I disagree with you both slightly in that but for the extractive nature of our more capitalists citizens helped by a bought and paid for lawmakers we would not only be rolling in dough, but have a vibrant balanced consumer driven economy.
|
I disagree with you both slightly in that but for the extractive nature of our more capitalists citizens helped by a bought and paid for lawmakers we would not only be rolling in dough, but have a vibrant balanced consumer driven economy.
we have a vibrant consumer driven economy because of our capitalist system. The government just spends too much . Don't tell me that is not so. Our debt ration is over 105% of GDP. You can't tax your way out of that even if you seized the wealth of all the rich.
Yes your economy has picked up which is good to see, but what damage have you done
Adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy. That trickle down stuff never works and worse enrich the rich without targeted guide lines is robbery. Tax cuts never pay for themselves, and only create debt without flexibility and structure. None of that is present now, and just lays the foundation for austerity and bankruptcy.
The dufus is a bankruptcy expert, as was Bush to a lesser extent. Of course big biz will blame rising costs on labor, and what they cannot pass on viably, they just reduce and mitigate. Repubs did the country no good cutting biz taxes permanently, while not closing loopholes. It was poorly structured and left out the consumer and such plans always cost us all more than they are worth.
Not like we have not seen this play before. Or the results that are sure to come. Repubs KNEW their plan was insufficient, and never touted such an "accomplishment" during silly season. Don't worry Tom, dems always come in and clean up repub fiscal messes, so repubs can come back and screw it up again.
Past behavior and present conditions have been recorded in history.
You do realize that this is exactly what Mr. Obama did, to the tune of doubling the national debt? He never had anything more than modest growth.Quote:
Adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy.
And a falling unemployment figure, stable prices, and a very good job creation record. Modest growth wasn't a bad thing. Tell the whole story and not just part of it. How do you ignore Obama starting out with a complete fiscal disaster?
I'm not arguing about the details. I'm just saying that if "adding debt during a modest growth is not the way out as a downturn or slowdown would destroy the economy", then Mr. Obama was in error in adding so much debt.
He had little choice in the conditions he was in, but to manage a collapsing economy bleeding jobs at a rate rivaling the great depression, with GLOBAL implications. Even with the debt increasing under Obama the economy was GROWING. Also a good chunk of the Obama debt was making the Bush off the books trillion dollar war accountable in the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The devil is always in the details of which there are many to factor in for accuracy. I would also submit it's as complex a MANAGEMENT problem as our own personal debts. No different than borrowing when an emergency arises, but has to be dealt with after that emergency. You have to admit that Obama dealt effectively with his emergency, and left the dufus with a rather healthy growing economy.
That's a very positive endorsement of the last presidents efforts. The dufus OWNS the stewardship of the economy and is responsible for managing the debt NOW!
Just saying that, according to your standard, his method was "not the way out." I think that we tend to agree on the lack of wisdom of deficit spending. I just apply it to everyone. We have spent our way into an enormous hole and everyone is to blame.Quote:
That's a very positive endorsement of the last presidents efforts
You misunderstand my standard. A deficit funded tax cut benefiting greatly the rich and made permanently guarantees the debt will grow far beyond present levels. That's not what the dufus promised is it? No he said MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. That sets up the financial dynamic of any further tax cuts adding to the deficit further. Ideally any tax reduction would have some balancing mechanism such as spending reductions, but this has none and the budget has grown as well as the debt.
Even Reagan and his democratic congress raised taxes after cutting them to deal with the debt, and Clinton balanced the budget with military cuts with the repub congress. There is no such countering move with this present congress and administration. Not even a deficit funded tax cut for the middle class, or infrastructure bill.
Look at the stats. The top 10% of wage earners pay almost 70% of the income tax. Kind of hard to give a tax break to people who pay very little in taxes.
Attachment 49103
Just to update your data:
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-fe...tax-data-2017/
Yeah it would be hard to find the money to give middle wage earners a break, considering the rich guy tax cut already took most of the wealth through direct tax reduction, and continuing deductions which had already lowered the taxable income for wealthier citizens. Had they closed those loopholes, and put conditions on those cuts, instead of give, the wealthy could earn them maybe the debt would be mitigated, leaving a few bucks for mid America.
Hard yes but not impossible. That was what the dufus ran on as I remember. Did he lie? Of course he did!
You see, you have no idea of sheep farming over there, the idea is to shear the sheep, not listen to their bleetingQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Not sure what the purpose of the link was. It showed the top one percent earning about twenty percent of the income and paying about forty percent of the taxes.Quote:
Just to update your data:
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-fe...tax-data-2017/
Yeah it would be hard to find the money to give middle wage earners a break, considering the rich guy tax cut already took most of the wealth through direct tax reduction, and continuing deductions which had already lowered the taxable income for wealthier citizens.
As to your wealth transfer scheme, in what way does the top one percent paying forty percent of the taxes somehow become a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich?? Looks to me like it would be wealth transfer in the other direction. And if the taxable income of the wealthy has been lowered, then how is it that the wealthy ended up paying forty percent of the taxes? Your comment just makes no sense.
Of course it would make no sense to us average people who cannot imagine the many ways that huge sums of money can be socked away. In a lot of cases though this leads to a very restrictive condition of money not being able to circulate throughout the economy. Even your own chart shows this. Perhaps we get a better understanding if we add more DATA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...izane.webm.jpg
Please watch this video tucked over in the right under wealth and income.
Right off the bat, the man on the video does what I hate. He injects an opinion and treats it as fact. He states that the wealth gap is "unfairly skewed" and "shockingly skewed". It is, he says, "mind blowing". Says who? It is skewed, yes, but on what planet is it unfair that a person, for instance, who goes through five years of rigorous and difficult schooling to become an architect and ends up with a net worth of millions of dollars has a much higher net worth than a person who chose to drop out of school and have four children out of wedlock? They both made choices, and they both live with their choices. Should the feds take money from the person who was been responsible and give it to the person who made much lower quality choices? My view is absolutely not.
So it should be a certain way because, after all, many people think it is that way? That kind of thinking belongs in a first grade classroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What about the four children in your example? Can the feds help them?
That to me is not the question. The question should be, can you help them? If you want to talk to me about the two of us being helpful, then you can make progress, but my experience with most liberals is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless you are talking about taking money from B to help C so that A (the liberal) can feel good about him/her self.
When it comes to assisting children, the problem is to avoid the establishment of a reward system for women to have children out of wedlock. I would agree we need to help, but it is the how to do it part we need to look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That may not be the question you wanted, but that is the question asked which you have declined to answer. You have a habit of doing that.
My experience with most conservatives is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless they can make money from them.Quote:
...my experience with most liberals is that they don't give a horse's rear-end about the poor unless you are talking about taking money from B to help C so that A (the liberal) can feel good about him/her self.
Ah, agreement. Well, that's a start.Quote:
When it comes to assisting children, the problem is to avoid the establishment of a reward system for women to have children out of wedlock. I would agree we need to help, but it is the how to do it part we need to look at.
Ahh, but I did answer it, and I'm glad we have a start!Quote:
That may not be the question you wanted, but that is the question asked which you have declined to answer. You have a habit of doing that.
I answered this in another question but it's apt here. If Jesus said give Caesar his due then why complain when the government takes YOUR money to help he poor old and children? It's not your picture on the money is it?
Well, it is one way of looking at it, and we should take this view that God appoints governments and what they do with our money is lawfull particularly if it alleviates poverty in all its forms however only godly people will comply and the rest remain rebellousQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Well I don't know how godly our government is right now, and only the wealthy are exempt from poverty but I would settle for honesty though.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...6ar8J4NNtA--~C
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/167/16778/1677886.gif
That is a great question! I could phrase it a bit differently. When politicians take your money and my money and give it to the non-workers, the lazy, and the irresponsible for the twin purposes of buying their votes and satisfying those who love to brag that they love the poor so much they are willing to help them with money extracted in taxes from others, then should we be against that?Quote:
I answered this in another question but it's apt here. If Jesus said give Caesar his due then why complain when the government takes YOUR money to help he poor old and children? It's not your picture on the money is it?
You would have to embrace that every body who gets help is lazy, and that I don't buy, and all elected officials are out to get votes, which is plausible, but who expects to get votes from those that offer NOTHING but a mouth full of gimme and not so much as a much obliged? I thing that's just basic human nature, as surely as denigrating and lumping the poor and needy into one category that they might not fit, or be fair. That would be prejudging... prejudiced... against a particular group wouldn't you say? Wouldn't that preclude as your savior says to NOT judge? It seems that taking the time to get the facts of a humans condition is exactly what the system is about, and not just an automatic thing you suggest.
I get the suspicions though, but verifying is part of the process in my view before badmouthing occurs. Some may deserve it, but some may not, and those should be spared humiliation based on feelings and not facts.
WE vote for these officials.
I would agree with your conclusion if I had said that, but in fact I have not. What I HAVE said is, to me, unarguable, which is that many people on welfare should not get a dime because they could be working, especially in this dynamite economy we have now. They could work two jobs if need be and support themselves.Quote:
as surely as denigrating and lumping the poor and needy into one category that they might not fit,
We can make a case for those who are genuinely physically or mentally disabled to be on public assistance of some sort, and for children as well, but that should be it, and even those who are adults should have jobs that they are capable of doing. There is great dignity in work.
Yes, a lot of poor people vote democrat because they are viewed as the party of giveaways. Reference the Obama cell phone give away program.
Who's taking care of the disabled adults and children, and children in general?Quote:
We can make a case for those who are genuinely physically or mentally disabled to be on public assistance of some sort, and for children as well
Hopefully their parents are, but with the insanity of single parent homes which has now become so dominant, it is a problem. The feds have quite a number of programs for children, all the way from food stamps to AFDC to free schooling to medicaid.
Then who's working at all those great jobs?Quote:
Hopefully their parents are
Those who believe in taking care of their own needs and not expecting someone else to do it. BTW, I have made no reference to "great" jobs. I have worked many jobs in my life that were not "great", but they served to meet my needs so I would not be dependent on others. In that sense only were they great.
Here's your mention of great jobs ("dynamite economy").Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where were your small children?Quote:
I have worked many jobs in my life that were not "great", but they served to meet my needs so I would not be dependent on others. In that sense only were they great.
Small children?? We raised three.
Now that's really funny. You say, "Here's your mention of great jobs," and then can't find any mention of great jobs. Yes, we have a dynamite economy with under 4% unemployment, so people who want to work can find a job. I said nothing about every job is a great job, so for you to suggest I did seems to border on being deceitful, does it not?Quote:
Here's your mention of great jobs ("dynamite economy").
You're avoiding my question. Where were they while you and your wife worked?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Stop nattering! Any job is a great job. I shelved library materials for $3 an hour. That was a great job that led to a career.Quote:
Now that's really funny. You say, "Here's your mention of great jobs," and then can't find any mention of great jobs. Yes, we have a dynamite economy with under 4% unemployment, so people who want to work can find a job. I said nothing about every job is a great job, so for you to suggest I did seems to border on being deceitful, does it not?
I did not avoid your question. I misunderstood what you were asking. When they were young, my wife worked part time and WE paid someone to watch them while she worked. They later enrolled in school, spent some time in daycare which WE paid for, or participated in sports that WE paid for. So what's your point? If it's that schools are government agencies, I have already pointed that out myself. What else??Quote:
You're avoiding my question. Where were they while you and your wife worked?
I would agree with that about jobs. Nattering??? Me??? Who would ever think such a thing!Quote:
Stop nattering! Any job is a great job. I shelved library materials for $3 an hour. That was a great job that led to a career.
So it would be best if every couple, even very poor ones, with small children or disabled children (who may be disabled adults) follow this plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No question mark, so I assume that is a statement with which I would certainly agree.Quote:
So it would be best if every couple with small children or disabled children (who may be disabled adults) follow this plan.
Great plan on paper, but reality is many one earner households are females with kids who don't have the option of PAYING for childcare, so what plan do you have for them, and their kids, since we cannot go back and undo what has been done?
Many women are getting pregnant out of wedlock and having kids with the expectation of federal support. You might could talk me into continuing to provide help if we had a "sunset clause" in the legislation to the effect that, for instance, after the end of 2019, that support would not be available for woman having babies out of wedlock born after that date. We are subsidizing this nonsense and it needs to stop. When the subsidy stops, the poor decision making will begin to decline.Quote:
Great plan on paper, but reality is many one earner households are females with kids who don't have the option of PAYING for childcare, so what plan do you have for them, and their kids, since we cannot go back and undo what has been done?
The idea of women saying, "If you want to sleep with me, you will have to marry me because I am not going to assume the risks of pregnancy and the task of raising children by myself," is a pretty good idea. Women should not be viewed as sexual conquests, and they should not allow themselves to be treated that way.
Then change the media (messages in songs, in tv shows, in movies, in popular fiction, in print media) and make sure parents are teaching their children that providing sex is not how girls get guys to love them, that having babies is not how to lock in a boyfriend and make him yours forever, and, in general, about the facts of life, birth control, and the responsibilities of parenthood.Quote:
We are subsidizing this nonsense and it needs to stop
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:49 AM. |