The Economy: What Would You Do?

[k5083]

Oh wow, I turn my attention from this thread for a day and the squirrels really come out.

On the top 20% of the income distribution paying 80% of taxes: that is true. It is also true, however, that the top 20% of the income distribution earns 50% of the income. It has rather more than 50% of the disposable income and of the wealth. So, even if we had a totally non-redistributive tax system, they would be paying at least 50% of the income taxes; only one-third of their tax bill, at most, is redistributive. From Adam Smith on down, every serious economist for the past couple of centuries has realized that we need a progressive tax system, so the only real question is how much more than 50% of the income tax the top 20% should have to pay. Thus the real story here is not tax inequality, it is income inequality -- the cause of many of the US's economic woes. We wouldn't need such a progressive tax system if the fraud of trickle-down economics hadn't left incomes so unequal.

Of course, you guys crying that the minimum wage is too low -- that even the poorest workers in the economy are too rich -- is just absurd. For the past 8 years we have enjoyed decent prosperity while middle and lower class wages declined. How is that possible? Simple: the increase in GDP is absorbed by the upper classes. Surprise -- it doesn't trickle down. If you are willing to tolerate income inequality that no other developed economy would, don't be surprised at (1) having to fund most of the government and (2) having the wheels fall off the economy when the workers just can't afford roofs over their heads any more.

No matter what, it's a mistake to raise taxes on anybody, and Bush's tax cuts were a step in the right direction. Now with B.O. were taking a step backwards by raising the taxes more.

Here's what taxes pay for: BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

Utterly wrong. More taxes do not make government grow; public demand for government services does. Reagan and the Bushes proved that government gets bigger whether you raise taxes or not. The only difference is that if you raise taxes, you pay for government, and if you don't, you go into debt -- which severely hamstrings your ability to do things like finance ridiculous wars, fund stimulus packages, and other useful stuff. Like I said before, your choice is between tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend. Tax-and-spend (i.e., Clinton) is by far the more responsible course.

I hear several of you crying for smaller government. Get over it, it isn't going to happen. The people demand more from their government, and the Republicans have taught them that they can have it without paying for it. Like Bill says, you small-government boosters actually want big government too. When someone suggests to cut the most obviously bloated area of the government -- the military -- by, say, 25% or 50%, you all scream because that's your favorite part. And every other part is someone's favorite as well.

On Fannie, Freddie, and the mortgage crisis: The way you guys reach around the obvious causes -- a climate of permissiveness in lending supported by both parties, but encouraged by the total absence of regulatory oversight over the past 8 years -- to try to pluck causes from the Clinton years is really kind of comical.

My personal biggest fear is that we are now to a point, where Marxist-run state education (this is indisputable) has raised a dumbed-down generation (or two or three now) that cannot see Marxism right in front of them, and indeed find it attractive and reasonable.

Ryan, your statement goes beyond disputable; it is laughable. I think you have no idea what Marxism is. Adam Smith, for example, supported and is even credited with originating some of the ideas you consider Marxist.

August

[262crew]

No 262 crew:

I stick with my convictions. B.O. said what he said and you can't get a Leopard to change it's stripes. I'm not buying it.

What you're saying sounds like Chamberlain said in Britain before the start of the 2nd World War. When he said give Hitler a chance, he said he wants to be peaceful, so let's believe him. He doesn't want to invade any countries, etc. In spite of the fact that these were said.

B.O. has said what he's said, and I take both his associations with Rev Wright, and William Ayers, as well as his choice of Rahm Emmanuel as very serious and troubling indicators. I also take what he has said about our troops, and spreading the wealth with great alarm.

Ok cool I can dig it! But BHO has not been known to want or cause genocide. What about Alfred E. Newmans family association with the real Ossama?

[bdk]

Anyway, wherever Exxon made their $ 14. 6 billion, they can afford some tax.

There you go again Bill, just because you can afford it doesn't mean it is "fair" to take it. If you earned it, you should keep it! Am I getting a good return on my investment from the government? I think not!

People like you and Oprah, Bill, won't really suffer from increased taxes because you have so much more money than you could ever use. Little guys like me really get hit hard when a significant portion of our income is confiscated only to be wasted on hare brained schemes. I'll bet even you think that much of our tax money has been squandered, no?

[A2C]

Utterly wrong. More taxes do not make government grow; public demand for government services does. Reagan and the Bushes proved that government gets bigger whether you raise taxes or not. The only difference is that if you raise taxes, you pay for government, and if you don't, you go into debt -- which severely hamstrings your ability to do things like finance ridiculous wars, fund stimulus packages, and other useful stuff. Like I said before, your choice is between tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend. Tax-and-spend (i.e., Clinton) is by far the more responsible course.

No. The gov't grows on it's own, like a cancer, and it's your mission to stop it by not paying it with borrowed money or real money.

[262crew]

Utterly wrong. More taxes do not make government grow; public demand for government services does. Reagan and the Bushes proved that government gets bigger whether you raise taxes or not. The only difference is that if you raise taxes, you pay for government, and if you don't, you go into debt -- which severely hamstrings your ability to do things like finance ridiculous wars, fund stimulus packages, and other useful stuff. Like I said before, your choice is between tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend. Tax-and-spend (i.e., Clinton) is by far the more responsible course.

No. The gov't grows on it's own, like a cancer, and it's your mission to stop it by not paying it with borrowed money or real money.

How much do we owe China, Canada, and Mexico? Mexico? I believe the figure is somewhere around........well my great grand kids might have it payed off?

[bdk]

One day, I could've gone out and hired someone to work at our ranch for a little over half a year right there on the spot - and paid them minimum wage all the way through. A few days later, after the new minimum wage was enacted, I could've only afforded to hire that same person for about 3-4 months.

Minimum wage laws disproportionally affect entry level and unskilled workers, mostly students and minorities. A good worker will prove their value and get pay increases from there. If they can't even get an entry level job due to the minimum wage, they'll never be able to get the work experience they need to move up the ladder. There are few economists that believe that minimum wage laws don't decrease employment wherever they are enacted. The idea of minimum wage laws ensuring a "living wage" is just plain bogus. There are lots of folks working under the table to get around these laws.

[A2C]

262crew wrote;

How much do we owe China, Canada, and Mexico? Mexico? I believe the figure is somewhere around........well my great grand kids might have it payed off?

So that we don't convolute this thread; I started another thread called Economics other concerns or something like that. Do you want to discuss this there?

[262crew]

262crew wrote;

How much do we owe China, Canada, and Mexico? Mexico? I believe the figure is somewhere around........well my great grand kids might have it payed off?

So that we don't convolute this thread; I started another thread called Economics other concerns or something like that. Do you want to discuss this there?

Let's do it!

[RyanShort1]

Ryan, your statement goes beyond disputable; it is laughable. I think you have no idea what Marxism is. Adam Smith, for example, supported and is even credited with originating some of the ideas you consider Marxist.

August

Sorry August, I think I'm much more familiar with Marxism and it's effects than you think and probably more than 90% of Americans today. I believe in the adage of "knowing your enemy" and have been reading about Marxist ideas and agendas for the last 23 years on and off. Have some good friends who have studied the system and agendas in depth (used to be members) and am not brainwashed by the public education system (have been privately taught all of my life).
Your right that public demand helps governments grow - as does ideological agendas currently favored by both major political parties - but this is in turn fueled in part by the government teaching dependency through the schools and welfare programs. People no longer depend on God, themselves, and their neighbors, they have turned to statism.
Your tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend is a false either or - not allowing for the possibility of returning to responsible government that refuses to go into debt and pays off the debts previous administrations have incurred. Of course we're never going to get smaller government as long as no one will stand up and say that the Emperor has no clothes.
BTW those who want to say that capitalism has failed in the last few administrations fail to recognize that in truth, there was still heavy government involvement during this time period - just not as much as before.

Ryan - who's signing off for the weekend

[muddyboots]

I NEVER said that " the very very few of us who inherited large amounts of property and can therefore not work at all (Lucky me)

I charge fair rent on my land. Almost all of what I make goes back into putting the kids of my tenants through college.

Could this attitude be attributed to that the fact that you really didn't earn the land that you were given therefore you feel guilty inside for having so much which in turn is why your putting your tenants kids thru college? Why have them pay rent at all and why bother with military disability???

I bought about half teh land I own while I was on active duty. Most of it was property my family sold over the years, to people who proceeded to screw it up. When I started buying it back it had basically been abandoned and had a beaver darn at one end turning it into a swamp. My neighbors helped me clear it and move some small woodframes that had been abandoned on to it, and they then helped me take care of my property all those years I was gone. Also while I was gone member of my family took in the rent and never put a dime into imporoving it. My friends who were renting the land DID work on it, and kept it up--out of their own pockets. And when I needed a family, they were it. So now I make sure their kids can have more than we had a chance to have.

Unfortunately there aren't many people out tehre with my experiences. We've forgotten what community is, and we certainly don't give a sugar about our neighbors.
And BW, I earned every damned penny of my disability. I'll do wit it as I please.

[262crew]

Ryan, your statement goes beyond disputable; it is laughable. I think you have no idea what Marxism is. Adam Smith, for example, supported and is even credited with originating some of the ideas you consider Marxist.

August

Sorry August, I think I'm much more familiar with Marxism and it's effects than you think and probably more than 90% of Americans today. I believe in the adage of "knowing your enemy" and have been reading about Marxist ideas and agendas for the last 23 years on and off. Have some good friends who have studied the system and agendas in depth (used to be members) and am not brainwashed by the public education system (have been privately taught all of my life).
Your right that public demand helps governments grow - as does ideological agendas currently favored by both major political parties - but this is in turn fueled in part by the government teaching dependency through the schools and welfare programs. People no longer depend on God, themselves, and their neighbors, they have turned to statism.
Your tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend is a false either or - not allowing for the possibility of returning to responsible government that refuses to go into debt and pays off the debts previous administrations have incurred. Of course we're never going to get smaller government as long as no one will stand up and say that the Emperor has no clothes.
BTW those who want to say that capitalism has failed in the last few administrations fail to recognize that in truth, there was still heavy government involvement during this time period - just not as much as before.

Ryan - who's signing off for the weekend

Pay as you go or go as you pay? I wish I could just barrow money and things (Marxism?) as I see fit, but I prefer to to be fiscally responsible and pay as I go! Not take and take, couldnt live with myself!

[A2C]

Well said Ryan:

There is a progressive brainwashing going on in the school system, and it teaches all sorts of strange ideas. The most recent one I've heard is the fact that the schools try to ban competition in sports, and in class.

Specifically, school officials try to put the smart kids down, and lift the slow ones up. In other words competition is discouraged. On the playing field I've heard of some schools banning football, and soccor, because it's unfair to have the strong kids waxing the others.

I think this is a bad lesson to teach, because real life is about winning and losing. When we lose it teaches us how bad that feels, and that we want to win in the future. Apparently schools are trying to leave this out.

[muddyboots]

One day, I could've gone out and hired someone to work at our ranch for a little over half a year right there on the spot - and paid them minimum wage all the way through. A few days later, after the new minimum wage was enacted, I could've only afforded to hire that same person for about 3-4 months.

Minimum wage laws disproportionally affect entry level and unskilled workers, mostly students and minorities. A good worker will prove their value and get pay increases from there. If they can't even get an entry level job due to the minimum wage, they'll never be able to get the work experience they need to move up the ladder. There are few economists that believe that minimum wage laws don't decrease employment wherever they are enacted. The idea of minimum wage laws ensuring a "living wage" is just plain bogus. There are lots of folks working under the table to get around these laws.

I already responded to this BDK. If you had hired smoene at minimum wage you would have had to hire an illegal immigrant, or a high school kid. REal people cannot live on this unless they work twice the hours you do. If he's workign twice the hours you do, how can he ge thte education you have to raise his standard of living to earn better wages? Can't.

It's tough being the granbdson of sharecroppers. No maytter how wealthy i get, or how many wealthy people I know, I'll always know that fat rich dumbasses will never understand why they are resented and rightly so.

[A2C]

I already responded to this BDK. If you had hired smoene at minimum wage you would have had to hire an illegal immigrant, or a high school kid. REal people cannot live on this unless they work twice the hours you do. If he's workign twice the hours you do, how can he ge thte education you have to raise his standard of living to earn better wages? Can't.

It's tough being the granbdson of sharecroppers. No maytter how wealthy i get, or how many wealthy people I know, I'll always know that fat rich dumbasses will never understand why they are resented and rightly so.

Muddyboots:

You may have experienced something we don't know about, but from my knowledge I'd say pay it what it is. You get paid by what you can do. If you work in a McDonalds you get paid accordingly. If you want better, you do whatever it takes to make that happen. That's how pay works. I don't believe a minimum wage is even necessary or important. It never has been for me.

[BigGrey]

Big Grey, first I agree with you, "tax cuts had nothing to do with the current economic crisis". We had the Bush tax cuts with lower rates for upper income levels IN PLACE when the crisis developed and it DID NOT PREVENT the crisis. But much of McCain's campaign focused on his tax claims against Obama and a tax increse that might come. I think it is a bogus claim as I have shown by the good economy we had under Clinton, but it is a claim lots of the right wing guys focus on.

Also, you want to cut spending. Good, most everyone says that, both candidates said the same thing. But which spending are you going to cut? Whose pet project are you going to cancel? Obama has promised to end the war which has been costing $10 billion a month, but all those savings will not come right away.

So again what would you cut?

My first cut would be for HUD. I want to know why there are thousands of illegal aliens living in subsidized housing units here in L.A. when we have homeless Americans living on the street with many them being veterans. HUD subsidized housing should be of a transitional nature, not a way of life. I'm all for helping people by using the housing to assist them while they try to improve their situation in life through education and hard work, but not just putting a roof over someone popping out babies and milking the welfare system.

Any transportation system accepting federal funds would also be looked at. Amtrak is a joke. We do need a national inter-city train service but Amtrak isn't making the grade.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority in L.A. is one that needs overhaul. The people that have agreed to the wage/retirement packages of some of the employees need to be strung up. The mechanics/bus cleaners are eligible for a full pension after 21 years of service! They can retire at age 42 and sign back on and retire at age 63 with a second full pension. Why should a public employee be given that?

Those are just a couple of examples. Bill, what examples of government waste have you seen that could be cut?

Les