Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[waitasec]

The Liberals think that wealthy persons do not spend thier money to stimulate the economy. This is rediculously false.

the top 5% of the wealthy have always been putting money into the economy simply because they have the money to do so. it's the 95% who need the money to help stimulate the economy... simple math captain.

still waiting for this trickle down effect...so far it ain't working

 

[Revoltingest]

the top 5% of the wealthy have always been putting money into the economy simply because they have the money to do so. it's the 95% who need the money to help stimulate the economy... simple math captain.

Your percentages add up, but why will group's spending stimulate more than another's?
Moreover I sure need the money to forestall a couple of foreclosures, but landlords aren't eligible for any of Obama's sugar.
(Didn't get none of Bush's either.) If I could keep the taxes I pay to bail out others, then I wouldn't be in such hot water.
Robbing Peter to stimulate Paul ain't been work'n so far.

 

[waitasec]

Your percentages add up, but why will group's spending stimulate more than another's?
Moreover I sure need the money to forestall a couple of foreclosures, but landlords aren't eligible for any of Obama's sugar.
(Didn't get none of Bush's either.) If I could keep the taxes I pay to bail out others, then I wouldn't be in such hot water.
Robbing Peter to stimulate Paul ain't been work'n so far.

how many houses do you need?

 

[Revoltingest]

how many houses do you need?

No answer for my questions first?
I need no houses.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that the uber-rich spend a significant portion of their wealth in such a way as to stimulate the economy seems to be based on gut feelings, first impressions, and/or voodoo, rather than on any hard evidence. The belief is a religion, not a fact.

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea that cutting taxes for richer people emboldens the economy seems utterly alien and counterintuitive to me. Richer people are, by definition, those with the most options open to them already. By the same token, it is the poorer people who have the most difficulty in being active and productive part of the economy.

Sure, there is something to the old and tired arguments that some people just don't know or care about being economically productive regardless of whatever circunstances they find themselves in. But until and unless those same people decide that they don't want children either, I just don't see how it would be wise to simply let them be. Besides, the demand for jobs doesn't seem to be quite that depleted either. It is the gulf between simply having a job (or the realistic means to get one) and actually having a reasonable social and economical situation that has been growing to alarming proportions.

I'm still trying to understand how come people tolerate, much less accept, those tax cuts.

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea that cutting taxes for richer people emboldens the economy seems utterly alien and counterintuitive to me. Richer people are, by definition, those with the most options open to them already. By the same token, it is the poorer people who have the most difficulty in being active and productive part of the economy.

Whether this is true or not depends upon the level of taxation. Back when the top income tax rate was over 70%, cutting taxes for the rich made more
sense than now. But if the issue is solely to stimulate the economy, what indisputable real-world evidence-based theory is to address this issue?
The whole debate is driven purely by politics anyway. The payroll tax cut (2%) is popular because there are so many voters who are employees.
I haven't even been able to find out if small business owners, who pay self-employment taxes (in lieu of payroll taxes) get a cut at all.
We don't seem to matter....too small a voting demographic I 'spose.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

unfortunately yes there has been, the ideas around redistribution of weath are based on the propensity to consume index of those making more than the "cost of living" People with more wealth need to spend that money to stimulate the economy. Most of them do just that. they form companies, they employ people to care for thier properties, and most of them donate thier money to charity.

the problem is borrowing, economists believe the way to be wealthy is to borrow money . This is not always the case. Jessica Hagy put it rather simply (and humorously):

The Liberals think that wealthy persons do not spend thier money to stimulate the economy. This is rediculously false. Even if it were the government wants to punish frugality and force those who have done well for themselves to pay for some idiot to not work and do drugs. The Government does not have the right to dictate distribution of weath in the country.

as for your questions, how is it even relevant? lets stick to politics eh?

Quite possibly the dumbest chart I have ever seen.

we are talking about socioeconomics here.

So you have more expertise than the licensed researchers who put in hundreds of hours of work to make that study. Got it. Did you even read the link, madhatter? Or are you attempting to flame me because I made a librul, soshalist point?

How about stopping illegal imigration? holy CRAP now there are tons of jobs for people to do! what a concept.

Nice red herring! But it's medium-rare. I prefer my herrings to be well-DONE.

Regardless of the philisophical implications. Yes, you have the freedom to be poor and oyu have the freedom to do something about it. people have the power to make something of themselves. just because the few who choose to not make something of themselves whine about how they just can't "catch a break" validates the government in taking away from the rich? hogwash. this is exactly the kind of thinking that caused our forefathers to break away from britan "taxation without representation"

Oh Christ, you honestly think we get to choose everything that happens to us and what we do in response? That lie should have died decades ago.

The notion that the uber-rich spend a significant portion of their wealth in such a way as to stimulate the economy seems to be based on gut feelings, first impressions, and/or voodoo, rather than on any hard evidence. The belief is a religion, not a fact.

Right.

Did you ever play the board game "Life"? A couple of the spaces give you the choice of either a guaranteed $10,000, or a slight chance of $100,000. That's similar to what the extremes of socialism and capitalism represent: a very good chance of a little more, or a very poor chance of a lot more.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know about indisputable, but there are some very interesting commentaries (with a lot of sources) about real life situations where a little help for the less fortunate had a lot of positive effect indeed in Peter Singer's latest book.

Of course, the statement that directing some of that jumbo-size US military spending towards actual constructive use would be a good idea is as close to indisputable as one can get in Economy. Instead of developing cutting edge war planes that are known to be unneeded, let's create social programs to, say, ease the cultural integration of immigrants who have only one child or less and show either a working knowledge of spoken and written English or a commitment towards acquiring that. That might actually solve some suffering and problems as opposed to creating a lot of it. "It creates jobs" is simply not enough of an excuse to the current US military spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know about indisputable, but there are some very interesting commentaries (with a lot of sources) about real life situations where a little help for the less fortunate had a lot of positive effect indeed in Peter Singer's latest book.

I'll glance at your link later. But as for economic & taxation expertise, I wouldn't go to a professional philosopher who never ran a business.
He can't be an expert strategist in a game he's never played.

Of course, the statement that directing some of that jumbo-size US military spending towards actual constructive use would be a good idea is as close to indisputable as one can get in Economy. Instead of developing cutting edge war planes that are known to be unneeded....

To say "known to be unneeded" is a stretch. It is extremely difficult to divine the nature of warfare in the future & what public policy will be.
History has shown that wars happen, & that we get involved. Were we to lag behind our foes technologically & militarily, there is absolutely
no certainty that this would work out well. I'm in favor of cutting military spending too, but neither am I blind to the risks that it would be
done unwisely. Should we stop rail gun research? Should we stop developing piloted warplanes & do only unmanned weapons? To be certain
of such murky things is hubris indeed.

....let's create social programs to, say, ease the cultural integration of immigrants who have only one child or less and show either a working knowledge of spoken and written English or a commitment towards acquiring that. That might actually solve some suffering and....

Or we could simply ease our massive debt service problem. The piper must be paid.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'll glance at your link later. But as for economic & taxation expertise, I wouldn't go to a professional philosopher who never ran a business.

Your privilege and it does have sound logic.

Still, I feel that the work's logic and examples are equally sound. More to the point, it seems to me that Economy is ultimately about the distribution and flow of freedom of choice - and as such, it makes sense to listen to authors of Applied Ethics in order to direct economic decisions.

To say "known to be unneeded" is a stretch.

I'll see if I can get some links, perhaps from Slate. But really, no. The stretch is to claim that such overpowering military expense is justified.

It is extremely difficult to divine the nature of warfare in the future & what public policy will be.

I don't really agree. But if it is so, then I feel that it is all the more reason to cut down on the military expense and give some badly needed attention to more constructive initiatives instead. We may perhaps believe that the USA will need even more of a military superiority than it currently has. I don't see how, but I guess it is possible. But one must be under severe denial not to realize that social inequality issues, health care costs, illiteracy and even lack of computer education are very real and pressing matters already.

History has shown that wars happen, & that we get involved. Were we to lag behind our foes technologically & militarily,

Which is basically impossible in the foreseeable future, except to the extent that the military presence itself feeds military demands and, most significantly, that the internal and external economic hardships create military tensions...

there is absolutely no certainty that this would work out well.

Of course not.

And that is a great advance indeed over the current situation, which is pretty much warranted not to work out at all well until and unless serious changes are undertaken.

There is no future worth pursuing in the path of a nation that is already so dependent on the Military for its own economy, despite being very much in the sole lead of those matters worldwide.

I'm in favor of cutting military spending too, but neither am I blind to the risks that it would be done unwisely. To be certain of such things is hubris indeed.

It is certainly confortable to me to speak from where I stand, but really, the broad strokes are as clear as one could possibly demand them to be already. I will readily grant that the actual concrete decisions will be painful and uncertain in many ways. Still, they are clearly necessary if a bigger evil (both military and economic) is to be avoided.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding things. I sure get the idea that the American People are basically dependent on Defense expenses mainly out of habit and hubris, and for that reason locked itself in a number of conflicts that simply did not have to happen, including currently those in Afghanisthan and Iraq. It must be incredibly costly too, both in terms of money and lifes. But maybe I am mistaken. You Americans probably know better.

Or we could simply ease our massive debt service problem. The piper must be paid.

Of course. I wonder if you can tell me why it wasn't done already? My hunch is that it is politically difficult to actually cut expenses without clear public support.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....it makes sense to listen to authors of Applied Ethics in order to direct economic decisions.

Many people have interesting & valuable things to say about the goals of economics, but such
issues are separate from determining the effects of taxation & economic policy alternatives.

I'll see if I can get some links, perhaps from Slate. But really, no. The stretch is to claim that such overpowering military expense is justified.

I don't claim that.
Twas this statement of yours which I disputed, "...Instead of developing cutting edge war planes that are known to be unneeded...."
It is far from "known". We must discern between facts, opinions, speculations & wishes. I wish we didn't need to develop terrible
new weapons, but my personal wishes are irrelevant.

I don't really agree.

Have you ever been involved in designing weapon systems & future threat assessment?
It never seemed simple & straightforward to me. What will the PRC's navy be like in 20 years? What anti-aircraft carrier weapons will they have?
What space based weapons will they have? What will their cyber warfare tools be? What autonomous weapon systems will they have? How will
we counter them? Where will the conflicts be? Who will our allies be? Will they be capable? Collect all the data you want, but it's still going to
be all about guessing....intelligent guessing, but devoid of certainty.

We may perhaps believe that the USA will need even more of a military superiority than it currently has.

It will be a formidable task just to stay even with our foes. Our current advantage will likely dissipate over the coming decades.

But one must be under severe denial not to realize that social inequality issues, health care costs, illiteracy and even lack of computer education are very real and pressing matters already.

Who is denying them? I would only argue that we haven't unlimited funds to address all our desires.

Which is basically impossible in the foreseeable future....

It is guaranteed that we will lag behind our foes if we stop development.

And that is a great advance indeed over the current situation, which is pretty much warranted not to work out at all well until and unless serious changes are undertaken.

We all agree that change is needed. The dispute is over [h]how[/i].

There is no future worth pursuing in the path of a nation that is already so dependent on the Military for its own economy, despite being very much in the sole lead of those matters worldwide.

I find it a myth that we're economically dependent on military spending. Sure, some weapons are sold overseas, but the income pales in comparison to our expense.

....Afghanisthan and Iraq. It must be incredibly costly too, both in terms of money and lifes. But maybe I am mistaken. You Americans probably know better.

The wars are indeed costly. I prefer that we avoid them. But politicians of both stripes love'm & the voting public goes along.
Just look at how many people are drumming up support for Obama in 2012, even though he governs like he's GW Bush Jr.
If we get out of our 2 current wars, some other country will eventually catch their vengeful eye...Iran, NK, etc. Then, once
again, one party will be waging a war for which they blame the other. Ain't no one really accountable.

I wonder if you can tell me why it wasn't done already? My hunch is that it is politically difficult to actually cut expenses without clear public support.

Politicians are in the business of getting elected & re-elected. Paying down debt matters to very few....only those who understand the long
term effects of crushing debt service. So instead of sensible spending policy, we get grandiose promises of generous social services, bail-outs,
profligate stimulus money, tax cuts, & promises that some other undeserving small segment of society will foot the bill for it all. Tis a good
short term strategy for holding office, but it's not a sustainable model.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You conservatives always go with your subjective impressions in these matters. Objectively speaking, there are somewhere between five and seven applicants for every available job in the US. Google it.

Quilty as charged Phil. The way I look at it, if I have a 15-20% chance at every job interview, I just need to improve my odds by going more places and applying.

It's all about attitude. I would look at the odds in a more positive light, a 20% chance at something good is a great chance to improve your life.

Back in the day, I had worse odds than that to get a woman to have sex with me. You know what? I still got lucky. :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

How does that work? If you are 72 and have no income, how do you have more freedom than someone who is 72 and has an income?

I know plenty of people who have no income at the present time. They all retired early!

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, you don't believe there's been a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to upper class in this country?

That is the whole point, to leave the middle class and become one of the upper class. The U.S.A. is one of the few places where that is even possible. Is it wrong to aspire to be a wealthy person? This is why the death tax is so wrong, what kind of world would it be without the Paris Hilton videos available on line?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Back in the day, I had worse odds than that to get a woman to have sex with me. You know what? I still got lucky. :yes:

With less than a 20% chance, it truly was lucky.:clap

 

[Reverend Rick]

how many houses do you need?

It's not about what you need, its about what you want.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not about what you need, its about what you want.

Three harems.:sad:

 

[Reverend Rick]

With less than a 20% chance, it truly was lucky.:clap

Never underestimate the generosity of women.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Never underestimate the generosity of women.

And the wonder of alcohol: it makes men brave and it makes women loose.