The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[Bern80]

How many middle class consumers wanted their jobs shipped to China?

I'm sure none. The doesn't mean they weren't complicit in sending them there. Business has to take advantage of competitive advantage when it can or it won't be in business (and providing jobs) for long. If every business decided to ignore taking competitive advantaegs for the common good the price of all goods and service has to go up. This is what I mean by you can't have it both ways. You can't forgo competitive advantage for the sake of keeping jobs here AND expect the price of goods and services to stay down. That being the case what have you really gained by saving a few jobs? I don't call that serving the common good. I call that spreading the misery.

About the same number who are currently underwater on their mortgage?

No, there are far more homes in forclosure then can be accounted for by jobs being lost. The two aren't related at all.

I'm seeing the same theme in you that I see in all libs. An absolute an utter refusal to take a hard look at the role you play in where you are. You people avoid personal accountability likes it's the plague and have the balls to wonder why your situtation doesn't improve.

How do you feel about bringing in more money by imposing a financial speculation tax on the economic class getting richer from rising corporate profits and bull shit foreclosures?

Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed at 35% instead of 15%?

Why is the cons first instinct to serve as useful idiots for rich parasites?

Libs in Washington must love you. Most of us would like to be able to keep as much of our money as we can, but they have idiots like you actually arguing for sending them more money. You should be so fucking proud of yourself. Couldn't you have just as easily asked the question the other way around? Why shouldn't income be taxed at 15% instead of 35% (on avg.)?

 

[asterism]

The problem with wealth disparity is the disparity itself.

My facts and stats: Fed Rsrv Bd, Survey of Consumer Finances and the IRS stats and commonly summarized and presented in a numerous variety of publications. They are easy to find.


Bern80, we are going round and round here. It’s deteriorating into “he said, she said, then he said”. We have both stated our positions and I think that readers understand my position and they understand your position. I understand your position. Quite frankly, I have become a little bored with our exchange.

Gerogephillip, you rock!

Do you know the value trends of the economic quintiles? Has the actual value of any quintile diminished over the last 50 years or so?

 

[asterism]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

How much do you think that will cost and where will the government get the money? Be specific.

 

[asterism]

How many middle class consumers wanted their jobs shipped to China?

I'm sure none. The doesn't mean they weren't complicit in sending them there. Business has to take advantage of competitive advantage when it can or it won't be in business (and providing jobs) for long. If every business decided to ignore taking competitive advantaegs for the common good the price of all goods and service has to go up. This is what I mean by you can't have it both ways. You can't forgo competitive advantage for the sake of keeping jobs here AND expect the price of goods and services to stay down. That being the case what have you really gained by saving a few jobs? I don't call that serving the common good. I call that spreading the misery.

About the same number who are currently underwater on their mortgage?

No, there are far more homes in forclosure then can be accounted for by jobs being lost. The two aren't related at all.

I'm seeing the same theme in you that I see in all libs. An absolute an utter refusal to take a hard look at the role you play in where you are. You people avoid personal accountability likes it's the plague and have the balls to wonder why your situtation doesn't improve.

How do you feel about bringing in more money by imposing a financial speculation tax on the economic class getting richer from rising corporate profits and bull shit foreclosures?

Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed at 35% instead of 15%?

Why is the cons first instinct to serve as useful idiots for rich parasites?

Libs in washingto must love you. Most of us would like to be able to keep as much of our money as we can, but they have idiots like you actually arguing for sending them more money. You should be so fucking proud of yourself. Couldn't you have just as easily asked the question the other way around? Why shouldn't income be taxed at 15% instead of 35% (on avg.).

Another way to frame the question is, "Why not tax according to the funding requirements of the government instead of using taxation as a means to control society?"

 

[georgephillip]

The problem with wealth disparity is the disparity itself.

My facts and stats: Fed Rsrv Bd, Survey of Consumer Finances and the IRS stats and commonly summarized and presented in a numerous variety of publications. They are easy to find.


Bern80, we are going round and round here. It’s deteriorating into “he said, she said, then he said”. We have both stated our positions and I think that readers understand my position and they understand your position. I understand your position. Quite frankly, I have become a little bored with our exchange.

Gerogephillip, you rock!

Do you know the value trends of the economic quintiles? Has the actual value of any quintile diminished over the last 50 years or so?

I'm not sure of the definition of "actual value"; however, here's an "Inequality by the Numbers" Table showing "(h)ow much more (or less) would each income group have received in 2005 if post-tax-and-transfer household income had grown at the same rate for all groups from 1979 to 2005."

Summarized broadly, "(T)he bottom 80% lost $743 billion by growing more slowly. The top 1% gained $673 billion by growing more quickly."

 

[georgephillip]

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.



Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

How much do you think that will cost and where will the government get the money? Be specific.

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

 

[Bern80]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

How much do you think that will cost and where will the government get the money? Be specific.

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

I really hope you didn't just say we just print money to pay for it......

 

[asterism]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

How much do you think that will cost and where will the government get the money? Be specific.

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

Well then this tax increase nonsense is just that then.

 

[daveman]

How much do you think that will cost and where will the government get the money? Be specific.

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

I really hope you didn't just say we just print money to pay for it......

Yes, he did. "Poof! Now we have Magic Money that's worth something only because we say it is!"

 

[asterism]

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

I really hope you didn't just say we just print money to pay for it......

Yes, he did. "Poof! Now we have Magic Money that's worth something only because we say it is!"

And that means they are using the tax code for social engineering only.

Hmmm...... haven't I said that before?

 

[georgephillip]

I really hope you didn't just say we just print money to pay for it......

Yes, he did. "Poof! Now we have Magic Money that's worth something only because we say it is!"

And that means they are using the tax code for social engineering only.

Hmmm...... haven't I said that before?

And they are socially engineering the money flow in one direction only:

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson

 

[Oddball]

Government might find the money the same place Abraham Lincoln did:

"Despite strong opposition, on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act[8] into law, authorizing the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency soon to be known as 'greenbacks.'"

The cost would be relative to the $13 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees already provided to those most responsible for our Great Recession.

I really hope you didn't just say we just print money to pay for it......

Yes, he did. "Poof! Now we have Magic Money that's worth something only because we say it is!"

Then we'll take the Magic Money to pay the newly hired bureaucrats, who we'll never get rid of...So, we'll need to raise taxes to pay for them...Which will be a drag on economic growth...Which means that we'll have to spend some more Magic Money on "stimulus" programs to hire more bureaucrats....

Personally, I like the Santa Claus story better.

 

[Oddball]

"We are in a peculiar situation where the main problem for the economy is a lack of demand. More demand will mean more growth and more jobs.

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.

"Government must supply demand because there is no other entity that can step forward to do it—unless someone gets very good at counterfeiting hundred dollar bills."

Dean Baker

Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

One word:

Alchemy.

 

[georgephillip]

I would agree with that. People are hoarding right now. People and business because the future is uncertain.



Don't agree with this though. How can the government make people want things? I guess they think they can make people buy things (Healthcare bill), but that's not really demand.

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

One word:

Alchemy.

Three words:

Works Progress Administration

 

[Oddball]

One word:

Failure.

 

[georgephillip]

One word:

Failure.

Another word:

Proof?

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.

"It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing.

"Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western populations. Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion.[1] By 1943, the total amount spent was over $11 billion."

WPA - Wiki

 

[Oddball]

 

[AquaAthena]

[B"]The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution"." [/B]

It's a wonderful thing. It is called Capitalism and will support all the entitlement programs the federal government manages to pass. You see, it creates prosperity for all.

 

[Barb]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

Where do you think the money comes from to do that, Santa Claus?

We could take it out of the defense budget, we waste vast amounts of dollars there.

 

[georgephillip]

Government can increase demand by lowering unemployment and raising the prevailing wages by increased government hiring. More government jobs / contracts for infrastructure would lower unemployment rates (government contracts must be union and prevailing) and force private industry to pay more and provide better working conditions to attract labor. The masses would then have more to spend after being able to meet their living expenses, and that would increase demand.

It is not that people don't want, it is that they do not have any money to spend.

Where do you think the money comes from to do that, Santa Claus?

We could take it out of the defense budget, we waste vast amounts of dollars there.

The waste and fraud is monumental; however, there's also a blue-collar reality to defense spending. In some congressional districts, one out of every five dollar bills in circulation comes from defense spending. I personally saw and felt the effects of a major USAF base closing on the local economy I was in at the time.

Possibly the solution involves turning over the construction of high speed rail (freight and passenger) along with universal fiber optic internet to the Pentagon?

Financing would come from state banks modeled on North Dakota as well as auctioning off properties along the new rail routes.

Millions of Americans who don't mind relocating would be put back to work as well as many of our returning vets.

There may be a historical precedent during the construction of out transcontinental railroads when private corporations relied on the Army for engineering feats beyond the abilities of the private sector.