How’d That Work Out for You, Lefty’s?

[Daryl Hunt]

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

/—-/ Ok, tell us what corporations do with tax increases?

I don't remember. It's been too long since they actually had a tax increase. But it's easy to remember them getting a tax decrease. Paying zero taxes. How can you get a tax decrease from that? Easy answer, take more money and pay bonuses until it's back to zero again.

/—-/ What a dumb answer. And you say no one takes the right wing seriously. Well, as it’s been painfully explained in the simplest terms, corporations treat taxes as overhead and pass the cost on to the consumers with higher prices. Tax cuts are treated as reduced overhead and use the saved funds in a variety of ways. Duhhhhhh

Mostly pay bonuses to the top tier. It's how it's done today.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

/—-/ Ok, tell us what corporations do with tax increases?

I don't remember. It's been too long since they actually had a tax increase. But it's easy to remember them getting a tax decrease. Paying zero taxes. How can you get a tax decrease from that? Easy answer, take more money and pay bonuses until it's back to zero again.

/—-/ What a dumb answer. And you say no one takes the right wing seriously. Well, as it’s been painfully explained in the simplest terms, corporations treat taxes as overhead and pass the cost on to the consumers with higher prices. Tax cuts are treated as reduced overhead and use the saved funds in a variety of ways. Duhhhhhh

Mostly pay bonuses to the top tier. It's how it's done today.

/—-/ You can’t prove that but even if true across the board, it’s their money to do with as the choose. But you should take your tax savings and overpay the landscaper.

 

[hadit]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Welfare for those who can work but refuse to do so (what you really mean here) doesn't help labor markets at all.

 

[hadit]

No, it does not back your assertion. A larger portion of people are moving UP rather than down. Hard fact.

You know what you have failed to post thus far? A single fact.

Yet the extreme class grows and the upper 20% grows. Where are all those middle class going? Is it mass suicide? Did they just skip all the other classes and magically appear in the top 20%? It doesn't work that way.

Again, from your own cite.

• The middle class constitutes a slim majority of the U.S. population (52%), but that is still less than it has been in nearly half a century.
• The share of income captured by the middle class has fallen from 60% in 1970 to 43% in 2014.
• The middle class is shrinking due to an increase in population at the extreme bottom and top of the economic spectrum

And? When did I argue that the middle class was not shrinking. I specifically said that it was. Can you follow the conversation? The above does not support your statement that the middle is being lost to the poor.

One more time - MORE of the middle is rising up than down. Some are going down, more is going up. You have yet to cite anything whatsoever that refutes that.

They are some moving up, yes. Some are moving down. While most are saving the same. What's happening is the range that people use for determining the rate of middle class keeps going up. So many of the middle class are actually making the same wages (wage stagnation) but they just moved from middle class to a lower bracket. If you use (and I do) the 10year old rate of 25k, In order to make things look more cheary, move the min figure (and the max figure) up 10K or more. Move it to 35K or 45K depending on the false narrative one wants to present, makes the story easier to sell.

I make about 30K a year and consider myself Middle Class. I live comfortable, own my vehicle, home, can afford to eat out generously, pay cash for almost everything, pay my bills on time, etc.. That sounds like Middle class to me. When I pass on, I will owe nothing to anyone and have a surplus that someone will have to get rid of. I may or may not have to figure out how to disperse that. But after I buy the farm, will I even care. But under the definition of Middle Class I fit securely into it. Yet according to your min of 35K and others at 45K, I am not middle class. The Middle class didn't change, you just moved the goal post to try and show a false conclusion.

I make about 30K a year




You are aware if Democrats have it there way and raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour


You wont be middle class anymore

You will be making minimum wage

$15x40x52= $31,200 a year


.


.

higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes in any long run equilibrium.

So let's set it at $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether.

 

[hadit]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

 

[danielpalos]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Welfare for those who can work but refuse to do so (what you really mean here) doesn't help labor markets at all.

i am not sure what you mean. employment is at the will of either party. any infringement to that individual liberty merely favors employers by suppressing wages.

 

[danielpalos]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

 

[hadit]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

How did that answer the question?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

/—-/ Ok, tell us what corporations do with tax increases?

I don't remember. It's been too long since they actually had a tax increase. But it's easy to remember them getting a tax decrease. Paying zero taxes. How can you get a tax decrease from that? Easy answer, take more money and pay bonuses until it's back to zero again.

/—-/ What a dumb answer. And you say no one takes the right wing seriously. Well, as it’s been painfully explained in the simplest terms, corporations treat taxes as overhead and pass the cost on to the consumers with higher prices. Tax cuts are treated as reduced overhead and use the saved funds in a variety of ways. Duhhhhhh

Mostly pay bonuses to the top tier. It's how it's done today.

/—-/ You can’t prove that but even if true across the board, it’s their money to do with as the choose. But you should take your tax savings and overpay the landscaper.

Better yet, put the money into a bonus for yourself and hire a bunch of illegals to work as landscapers (ala Trump)

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Welfare for those who can work but refuse to do so (what you really mean here) doesn't help labor markets at all.

i am not sure what you mean. employment is at the will of either party. any infringement to that individual liberty merely favors employers by suppressing wages.

Or in trumps case, if you don't like the low wages, don't complain. ICE will be along quickly.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

How did that answer the question?

"financial strategy"? junk bonds not junk laws under Capitalism!

 

[danielpalos]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Welfare for those who can work but refuse to do so (what you really mean here) doesn't help labor markets at all.

i am not sure what you mean. employment is at the will of either party. any infringement to that individual liberty merely favors employers by suppressing wages.

Or in trumps case, if you don't like the low wages, don't complain. ICE will be along quickly.

Government solves all problems for the right wing.

 

[hadit]

Until the money runs out. What then?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

How did that answer the question?

"financial strategy"? junk bonds not junk laws under Capitalism!

Nope, still not addressing it. Keep trying, maybe one of your canned responses will get close.

 

[hadit]

The middle and lower classes are definitely moving way down.

That is easy to show by the drastic drop in home ownership.

It is actually much worse than that, since the graph ends in 2015, and home ownership now is down as low as 40%.
To put that in perspective, most of the civilized world has more like 80 or 90% home ownership.
There is no greater practical measure of financial freedom than home ownership.
It not only is essential to retirement financing, but reduces crime, builds neighborhoods, etc.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and helps stabilize markets in a market friendly manner.

Welfare for those who can work but refuse to do so (what you really mean here) doesn't help labor markets at all.

i am not sure what you mean. employment is at the will of either party. any infringement to that individual liberty merely favors employers by suppressing wages.

Or in trumps case, if you don't like the low wages, don't complain. ICE will be along quickly.

Government solves all problems for the right wing.

Government tends to cause more problems than it solves.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The cost would be around three trillion. Since most of that would be going to the Poor, it means a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy on an institutional basis that helps provide an upward pressure on wages.

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

How did that answer the question?

"financial strategy"? junk bonds not junk laws under Capitalism!

Nope, still not addressing it. Keep trying, maybe one of your canned responses will get close.

open interest on options?

 

[hadit]

And that three trillion comes from where?

how fiscally responsible do you want to be? this is not, crisis management.

How did that answer the question?

"financial strategy"? junk bonds not junk laws under Capitalism!

Nope, still not addressing it. Keep trying, maybe one of your canned responses will get close.

open interest on options?

Not yet.

 

[Terri4Trump]

President Trump has defeated the Dems twice now

And will again.