Class War Illustrated

[ClosedCaption]

Rich getting richer have nothing to do with Gdp

3 pages of dummies attacking each other and no one addressing the Original Post

 

[Cuyo]

Rich getting richer have nothing to do with Gdp

3 pages of dummies attacking each other and no one addressing the Original Post

Uhh, the op is re: class warfare.

How does the conversation not relate exactly?

 

[Oddball]

Rich getting richer have nothing to do with Gdp

3 pages of dummies attacking each other and no one addressing the Original Post

The OP is typical class warrior drivel from Daily Kooks.

Can't you sniveling looters find something original to moan-n-groan about?

 

[Cuyo]

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

That all depends on whether a smaller firm has the resources to invest.

But don't let that hinder your argument, Mr. Keynes.

So we're into some philosophy here, now lets look at actual practice.

During the post-war years, the middle class was growing and burgeoning, SOL was rising. Taxes on "The Rich" were higher, far far higher than they have been in the last 10 years. Our economy was unmatched on the world stage, concrete and stable. Recessions were small and short (relatively), and the government's deficits were small (relatively).

Now, 30 years of slashing taxes and the government "Getting out of the way" of industry. Worst recession since pre-FDR, poverty growing, chasm between rich and poor rising, SOL falling. Massive deficits, massive government debt.

Your argument: "Cut taxes! Get the government out of the way!" In other words, we did it, but we didn't do it long enough or intensely enough?

C'mon man. Get real.

 

[Cuyo]

Rich getting richer have nothing to do with Gdp

3 pages of dummies attacking each other and no one addressing the Original Post

The OP is typical class warrior drivel from Daily Kooks.

Can't you sniveling looters find something original to moan-n-groan about?

At this point, I have to ask you honestly how old you are.

EVERYTHING you say seems to come straight out of the Republican playbook. The only diversion I've seen is that you're OK with cutting military spending, and they're not.

 

[Trajan]

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

Well lets explore this from the middle out- what income, in $ is rich in that others get to decide that they are making is ‘too much’ and their contribution to the collective has to increase.?

Yes I have a good idea to good an idea what the tax brackets are and those are very simple benchmarks but lets look at this in grander terms because the media likes to feed us.

47k is the median salary in the US, their tax burden just based on that salary is basically zero.

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

 

[Mini 14]

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

That all depends on whether a smaller firm has the resources to invest.

But don't let that hinder your argument, Mr. Keynes.

So we're into some philosophy here, now lets look at actual practice.

During the post-war years, the middle class was growing and burgeoning, SOL was rising. Taxes on "The Rich" were higher, far far higher than they have been in the last 10 years. Our economy was unmatched on the world stage, concrete and stable. Recessions were small and short (relatively), and the government's deficits were small (relatively).

Now, 30 years of slashing taxes and the government "Getting out of the way" of industry. Worst recession since pre-FDR, poverty growing, chasm between rich and poor rising, SOL falling.

Your argument: "Cut taxes! Get the government out of the way!" In other words, we did it, but we didn't do it long enough or intensely enough?

C'mon man. Get real.

You had me up until the point it became obvious you don't understand the impact of "post-war" economics.

I would LOVE another war. It would solve ALL of our economic problems in a matter of months.

But those are rare and opportune circumstances. If you chose the wrong war, you piss off the wrong people (just ask Mussolini). And eventually, once the war is over, the immediate economic benefits slowly wither away.

SO we're back to Science.

And Science (as well as History, but I KNOW you don't want to go there, because theory is so much more fun!) tells us to cut taxes, get the government out of the way.

 

[Cuyo]

That all depends on whether a smaller firm has the resources to invest.

But don't let that hinder your argument, Mr. Keynes.

So we're into some philosophy here, now lets look at actual practice.

During the post-war years, the middle class was growing and burgeoning, SOL was rising. Taxes on "The Rich" were higher, far far higher than they have been in the last 10 years. Our economy was unmatched on the world stage, concrete and stable. Recessions were small and short (relatively), and the government's deficits were small (relatively).

Now, 30 years of slashing taxes and the government "Getting out of the way" of industry. Worst recession since pre-FDR, poverty growing, chasm between rich and poor rising, SOL falling.

Your argument: "Cut taxes! Get the government out of the way!" In other words, we did it, but we didn't do it long enough or intensely enough?

C'mon man. Get real.

You had me up until the point it became obvious you don't understand the impact of "post-war" economics.

I would LOVE another war. It would solve ALL of our economic problems in a matter of months.

But those are rare and opportune circumstances. If you chose the wrong war, you piss off the wrong people (just ask Mussolini). And eventually, once the war is over, the immediate economic benefits slowly wither away.

SO we're back to Science.

And Science (as well as History, but I KNOW you don't want to go there, because theory is so much more fun!) tells us to cut taxes, get the government out of the way.

OK, so how long does 'post-war' get to be considered 'post-war?' 5 years? 10? 20?

By my count, the economy was doing swimmingly for about at least 50 years following the war... All of it with taxes higher than they are today, and government more 'in the way' than they are today.

Please tell me, why isn't your 'science' working? Why, when trying to do it your way, is the whole thing going to shit?

 

[Nosmo King]

So let me see if I have an understanding of the Conservative position.

We stand aside while the rich amass a greater portion of the wealth of this nation and, as a result, that wealth will be circulated faster in the economy thus enabling those not so wealthy to become wealthy.

And the model Conservatives point to in order to rationalize this view is what?

That's the part I have yet to understand.

You see, I believe that the economy is driven by capital passing from one hand to another in a fair exchange for goods and services.

If only the wealthy have control of capital, wouldn't that mean that it's the spending of the rich that drives the economy?

But if there are far fewer rich than middle class or impoverished people, how can the few rich be capable, by force of numbers alone, of stimulating the economy?

Don't the rich take advantage of tax loop holes and shelters so their supply of capital does not move through the economy?

The middle class and impoverished don't have as much access to these shelters to squirrel away their capital. So, the spend it on goods and services just to survive.

How has the consolidation of wealth worked out for third world countries? Keeping the capital locked up among the political leaders and the extremely wealthy in third world countries has not resulted in some pie-in-the-sky vision of trickle down at all. the poor grow in numbers and fail to climb the economic ladder while the rich hoard more and more wealth among themselves.

This is the true result of the consolidation of wealth.

And some Conservatives have been duped into thinking this is a great vision for our country! Why?

 

[Mini 14]

OK, so how long does 'post-war' get to be considered 'post-war?' 5 years? 10? 20?

By my count, the economy was doing swimmingly for about at least 50 years following the war... All of it with taxes higher than they are today, and government more 'in the way' than they are today.

Please tell me, why isn't your 'science' working? Why, when trying to do it your way, is the whole thing going to shit?

Marx explains it better than anyone (and I believe Marx to be the greatest economic mind to have ever walked the Earth).

Surely, in arguing Economics, you are familiar with cyclical theory and evolution? 200 years......he's dead-on again.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Rich getting richer have nothing to do with Gdp

3 pages of dummies attacking each other and no one addressing the Original Post

Uhh, the op is re: class warfare.

How does the conversation not relate exactly?

Thanks! The e of the conversation could be class warfare but the title includes figures that have not and won't be discussed. Everyone would rather summarize each others thoughts into strawman arguments like "dems want all your money". The chart doesn't Redernce political ideologies just what costs and what is proposing to be cut.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Poverty in America is increasing, and the chasm between them and the rich is growing larger. Why? Is there some genetic reason so many more people are being petty, lazy, and jealous than they were in years past?

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

Follow the money you say?

What about the trillions confiscated from those who've earned it, in order to feather the nests of those who haven't earned it, during the 55+ years of the Great Society?

Yet the chasm between wealthy and poor has never been greater?

Is that supposed to be any proof of success of the socialistic welfare state?

Are you an anarchist odd-dude?

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

That's completely false. We never turned into Rwanda without the social nets before FDR came along and grew the steroid nanny state. Now, since we have moved so hard to the nanny state, things are getting worse. Bad analogy.

 

[cutter]

Most poor people are poor because of choices they've made, anything from being an unmotivated student in school to drugs, alcohol, or prolific breeding. Rich people are rich because of the choices they've made, anything from applying themselves in school to putting off families until established in a career. It's not the governments place to support or encourage poor choices. You make your choices then you live with them. Don't expect the government to support you and your family.

 

[Cuyo]

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

Well lets explore this from the middle out- what income, in $ is rich in that others get to decide that they are making is ‘too much’ and their contribution to the collective has to increase.?

Yes I have a good idea to good an idea what the tax brackets are and those are very simple benchmarks but lets look at this in grander terms because the media likes to feed us.

47k is the median salary in the US, their tax burden just based on that salary is basically zero.

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

Society decides, and it's obviously not going to be the same today as it is in 10 years. That's why we have elections and set a new budget every year.

What would I personally like to see? Top-out around 50%. Of course, mathematically it's impossible for anyone to pay the full 50%, because their lower brackets are taxed at the lower bracket rates.

But what I want is as irrelevant as it is inconsequential.

The point is, we have tried this, and it's failing miserably for most people. Cutting taxes and de-regulating have been taking place for 30 years. Look where we landed! And you seriously want to tell me, the answer is cut more and deregulate more?

Maybe you don't care; I don't think that's the case but it's a possibility. You've carved out your niche in society and it's working for you. But I don't think you grasp the futility experienced by young people entering the job market for the first time today. I don't happen to be one of them... But people who work for me are, and certainly people I know are. Dual incomes, all for an SOL lower than their parents and grandparents enjoyed with 1!

 

[Cuyo]

Follow the money you say?

What about the trillions confiscated from those who've earned it, in order to feather the nests of those who haven't earned it, during the 55+ years of the Great Society?

Yet the chasm between wealthy and poor has never been greater?

Is that supposed to be any proof of success of the socialistic welfare state?

Are you an anarchist odd-dude?

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

That's completely false. We never turned into Rwanda without the social nets before FDR came along and grew the steroid nanny state. Now, since we have moved so hard to the nanny state, things are getting worse. Bad analogy.

Keep reading... I've addressed my exaggeration with the Rwanda analogy.

But the second half of your statement is false. We've been gradually walking away from what you call the "Nanny state" for about 30 years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sarkozy is introducing a bill in France to correct the tax code in that NO ONE will ever have to surrender more than 50% of their yearly income.....50%..gee whiz. .

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

thats why that 3% is really the core issue, the more they take the more they MUST have, they will spend every single dime they can get their hands on.

Cowboy Poetry? For god sakes.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

Speaking of one third. I think we're now paying one third of our salaries into the govt social coffers. Heck, we've almost come full circle back to the crown, circa Britain mid 1700's.

 

[Cuyo]

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

thats why that 3% is really the core issue, the more they take the more they MUST have, they will spend every single dime they can get their hands on.

Cowboy Poetry? For god sakes.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

Speaking of one third. I think we're now paying one third of our salaries into the govt social coffers. Heck, we've almost come full circle back to the crown, circa Britain mid 1700's.

LBT - Are you paying attention? Taxes are lower now than they've been in 60+ years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Are you an anarchist odd-dude?

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

That's completely false. We never turned into Rwanda without the social nets before FDR came along and grew the steroid nanny state. Now, since we have moved so hard to the nanny state, things are getting worse. Bad analogy.

Keep reading... I've addressed my exaggeration with the Rwanda analogy.

But the second half of your statement is false. We've been gradually walking away from what you call the "Nanny state" for about 30 years.

False. Look at our growing list of entitlements. We're diving head first for more.

Read back on your post on Rwanda, okay.

 

[editec]

If the American government is a NANNY state she sucks at nanny-hood for most of her children because she sure in hell is showing favoritism for the wealthy at the expense of her working class wards

 

[LordBrownTrout]

thats why that 3% is really the core issue, the more they take the more they MUST have, they will spend every single dime they can get their hands on.

Cowboy Poetry? For god sakes.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

Speaking of one third. I think we're now paying one third of our salaries into the govt social coffers. Heck, we've almost come full circle back to the crown, circa Britain mid 1700's.

LBT - Are you paying attention? Taxes are lower now than they've been in 60+ years.

No, I believe it was the proportionate amounts that go towards social coffers, not taxes.