough to knock the giants off their pedestals.

I'll put my faith in private enterprise to keep us on the cutting edge and moving forward. Government has never been able to do that and won't do it for us now, but taking as little as possible in taxes or power out of the private sector makes government a help and not a hindrance.

 

[AllieBaba]

That could be the worst attempt at an explanation I've ever read. In your first, it isn't the post office (government) spurring the economy, it's eBay.

I don't even no where to start with the second. Your contention is that when government spends money on roads there is more interstate commerce. Find me a link that directly correlates that please.

You can have all the infrastructure in the world and it doesn't mean a thing if people aren't working, producing and using them. That's people, not just "the government".

A successful economy is driven by jobs, not by the government. Jobs are driven by free enterprise, at least in this country. Because of Walmart, KFC and McDonalds, people in this country are able to climb out of poverty and act as functioning, tax-paying members of our society.

There aren't enough government jobs to keep that ball rolling.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

just like it provides the Fire protection? The Police force? capitolism is not a cure all. We don't turn to private law enforcement or fire protection for the same reason we SHOULDN'T rely on a profit margin to maintain a minimum quality service. There is no money in nursing homes that allows for a decent standard of living.

As a matter of fact yes, private companies are providing fire protection as we speak. There are also private security companies. Not that fire and police protection are the worst things that government does, mind you. If I had a list of things to cut, they wouldn't make the top 100. Cutting the military and dismantling the american empire would be my first priority.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about with regards to nursing homes. They are privately run. Some are better than others. At least you get to choose. Your assertion that there is no money to be made in nursing homes seems pretty odd in light of the sheer volume of them.

www.nursinghomes.com

Capitolism requires the minimization of wages via competition.

Capitalism does no such thing. It pays the market price for a commodity. My company does not pay me 3x minimum wage because they love me. They pay it because I (and other workers in my field) will go elsewhere if they offer me minimum wage. On the other hand, if they were to pay me and the other workers too much, they would have to raise prices for consumers and go out of business.

Its not the building of the bridges which boosts the economy, although that does marginally. Its the new infrastructure which allows people quicker access to places than before.

In some cases, yes. Sometimes government road planners will manage to do something which makes economic sense. A bridge between two cities could cut a 2 hour drive down to a 2 minute drive. On the other hand, many projects are stupidly wasteful. For example, you may have heard of "the bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, built because an influential republican congressman requested it. It's likely that a private company would have built the bridge in my first example; not so likely that they would have built the second one. Without profit/loss, there is no way to calculate the net economic benefit.

I would suspect the market in concrete and steel are large enough that the prices would not go up just because the government is building a bridge.

Prices of steel and concrete went up during construction of the interstate highway system. Even if our expenditures were minor (they aren't), it's going to effect someone, somehow/someway.

But would it be a monolopy? If you could get enough to do it then fine. By the way UPS and FedEx haven't driven the USPS out of the package-delivering market yet....

Well, there's UPS, FedEX, DHL, and probably some other minor carriers out there. And the USPS is subsidized, that's how it survives.

Private companies can build them. But without government interference they will either be wildly redundant or massively overpriced.

In the case of roads, you wouldn't have a dozen different roads from a dozen different companies, all crammed together side-by-side serving the same market, it wouldn't make any sense.

The part about overpricing is interesting. The most likely scenario is unmanned toll roads (or possibly road subscriptions) similar to what we have today with electronic ez-tag systems. If the road company charges too little, they get traffic jams, which reduces profits. If they charge too much, people take alternate routes, or perhaps new development slows down, which also reduces profits.

Perhaps the best thing would be peak-useage pricing. A private company would raise prices enough to get traffic moving and clear congestion, but not so much that roads become deserted. Traffic jams would be a thing of the past, and bus companies like Greyhound would start serving urban commuters. Basically, individual car useage would be less attractive, and mass transit would be more attractive. Road companies might even sign a contract to reserve a lane or two of traffic just for bus companies during rush hour.

Moving to private roads would also put the brakes on suburban sprawl, and our car-centric development patterns. Developers would actually have an incentive to conserve space and reduce distances from customers. Why do big-box megaretailers like walmart dominate? They do have some advantages, but they have disadvantages too--namely, they require expensive multi-lane megafreeways. Probably 3/4 that I've seen are near one or two big freeways. If you're a big box store operating on low profit margins, you have to make up for it with high volume. That's easy to do when the government massively subsidizes the cost of freeways.