What A Terrible Week For Liberals

[Annie]

This is not a "lib predection", it is a prediction from the Federal Reserve.

The relation to this thread: RSR said it has been a terrible week for liberals. I noted that the stock market's tumble makes it terrible for conservatives as well.



The economy works in funny ways. The market crumbles. 401 K's are dropping. Consumers start to sweat and stop spending, business feels the affects.

In this case we may have an election season in the midst of all this. Thus the nervous consumer is not going to vote on whoever does a better job of promising financial security. We will see who that is.

Well you can wish...

 

[1549]

Well you can wish...

I'd rather not...my brother is in law school and I am entering my sophomore year of college. That is not cheap on the family. If the economy gives, something at home is going to have to give as well.

 

[manu1959]

Oh, I agree. I think it nothing more than yet another ploy to con people into voting Dem-o-crap. It has amazed me the number of people in construction who don't know a damned thing about the business end of it. They hear a "superstition" from someone supposedly "in the know," and next thing you know, they're voting blind.

they vote the way the union tells them....then wonder why there are no projects to work on

 

[manu1959]

I'd rather not...my brother is in law school and I am entering my sophomore year of college. That is not cheap on the family. If the economy gives, something at home is going to have to give as well.

fair enough....tell me...how will raising personal and corporate taxes help what you parents do for a living?

 

[1549]

fair enough....tell me...how will raising personal and corporate taxes help what you parents do for a living?

I am not an expert in the field of economics and I am not going to pretend to be. With that said, I will give my reasoning:

Taxes are the best way to more evenly distribute wealth. A tax on those that have money allows more money to those that have middle class or sub-middle class lives (through social programs or government checks). This will increase their spending resulting in more money being fueled back into the economy.

The rich are going to spend regardless of taxes. No tax imposed by this country will take away their wealth. The middle class and lower will spend more if given more money. We have to be most sensitive to their well being.

 

[manu1959]

I am not an expert in the field of economics and I am not going to pretend to be. With that said, I will give my reasoning:

Taxes are the best way to more evenly distribute wealth. A tax on those that have money allows more money to those that have middle class or sub-middle class lives (through social programs or government checks). This will increase their spending resulting in more money being fueled back into the economy.

The rich are going to spend regardless of taxes. No tax imposed by this country will take away their wealth. The middle class and lower will spend more if given more money. We have to be most sensitive to their well being.

so how much of your parent's wealth that is currently going to your education do you want redistributed to the staff i lay off when taxes go up on my company and my clients.......have you thought about a grade tax so that your success can be more evenly distributed to the less fortunate D students so that they can do better? after all you do need to be sensitve to their well being.

 

[1549]

so how much of your parent's wealth that is currently going to your education do you want redistributed to the staff i lay off when taxes go up on my company and my clients.......have you thought about a grade tax so that your success can be more evenly distributed to the less fortunate D students so that they can do better? after all you do need to be sensitve to their well being.

There is a perception that all less fortunate members of society are lazy and are not deserving of financial help. This is false. Besides the more consumers in society the better businesses will fare.

 

[manu1959]

There is a perception that all less fortunate members of society are lazy and are not deserving of financial help. This is false. Besides the more consumers in society the better businesses will fare.

what does this response have to do with the questions i asked you?

 

[Annie]

I am not an expert in the field of economics and I am not going to pretend to be. With that said, I will give my reasoning:

Taxes are the best way to more evenly distribute wealth. A tax on those that have money allows more money to those that have middle class or sub-middle class lives (through social programs or government checks). This will increase their spending resulting in more money being fueled back into the economy.

The rich are going to spend regardless of taxes. No tax imposed by this country will take away their wealth. The middle class and lower will spend more if given more money. We have to be most sensitive to their well being.

:shocked: Why would we wish to 'more evenly distribute wealth'? Why do 'we have to be most sensitive to their well being?'

Hey, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of a state of nature, I just think the government is the wrong conduit for helping those that need it. They waste more $$$ than finally trickles down.

 

[1549]

what does this response have to do with the questions i asked you?

Your scenario about the 'D' students implies that you believe lower status citizens have not earned the right to recieve a little help. While you are right that 'D' students do not deserve extra help, success in society is based upon the environment you grow up in. The problem is not that lower rung citizens are lazy, it is that their standards of success are far lower based on generation after generation living at the bottom of society.

Why would we wish to 'more evenly distribute wealth'? Why do 'we have to be most sensitive to their well being?'

Hey, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of a state of nature, I just think the government is the wrong conduit for helping those that need it. They waste more $$$ than finally trickles down.

How is money given to those on the bottom wasted? They are not piling it up and burning it. The least trickle down probably comes from those at the top who spend money on goods that will not support society. Much of a rich persons wealth may go into savings or luxury items that are not going to have the largest impact on our economy. Where as a middle class citizen buying an American car will be a much greater help.

It is important that we look out for their well being, as they make up the largest portion of society. If we can create consumers out of the middle class and lower class and maximize their buying power, we will have a lot of money pouring into the economy.

If we let the individual savings of the wealthy grow exponentially we are not getting the most out of the money in this country. As I said, the wealthy will spend no matter what, we have to take portions of that wealth to create more spenders at the other end.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your scenario about the 'D' students implies that you believe lower status citizens have not earned the right to recieve a little help. While you are right that 'D' students do not deserve extra help, success in society is based upon the environment you grow up in. The problem is not that lower rung citizens are lazy, it is that their standards of success are far lower based on generation after generation living at the bottom of society.



How is money given to those on the bottom wasted? They are not piling it up and burning it. The least trickle down probably comes from those at the top who spend money on goods that will not support society. Much of a rich persons wealth may go into savings or luxury items that are not going to have the largest impact on our economy. Where as a middle class citizen buying an American car will be a much greater help.

It is important that we look out for their well being, as they make up the largest portion of society. If we can create consumers out of the middle class and lower class and maximize their buying power, we will have a lot of money pouring into the economy.

If we let the individual savings of the wealthy grow exponentially we are not getting the most out of the money in this country. As I said, the wealthy will spend no matter what, we have to take portions of that wealth to create more spenders at the other end.

You're so utterly braindead. Success has little to do with class and everything to do with culture.

 

[1549]

You're so utterly braindead. Success has little to do with class and everything to do with culture.

I stated that success is based on environment...not class. Environment--which would fall under a similar category as culture--is however created by class.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I stated that success is based on environment...not class. Environment--which would fall under a similar category as culture--is however created by class.

So you're saying success is ultimately based on class.

 

[1549]

So you're saying success is ultimately based on class.

No, not necessarily.

Environment creates levels of success. In our society, different classes have different environments, or as you prefer, cultures. Successes and failures are present in all classes, but the factors that quantify success and failure are different in various environments.

If you want to say that success is ultimately based on class, that would be false. A true statement would be: the definition of success is based on class, as class determines environment in our society.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A true statement would be: the definition of success is based on class,

Then which's classes definition of success are you using for your overall argument? The white man's?

We've seen your brain fall out on this thread. Quite enlightening.

 

[1549]

I am going to provide an example:

In a middle class environment, success would be moving up to an upper class living standard and failure would be moving down to a lower class living standard. A person who gives a half ass effort, will meet the requirements necessary to maintain a middle class living. They will get average school grades, take on a solid, but not spectacular, job and live a middle class life. They have done nothing outside of the ordinary expectations of their environment.

Lets move to a Public housing environment. Success would be moving up to something better, perhaps a lower middle class life, and failure would be homelessness or death. A person who gives the expected effort--nothing more, nothing less--will drop out of high school, hang in the hood and take a low income job and stay in the public housing system.

So neither person has been "lazy". Both have done exaclty what is expected of them. The difference is that the middle class person has half assed there way through an environment that has higher expectations.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am going to provide an example:

In a middle class environment, success would be moving up to an upper class living standard and failure would be moving down to a lower class living standard. A person who gives a half ass effort, will meet the requirements necessary to maintain a middle class living. They will get average school grades, take on a solid, but not spectacular, job and live a middle class life. They have done nothing outside of the ordinary expectations of their environment.

Lets move to a Public housing environment. Success would be moving up to something better, perhaps a lower middle class life, and failure would be homelessness or death. A person who gives the expected effort--nothing more, nothing less--will drop out of high school, hang in the hood and take a low income job and stay in the public housing system.

So neither person has been "lazy". Both have done exaclty what is expected of them. The difference is that the middle class person has half assed there way through an environment that has higher expectations.

SO if success is different for different classes, what's the problem? We're all successful in our own environementlaly defined way, and there's no need for redistribution.

 

[dilloduck]

I am going to provide an example:

In a middle class environment, success would be moving up to an upper class living standard and failure would be moving down to a lower class living standard. A person who gives a half ass effort, will meet the requirements necessary to maintain a middle class living. They will get average school grades, take on a solid, but not spectacular, job and live a middle class life. They have done nothing outside of the ordinary expectations of their environment.

Lets move to a Public housing environment. Success would be moving up to something better, perhaps a lower middle class life, and failure would be homelessness or death. A person who gives the expected effort--nothing more, nothing less--will drop out of high school, hang in the hood and take a low income job and stay in the public housing system.

So neither person has been "lazy". Both have done exaclty what is expected of them. The difference is that the middle class person has half assed there way through an environment that has higher expectations.

Horse hockey !

 

[1549]

SO if success is different for different classes, what's the problem? We're all successful in our own environementlaly defined way, and there's no need for redistribution.

The problem is that our society maintains a bottom class that faces rather sub-standard living conditions and is not contributing much to the economy. Taking away government aid will not solve the problem. Look at third world countries that have large lower classes. These people are not motivated by a lack of government aid, instead they suffer.

As I have stated from the beginning, taking some from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor will create more spenders in our economy. It will also create better living conditions for the poor which will hopefully raise expectations and enable more to be successful in moving out of low income ghettos.

 

[Annie]

The problem is that our society maintains a bottom class that faces rather sub-standard living conditions and is not contributing much to the economy. Taking away government aid will not solve the problem. Look at third world countries that have large lower classes. These people are not motivated by a lack of government aid, instead they suffer.

As I have stated from the beginning, taking some from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor will create more spenders in our economy. It will also create better living conditions for the poor which will hopefully raise expectations and enable more to be successful in moving out of low income ghettos.

You're just flat out wrong. The government at most gives 10 cents out of every dollar collected to help the poor, to the poor. The costs are part and parcel of a bureacracy, and the US government is the largest bureacracy in the world.

Putting that aside, more money to the poor will NOT change there low expectations, as you already have argued.