You cant be that naive and stupid, but then again maybe you are. Did you ever learn to read or is it that you were raised sucking the tits of the entitlement society and recited what your devine provider spewed or rather jammed down your throat.
Whores For Wall Street
- Thread starter Discombobulated
- Start date
You cant be that naive and stupid, but then again maybe you are. Did you ever learn to read or is it that you were raised sucking the tits of the entitlement society and recited what your devine provider spewed or rather jammed down your throat.
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #102
You didn't pose a question moron. I quoted YOU.
Discombobulated
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #103
Looks like the thieves and robbers on Wall Street can pay for the kind of government they want.
House narrowly approves spending bill legislation heads to Senate Fox News
House narrowly approves spending bill legislation heads to Senate Fox News
hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
I thought Wall Street had dismantled all financial regulation already, but it seems like they have one more law to repeal before they can bring on a global depression when their trading spins out of control.
Dad2three
Gold Member
Got it, as a con, typically have NOTHING to counter the FACTS presented. I'm shocked
Dad2three
Gold Member
lol, More right wing bullshit. Just ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history?
You do know that conservatives were behind the housing boom and bust, like the 1920's and 1890's with their 'free market' will watch out for us bullshit right?
Dad2three
Gold Member
You are nothing but a right winger void of ANY honesty. I'm shocked the post went over your head
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
An unregulated free market always favours the wealthy and the powerful. It's no accident that when the government went to war against unions, and dismantled anti-trust and banking regulations, the middle class went into decline.
In Canada, the banks requested de-regulation to remain competitive with US banks, and the government said "No". We had no housing bubble and no real estate bust. Our economy bounced back faster than yours, although manufacturing jobs were lost to Third World Countries in the auto section, and textile industries as well.
The biggest drain on the US economy is not your social programs, but rather your military.
In Canada, the banks requested de-regulation to remain competitive with US banks, and the government said "No". We had no housing bubble and no real estate bust. Our economy bounced back faster than yours, although manufacturing jobs were lost to Third World Countries in the auto section, and textile industries as well.
The biggest drain on the US economy is not your social programs, but rather your military.
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
Is that right? How much return on investment (ROI) do we get from our social programs? ROI from our military programs?How much of our growth does we get from our social programs? How much growth do we get from our military programs? You're aware, I'm sure, that we spend significantly more on our social programs than we do on our military.
Canada is probably the LAST place that should complain about our military expenditures, given that we provide the largest majority of your security, through NORAD (of which we pay approximately 7 times more than Canada). If you actually had to pay for your security, you probably wouldn't be so quick to condemn.
It's easy to live in an ivory tower ... as long somebody else is guarding the door.
I challenge you to re-examine that assumption. Who usually controls regulation? Who does it usually benefit?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
I would say you get a much bigger ROI on your social programs than your military. The costs of maintaining overseas bases are spent in the host countries, many of whom opening lobby for the bases to continue to remain open because of the economic benefits they provide. Soldiers and their families spend their income on housing and services in the local markets.
$$ expended on social programs have a broad impact, and all of the money is spent at home. Funds which make it into the hands of consumers are all spent - the poor have no savings. Those $$ have a direct impact on local economies - stores, businesses, local sales taxes. It would be better if the goods they purchased were American made, and purchased from local businesses instead of large chain stores which get their good from off-shore, but that ship has sailed.
The benefit of a well- educated and health work force are such that every first world nation provides health care and free education to its population. Except the US hedges its provision of a quality education to the children of the poor.
Your people are your strength, or rather they should be. They should be where you invest your money. Instead, the US is a country which values things ahead of people. Your lack of a decent minimum wage and universal health care speaks volumes.
As for Norad, your population is 10 times that of Canada. Norad guards your back door as well. And yet you pay only 7 times what Canada pays. You're getting off cheap.
We spend our money on our people, not on useless wars like Iraq and Viet Nam.
Last edited:
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #113
Rule number 5: He's a troll & you can **** off right along side him.
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
You, of course, conveniently forgot to consider the salaries, products, innovations, etc., created by the military acquisition programs. Funny like that, huh?
How much taxes is paid by people on welfare? How much taxes is paid by people working for government contractors? How much money is paid in corporate taxes? How much healthcare is provided by those companies? The list goes on ...
Where does the money come from that the poor spend? There is zero increase in ROI on welfare. That is money that was going to be spent anyway, by somebody. The difference is it generates very little downstream ROI.
Actually, you're wrong --- you don't provide 'backdoor' coverage. We do --- those are our airplanes, our satellites. The Canadian contribution is minimal. THAT is where the money comes from so you can so righteously claim you spend it on people.
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.
Pretty childish input - did you stay up all night thinking that up?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Money spent by the poor generates just as much ROI as does money spent by the rich, more in fact, because the poor spend every dollar they get. That, in turn provides jobs producing the goods and services they consume, and the staff of the businesses they patronize. The money doesn't go to the poor and just sit in their hands.
If the social programs help educate the poor, and help them to get employment, then they become productive members of society.
The focus of social programs should not be a return on the investment made, but rather as a part of the responsibility of a just society to care for its citizens.
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
yep. Wonder how many repub-voters knew they were voting for the banksters?
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
Let me count the ways ...
1) Are you familiar with an economic concept called the 'velocity of money'? It speaks to the frequency at which the average unit of currency is used to purchase newly domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period.
2) What the velocity of money shows is that money spent by the poor has a much lower velocity - in other words, a much slower turnover rate.
3) You have twice made the comment that the poor spend all their money - they don't 'save' - as if to indicate that the rich don't spend all their money. In fact, the rich spend theirs much quicker than the poor -- yes, all of it. There's nothing more useless than money not being used to make more money. They buy shares, they buy bonds, they invest in businesses, they buy insurance policies, they buy bigger yachts, bigger houses, whatever they do with it - and that money makes money, and that money gets spent again, and again, and again.
4) The concept that rich people somehow put their money in a saving account is nonsense - there is only one reason to put money in a savings account - to park it until you have enough to make some investment (hopefully within a matter of days). Honestly, savings accounts are sucker's bets - what's the interest rate on a saving account, a CD, or whatever?
5) You made a great point - "If the social programs help educate the poor ... ", but we know it isn't. That's why we package it as food stamps, rent assistance, WIC, or whatever.
6) Now is where I get controversial - lol. I believe that we have a political party that wants to keep the poor down. They don't want to incentivize them to get ahead, to work harder, to take a chance. So, they give them just enough to survive, but nothing to help them improve their condition. Obviously, I'm talking about the Democrats. Social programs have created a permanent underclass - just enough money to be quiet, but not enough to break out. The Democrats NEED this underclass - they rely on victimology. They HAVE to have a victim, so that they have a monster to blame. Without a victim, their whole platform falls apart. That's why they promote division by race, gender, and class.
If you want a just society - give the poor a job. Use all this welfare money to create conditions where they can get a job, take care of themselves, develop a sense of pride and self-worth.
Here's a suggestion --- use that welfare money to rebuild the infrastructure. Make it a rule that you can't be hired if you made more than the poverty level the past three years. All of a sudden, you have an economic renaissance in the poor neighborhoods. Now THAT is a way to help the poor --- make them not poor any more.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
I don't believe for a second that the Democratic Party conspires to keep people poor and dependent. That's a Republican myth. I think that it's conservative policies of giving the poor just enough to survive, but not enough to get back on their feet that does it. Conservatives would leave the poor to fend for themselves, and that doesn't work either. They want to look down on the poor, and create an underclass for the middle class to blame for their taxes. It's the "taker's who are bleeding the middle class dry. Pay no attention to he transfer of wealth to the 1%.
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,294
- 280
You think that? Who created most 'social' policies?
LOL --- let's see --- the rich want to keep people poor so that the middle class will have someone to look down upon? Have I got that right?
I won't bother to fight the 'transfer of wealth to the 1%" myth here ... it's been thoroughly discredited on numerous threads here. But, I will leave you with this ... if you took ALL the income of the 1%, you would have enough money to run the country for --- are you ready? ---- 83 days.
You better look at the explosive growth of government for all that money ---- they, of course, want to keep you distracted by telling you all about the big, bad 1% - but take a look where all the money is REALLY going.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The Globalist Powers that be May be Trying to Bring Trump Down
- Started by onefour1
- Replies: 5
