What Obama Isn't Telling You About The Debt

[Rshermr]

I said nothing about welfare. I do believe in increasing demand.
By the way, do you have a solution to unemployment?

eliminating the minimum wage would regenerate the millions of jobs, that have been prohibited by the same.

Meanwhile, what Public Investment program do you think warrants "We the People's" money (taxes) and time (labor) ? you have not answered my questions. Please stop referring to "con dogma". you may be feeding me dogma, but i do not, nor have i ever, subscribed to anybody else's dogma.

eliminating the minimum wage would regenerate millions of jobs; Public Investment spending, on productive projects, could well be profitable (worthwhile)

Perhaps you would like to provide some actual proof of your statements. Lacking that, I simply see dogma. And if you can answer when you have seen tax decreases and decreased spending help a bad economy, I would be glad to suggest infrastructure programs that make sense. But you will not believe it, would rather see the rich get richer. That is typical con dogma. Any data saying that will help our economy, or are you just saying what you are told???
Here is a link to an article re infrastructure needs. And it takes a couple minutes to see our infrastructure needs and the relationship of the US on infrastructure in comparison with that of our economic competitors. Assuming that you care, which I highly doubt.

CHARTS: The Alarming Collapse Of US Infrastructure Spending - Business Insider

 

[Rshermr]

I said nothing about welfare. I do believe in increasing demand.
By the way, do you have a solution to unemployment?

eliminating the minimum wage would regenerate the millions of jobs, that have been prohibited by the same.

Meanwhile, what Public Investment program do you think warrants "We the People's" money (taxes) and time (labor) ? you have not answered my questions. Please stop referring to "con dogma". you may be feeding me dogma, but i do not, nor have i ever, subscribed to anybody else's dogma.

eliminating the minimum wage would regenerate millions of jobs; Public Investment spending, on productive projects, could well be profitable (worthwhile)

Relative to the minimum wage, perhaps you could show me a nation where eliminating the minimum wage has helped.
Try checking out Germany, one of the strongest economies, and check out if their having high wage protection has hurt them.

 

[sjay]

Infrastructure. Others.

No

So, what IS your solution to unemployment, or do you just want to continue to post con dogma?[/QUOTE]

Infrastructure again talk about dogma,what happened to all those shovel ready jobs that the first stimulus was supposed to provide,nada zilch.Infrastructure indeed.

 

[Rshermr]

Infrastructure. Others.

No

So, what IS your solution to unemployment, or do you just want to continue to post con dogma?

Infrastructure again talk about dogma,what happened to all those shovel ready jobs that the first stimulus was supposed to provide,nada zilch.Infrastructure indeed.[/QUOTE]


Well, Sjay, you are indeed spouting the same con dogma as fox, and all the right wing talkers. But, it depends on whether you are a con, who listens to fox and a variety of other con talk shows, or if you actually look at the data as it has been studied. The stimulus, which every repub voted against, and which was negotiated to the point that it was 1/3 tax decreases, did some good.
If you are a con, you have heard it created no jobs.
If you are a normal reasoning human, you might listen to the CBO, a synopsis of which from USA Today, in 2011, said the following:
"In its latest quarterly report, the agency said the law's combination of aid to states and localities, public works projects, tax cuts and other spending increased the number of people with jobs by 1 million to 2.9 million from April to June.

It said the law lowered the unemployment rate for that quarter by 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points -- meaning the rate could have been above 10% without the law's stimulative provisions. It said the law boosted economic growth in that quarter by 0.8% to 2.5%."
And that was just in 2011.

In a report by CBO director Douglas Elmandorf said, on June 6 of this year, said:

"His agency released its latest assessment of the stimulus just last week. And as the table below shows, at its peak in 2010 the ARRA added up to 3.3 million jobs, cut unemployment by as much as 1.8 percent and boosted GDP by up to 4.1 percent. (It's also worth noting that the CBO once again confirmed that aid to the states and purchases by the federal government delivers the biggest bang for the buck, while upper income tax cuts provide the least.)"
So, where is your proof of anything like what you and others are saying? Have you anything like as impartial and well respected source as the CBO??

So, what should be done. Same thing as Reagan did. Tax and spend when unemployment is bad. Worked for him, as it has for other presidents?

Anything else I can educate you about???

 

[Nova78]

Perhaps it's karma for the illegal war.

The illegals are a major source of flushing money down the toilet, they are non assimilating invaders,,,,,and have no intention of being an American...

 

[Widdekind]

Perhaps you would like to provide some actual proof of your statements.

every time the US federal minimum wage has been increased, thousands to millions of Americans have been fired by their employers, who cannot afford to profitably pay people, more than their work is worth. Minimum wages criminalize, outlaw, and ban, jobs "people had been doing the day before". What would you say, if US federal minimum prices were imposed, on cars (say) -- "no US cars can be sold for less than a million dollars". Would you "do your patriotic duty", and buy a car anyway? Or would you "fire" the car dealer (from your spending), and refuse to pay them the government-mandated exorbitant price?

How can you do this? There are more "schizophrenics" in America, than there are those working minimum wage jobs. Neither you nor i work minimum wage, yes? So, what makes the low-pay jobs, of 1% of Americans, such a big issue, on everybody else's minds? Letting unemployed people work, for something, is not worse for them, nor worse for anybody else either -- "a few people, way over there, just got jobs for $3 per hour... woe is all of us, way over here" ? Can you please explain to me, what is going on, inside people's heads?

Criminalizing & prohibiting low-pay jobs cuts poor people off, from gainful employment, in "their" society, entirely. The "untouchables" then have to look elsewhere for work... i'm not certain, what makes that so psychologically desirable, to the rest of society, "far far away" from the low-income areas affected, by "Job Prohibition", concentrated therein.

you ... would rather see the rich get richer

Americans are the richest population of people in human history. If i said, "let the rich get richer", would Americans hate me? (And why?)

CHARTS: The Alarming Collapse Of US Infrastructure Spending - Business Insider

thank you for citing that article. Rapid re-modernization of US infrastructure would improve the productive capacity of the US. Where are the infrastructure improvement "stimulus" jobs?

 

[Rshermr]

Perhaps you would like to provide some actual proof of your statements.

every time the US federal minimum wage has been increased, thousands to millions of Americans have been fired by their employers, who cannot afford to profitably pay people, more than their work is worth. Minimum wages criminalize, outlaw, and ban, jobs "people had been doing the day before". Really. Thousands and millions, eh. Quite a discrepancy. But again, you say it but offer no proof. On the other hand, a very large number of people are actually able to live on their wage. Maybe one less job per household for those who must try to make it on minimum wage. What would you say, if US federal minimum prices were imposed, on cars (say) -- "no US cars can be sold for less than a million dollars". Would you "do your patriotic duty", and buy a car anyway? Or would you "fire" the car dealer (from your spending), and refuse to pay them the government-mandated exorbitant price?irrelivent example. minimum wage generally does not increase by 10000% Or are you kidding?

How can you do this? There are more "schizophrenics" in America, than there are those working minimum wage jobs. Neither you nor i work minimum wage, yes? So, what makes the low-pay jobs, of 1% of Americans, such a big issue, on everybody else's minds? Letting unemployed people work, for something, is not worse for them, nor worse for anybody else either -- "a few people, way over there, just got jobs for $3 per hour... woe is all of us, way over here" ? Can you please explain to me, what is going on, inside people's heads?Are you talking about your head? If so, no. In rational peoples minds we look at data, this country and others and read the available research to see what would likely happen. Then we realize that you are completely wrong. Which is why you can not prove your claims. In a bad economy, especially, raising minimum wage is a very good idea. Lowering minimum wage has no non partisan economic support that I am aware of.

Criminalizing & prohibiting low-pay jobs cuts poor people off, from gainful employment, in "their" society, entirely. The "untouchables" then have to look elsewhere for work... i'm not certain, what makes that so psychologically desirable, to the rest of society, "far far away" from the low-income areas affected, by "Job Prohibition", concentrated therein.Again, pure nonsense. Out of your mind, and the dogma from the far right. Because corporations would prefer, always, to lower wages. And they pay the right wing politicians and talkers to tell you what a great deal lowering wages always is.

you ... would rather see the rich get richer

Americans are the richest population of people in human history. If i said, "let the rich get richer", would Americans hate me? (And why?)Irrelivent question. Why are you asking such a stupid question? Do you think anyone cares enough about you to hate you?

CHARTS: The Alarming Collapse Of US Infrastructure Spending - Business Insider

thank you for citing that article. Rapid re-modernization of US infrastructure would improve the productive capacity of the US. Where are the infrastructure improvement "stimulus" jobs?

They are running out at this point, but quite a few still exist. There are not more because the republicans will not allow stimulus for infrastructure to happen. You would know this if yoiu were paying any attention at all to political happenings in the US. Repubs in congress have stopped any stimulus spending for infrastructure. No bills have been passed on to the senate as a result. If they got there, repubs would filibuster them.
I know you must know this, or are you really that ignorant?
So, Widdekind. You seem to have no suggestions about how to make unemployment lower. Just lower minimum wage. If we follow your suggestions so far, we would have a middle class equal to that of china in income. That is to say, destitute. Why do you not see that as a problem??

 

[Rshermr]

Perhaps you would like to provide some actual proof of your statements.

every time the US federal minimum wage has been increased, thousands to millions of Americans have been fired by their employers, who cannot afford to profitably pay people, more than their work is worth. Minimum wages criminalize, outlaw, and ban, jobs "people had been doing the day before". What would you say, if US federal minimum prices were imposed, on cars (say) -- "no US cars can be sold for less than a million dollars". Would you "do your patriotic duty", and buy a car anyway? Or would you "fire" the car dealer (from your spending), and refuse to pay them the government-mandated exorbitant price?

How can you do this? There are more "schizophrenics" in America, than there are those working minimum wage jobs. Neither you nor i work minimum wage, yes? So, what makes the low-pay jobs, of 1% of Americans, such a big issue, on everybody else's minds? Letting unemployed people work, for something, is not worse for them, nor worse for anybody else either -- "a few people, way over there, just got jobs for $3 per hour... woe is all of us, way over here" ? Can you please explain to me, what is going on, inside people's heads?

Criminalizing & prohibiting low-pay jobs cuts poor people off, from gainful employment, in "their" society, entirely. The "untouchables" then have to look elsewhere for work... i'm not certain, what makes that so psychologically desirable, to the rest of society, "far far away" from the low-income areas affected, by "Job Prohibition", concentrated therein.

you ... would rather see the rich get richer

Americans are the richest population of people in human history. If i said, "let the rich get richer", would Americans hate me? (And why?)

CHARTS: The Alarming Collapse Of US Infrastructure Spending - Business Insider

thank you for citing that article. Rapid re-modernization of US infrastructure would improve the productive capacity of the US. Where are the infrastructure improvement "stimulus" jobs?

Yup

 

[Widdekind]

"aid to the states and purchases by the federal government delivers the biggest bang for the buck, while upper income tax cuts provide the least."

From the original article:

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf​

"bang for the buck" means "consumer spending per Federal dollar spent (or rebated)". Simplistically, UE compensation promotes consumer spending, because those who receive that welfare quickly spend nearly all of the money. Conversely, the 2008 tax rebates went to people who already had incomes. They eventually spent some of the money. And tax cuts to the rich hardly increase consumer spending at all -- rich people already had enough money, for all of the shoes, clothes, TVs, and cars that they wanted, anyway; giving them a few more dollars back doesn't increase their consumer spending much.

But, consumer spending is only a part of the whole picture. Tax cuts & refunds can be spent in other ways, e.g. on houses (residential investment spending); or lent to businesses, who then buy machines & factories (non-residential investment spending); or lent back to government, who then funds more government programs (government spending). In the equation for GDP:

GDP = C + I + G​

consumer spending (C) is only one part of the picture. No, cutting taxes may not make rich people buy more groceries or refrigerators (C). But they may buy houses (I), lend to businesses for capital equipment (I), or lend back to government (G). Narrowing attention to consumer spending excludes a third of the economy. Such narrow-minded statistics have only limited value.

 

[Rshermr]

"aid to the states and purchases by the federal government delivers the biggest bang for the buck, while upper income tax cuts provide the least."

From the original article:

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf​

"bang for the buck" means "consumer spending per Federal dollar spent (or rebated)". Simplistically, UE compensation promotes consumer spending, because those who receive that welfare quickly spend nearly all of the money. Conversely, the 2008 tax rebates went to people who already had incomes. They eventually spent some of the money. And tax cuts to the rich hardly increase consumer spending at all -- rich people already had enough money, for all of the shoes, clothes, TVs, and cars that they wanted, anyway; giving them a few more dollars back doesn't increase their consumer spending much.

But, consumer spending is only a part of the whole picture. Tax cuts & refunds can be spent in other ways, e.g. on houses (residential investment spending); or lent to businesses, who then buy machines & factories (non-residential investment spending); or lent back to government, who then funds more government programs (government spending). In the equation for GDP:

GDP = C + I + G​

consumer spending (C) is only one part of the picture. No, cutting taxes may not make rich people buy more groceries or refrigerators (C). But they may buy houses (I), lend to businesses for capital equipment (I), or lend back to government (G). Narrowing attention to consumer spending excludes a third of the economy. Such narrow-minded statistics have only limited value.

Well, widdekind. Trying a little economic analysis are you. You just answered exactly no questions. I say lowering taxes has never helped a bad unemployment economy in the us. But you say it will. But you can not show where it has ever helped. But I can show when raising taxes and spending has helped. No bush league economic analysis. Just the facts. Have you got any evidence that lowering taxes has ever helped unemployment numbers when they were high??
Of course not. You have nothing except your very own unproven and un-provable theory. Because you will not believe facts.

 

[Widdekind]

Taxing the savings of rich people, to give welfare to poor people, reduces overall personal savings; and increases overall personal consumer spending. Meanwhile, savings-derived kinds of spending must decrease. More "small stuff" is bought, today (haircuts, guitar lessons, shoes, clothes); less "big stuff" is financed, for tomorrow (houses, businesses).

Richer Americans, having speculated on stock during the dot.com bubble of the mid 1990s; and having speculated on real-estate during the housing bubble of the mid 2000s; may not have a perfect track record for wisely spending their money. Poorer Americans, having maxed out numerous credit cards for TVs & stereos, cannot legitimately impugn their countrymen-and-women.

i want to simplify & summarize. The key to economic growth & prosperity, for the US, is "give me their money" ? Effectively hacking into the US banking system, and moving money from some bank accounts, to other bank accounts, will help the US economy ?