A question for Republicans

[logical4u]

Like we needed another proof of your dishonesty.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after? It is obvious that they don't care about the debt. They only use it as a pretext for dismantling the welfare state. But why? Why would they need the US government to stop caring for seniors and the poor?

I think it is because of people Krugman calls "political entrepreneurs". The sell a message -- and so they invent a message that would sell well. But they really don't care about the message itself -- the policy that the message promotes and the implications of actually implementing that policy.

So if political entrepreneurs notice that some message is resonating among many voters, they start promoting it even though they know that it will hurt those very people, and the US as a country. That would not be their problem.

Add the fact that so many Americans got fooled by their card companies, and we are looking at a pretty grim picture.

THE GOV'T DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR OR THE SENIORS.

It is pretty amazing how the rights, for all their talk about Constitution, do not believe that democracy is real. That the government for the people, by the people is anything more than a pretty slogan.

Here is the rest of that (the part you cut): THE GOV'T DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR OR THE SENIORS. They use "scams" to trick the poor and the seniors into voting for them. Once the politicians are in office, they cut benefits to the poor and seniors, raise the taxes and automatic withdrawals from social security, and decline more medical treatments. Instead of "intellectuals" (like yourself) opening your eyes and seeing what the "gov't" is doing, you walk around repeating the "parts" you want to believe (that is not necessarily factual).

Conservatives are after:
laws that apply to all, and are equally enforced
individual rights
freedom to make choices and live with those choices (not run crying to gov't to help when we fall)
The Bill of Rights used as a standard for new law (and to eliminate any laws that infringe on the FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS)
A gov't that is small and as efficient as possible (if it is going to regulate, then don't pick winners to give money while punishing others of similar ilk with fines)
an educated (in this country's history) and thinking population


History lesson: we live in a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
Since your are all about that "for the people, by the people" stuff, just how much do "you" contribute to the gov't (supported by you)? Do you pay income taxes? Do you know how much you pay in income tax (federal, state)? Do you know how much you pay for property taxes? Do you know what your local tax is on most of the products you buy?

 

[Chris]

Are you happy to pay higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

 

[Big Fitz]

Are you happy to pay higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

I dunno. Are you happy to pay higher taxes so the poor can pay none?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you happy to pay higher taxes, so the super rich can pay less?

The top 1% paid nearly 37% of all federal personal income tax in 2009.
How is that paying less?

 

[ilia25]

So we've heard the constant refrain from certain named dumbasses here that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Well, if you think that this information from the Heritage Foundation is the RIGHT direction for this country, you will have your heart warmed with what's gone on under Obama.

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Of course, if you're a sane and/or rational human being who knows this is a BAD thing... you will probably be justifiably upset.

You have to be a heartless moron to think that people are dependant on the government because they are lazy and they choose to be poor. Or that those people -- or the liberals -- are to be blamed for the growth of the dependance.

 

[Big Fitz]

So we've heard the constant refrain from certain named dumbasses here that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Well, if you think that this information from the Heritage Foundation is the RIGHT direction for this country, you will have your heart warmed with what's gone on under Obama.

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Of course, if you're a sane and/or rational human being who knows this is a BAD thing... you will probably be justifiably upset.

You have to be a heartless moron to think that people are dependant on the government because they are lazy and they choose to be poor. Or that those people -- or the liberals -- are to be blamed for the growth of the dependance.

economics doesn't give a shit about 'heart'.

 

[ilia25]

So we've heard the constant refrain from certain named dumbasses here that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Well, if you think that this information from the Heritage Foundation is the RIGHT direction for this country, you will have your heart warmed with what's gone on under Obama.

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Of course, if you're a sane and/or rational human being who knows this is a BAD thing... you will probably be justifiably upset.

You have to be a heartless moron to think that people are dependant on the government because they are lazy and they choose to be poor. Or that those people -- or the liberals -- are to be blamed for the growth of the dependance.

economics doesn't give a shit about 'heart'.

Neither economics see any benefits in CEO having his disposable income 100 larger than that of an engineer.

Such inequality only harms the society.

 

[Big Fitz]

You have to be a heartless moron to think that people are dependant on the government because they are lazy and they choose to be poor. Or that those people -- or the liberals -- are to be blamed for the growth of the dependance.

economics doesn't give a shit about 'heart'.

Neither economics see any benefits in CEO having his disposable income 100 larger than that of an engineer.

Such inequality only harms the society.

your objective proof?

 

[ilia25]

economics doesn't give a shit about 'heart'.

Neither economics see any benefits in CEO having his disposable income 100 larger than that of an engineer.

Such inequality only harms the society.

your objective proof?

I made two distinct statements, which one you think is doubtful?

 

[Big Fitz]

Neither economics see any benefits in CEO having his disposable income 100 larger than that of an engineer.

Such inequality only harms the society.

your objective proof?

I made two distinct statements, which one you think is doubtful?

both.

There is no proof that income inequality harms anyone. Actually, when you do have someone super rich, they can't spend all that money, so it actually facilitates investment spending which then creates jobs for those who don't have so much and thereby stimulates economy, spreading the wealth and creates a "rising tide that floats all ships" to steal a line from JFK (who also created a boom by lowering taxes).

Therefore, both your statements need a lot of proof to show direct harm caused by someone being super rich, let alone the public at large.

 

[ilia25]

There is no proof that income inequality harms anyone.

Really? Let me give you an extreme example -- two people, each were making $1000. Then something had changed and now one of the making 2000, and another 0, so he starves to death. You still thinks that inequality does not harm anyone?

I gave you an extreme case just so you got the idea, but the same logic applies to any level of inequality -- it harms people. And the only reason we allow it in the first place is because the inequality also motivates people to work harder, thereby making the whole society more productive.

But as with many other thing, there is no linear relationship between the level of inequality and productivity. At some point rising inequality does not cause a corresponding rise of the productivity -- meaning its only effect will be leaving most of people with less income.

That's what had been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same.

Actually, when you do have someone super rich, they can't spend all that money, so it actually facilitates investment spending

And why would anyone invest in the new production capacity if the lion share of money goes to the top and is not spent on goods and services?

More inequality does not make us invest more. And the US economy grew much faster before the inequality started to explode in the 70s, than in the past 30 years.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? Let me give you an extreme example -- two people, each were making $1000. Then something had changed and now one of the making 2000, and another 0, so he starves to death. You still thinks that inequality does not harm anyone?

I gave you an extreme case just so you got the idea, but the same logic applies to any level of inequality -- it harms people. And the only reason we allow it in the first place is because the inequality also motivates people to work harder, thereby making the whole society more productive.

But as with many other thing, there is no linear relationship between the level of inequality and productivity. At some point rising inequality does not cause a corresponding rise of the productivity -- meaning its only effect will be leaving most of people with less income.

False premise. The economy's not a zero sum game, and this is why your argument doesn't work. Redacto in Absurdum Fail.

And why would anyone invest in the new production capacity if the lion share of money goes to the top and is not spent on goods and services?

More inequality does not make us invest more. And the US economy grew much faster before the inequality started to explode in the 70s, than in the past 30 years.

Okay, you really don't understand how money works when it gets to the top. It must go SOMEWHERE ELSE! It just doesn't vanish into a mythical place known as a rich man's stash that doesn't exist anywhere. That money must be stored somewhere, and that somewhere is in banks and investments. So what does that mean? The money is then SPENT if not directly, but rather indirectly enriching others.

What you seem to be bitching about is that the rich man doesn't necessarily enrich YOU. What makes you such a good place to invest his money anyway? You providing a service or good that will make it worth his while to put it there rather than say buy gold, or invest in a stock or even a municipal bond that provides interest?

Just like garbage, there is no 'away' for money. The fact that it doesn't stay in your reach or pocket or community says more about the lack of value you or your community has compared to other places in the world. Money ALWAYS seeks the best ROI possible. It's like economic gravity. Money pools at the best return (legal and sometimes ILLEGAL) possible. If you're high and dry and not one of the pools, what is it you are doing wrong?

You know, that's what it really comes down to. You want to blame someone else for you being a piss poor investment or shitty place for the wealthy to place their money. It's not THEIR fault you suck. It's yours, and that just pisses you off even more that your level of suckiness can be measured in cold hard cash.

Want money? Fine, butch the fuck up and give em a reason to put it there. Given time, it sure as shit will.

 

[ilia25]

Really? Let me give you an extreme example -- two people, each were making $1000. Then something had changed and now one of the making 2000, and another 0, so he starves to death. You still thinks that inequality does not harm anyone?

I gave you an extreme case just so you got the idea, but the same logic applies to any level of inequality -- it harms people. And the only reason we allow it in the first place is because the inequality also motivates people to work harder, thereby making the whole society more productive.

But as with many other thing, there is no linear relationship between the level of inequality and productivity. At some point rising inequality does not cause a corresponding rise of the productivity -- meaning its only effect will be leaving most of people with less income.

False premise. The economy's not a zero sum game, and this is why your argument doesn't work

OK, Let's do it again:
"That's what has been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same."

The economy was far from a zero-sum game and it did grow fast -- but only the rich saw their income rising fast (and the super rich saw theirs rising super fast).

And why would anyone invest in the new production capacity if the lion share of money goes to the top and is not spent on goods and services?

More inequality does not make us invest more. And the US economy grew much faster before the inequality started to explode in the 70s, than in the past 30 years.

Okay, you really don't understand how money works when it gets to the top. It must go SOMEWHERE ELSE! It just doesn't vanish into a mythical place known as a rich man's stash that doesn't exist anywhere.

Actually that is exactly what has been happening since 2008, and that is why 3 years later we still have hight unemployment and GDP is still way below the trend. There are billions of dollars that are sitting idle (for example in federal reserve accounts) because the demand so far was low and there was no point in investing into new production capacity.

And before 2008 the rich were investing in a housing bubble -- by lending their money to the poor in the form of mortgages. That did not go well either.

What you seem to be bitching about is that the rich man doesn't necessarily enrich YOU.

You are really enjoying playing with that straw doll, aren't you?

 

[Big Fitz]

OK, Let's do it again:
"That's what has been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same."

The economy was far from a zero-sum game and it did grow fast -- but only the rich saw their income rising fast (and the super rich saw theirs rising super fast).

yeah, I'm bored with the whole "let's do that again" bullshit. You just don't get it. I'm fine with it. Just shut up about it already. It's like listening to a gay protest screaming "We're Queer! We're Here! Get used to it!". I always want to scream back "You're Queer! We Hear! Shut UP already!"

Actually that is exactly what has been happening since 2008, and that is why 3 years later we still have hight unemployment and GDP is still way below the trend. There are billions of dollars that are sitting idle (for example in federal reserve accounts) because the demand so far was low and there was no point in investing into new production capacity.

Yep. Still fucking clueless. That money is sitting "Idle" as you put it for two main reasons.

1. It's bailout money. It's fiat currency printed to keep banks solvent, backed by NOTHING. If that if it achieves any velocity in the market, you will see inflation hit so hard, you'll be screaming Weimar Republic before you could flinch. The banks know this. The fed knows this, and there's still some fleeting hope by some smart people in the Fed that the government will somehow be able to 'buy back' all that fiat currency somehow and prevent it from getting in the market where it can do some real devaluation damage.

2. Money that actually HAS been created by economic activity IS moving... out of country to the few remaining areas of safety and promising profits. Much is hitting the gold and precious metals market because when economic instability hits, the rich ALWAYS go for gold. I'm no goldbug, but face it, there's very few safe places left in the world, and they're going to find the safest places to hide their wealth from the unavoidable collapse that I'm stunned hasn't hit yet.

It's not gone, it's just not in the line of fire.

And before 2008 the rich were investing in a housing bubble --

No shit sherlock. The government rigged the roulette table, guaranteed the winnings and kept paying off. I'd invest in it too if it was a no risk profit generator. The catch was that it was unsustainable like every other ponzi scheme the government pushes from medicare to social security. Freddie and Fannie went tits up quicker because the players on both sides got greedy. Franklin Raines lied about profits, Lehman Bros. lied about mortgage backed securities. Hedge funds collected on the margins and insurance companies collected on 'protecting assets' they were lied to as being safe as houses.

A rigged market is always profitable till the bottom falls out. The question is, do you jump before or AFTER the bottom gives way. It's called tempting the moral hazard and this shit ALWAYS happens when the government gets involved with the market.

by lending their money to the poor in the form of mortgages. That did not go well either.

bad policy begets bad results. Why are you surprised? I'm not.

You are really enjoying playing with that straw doll, aren't you?

Straw doll? More like Haybale from velocity. Ever see someone get hit with a hay bale from 20 feet? Lots of squealing, confusion, hay burn, big bruises and scratches, then running back to see if grandma will fix your booboos and give you a cookie. Of course, you hit them right, you knock em clean out of the hayloft and into the cow shit below.

You're doing a good impression of that right now.

 

[ilia25]

OK, Let's do it again:
"That's what has been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same."

The economy was far from a zero-sum game and it did grow fast -- but only the rich saw their income rising fast (and the super rich saw theirs rising super fast).

yeah, I'm bored with the whole "let's do that again" bullshit. You just don't get it. I'm fine with it. Just shut up about it already. It's like listening to a gay protest screaming "We're Queer! We're Here! Get used to it!". I always want to scream back "You're Queer! We Hear! Shut UP already!"

Typing with your face again? Don't blame me, you've asked for a proof, so I gave it to you. And your reaction was predictable.

Actually that is exactly what has been happening since 2008, and that is why 3 years later we still have hight unemployment and GDP is still way below the trend. There are billions of dollars that are sitting idle (for example in federal reserve accounts) because the demand so far was low and there was no point in investing into new production capacity.

Yep. Still fucking clueless. That money is sitting "Idle" as you put it for two main reasons.

Never mind the reasons. You were screaming that the rich must invest their income because the money must "go SOMEWHERE ELSE!". Now at least you see how clueless YOU were.

As for the reasons, it would be pointless discussing them with a person who seriously believes that the US economy has two distinct types of money in the circulation. Keep wondering were is that hyperinflation that the rights have been predicting for more than 3 years.

No shit sherlock. The government rigged the roulette table, guaranteed the winnings and kept paying off. I'd invest in it too if it was a no risk profit generator.

The government did not set up anything, certainly not the subprime mortgages and the way the investment banks were selling them as AAA securities. The government failed to intervene and regulate the financial sector because the rights (Greenspan and Co) got the upper hand.

In any case, the housing bubble was the result of rich people having too much money to invest in the absence of the good investing opportunities. So your argument about how we all benefit from the rich people investing is demonstrably false -- they are no better investors than anyone else.

 

[Big Fitz]

Never mind the reasons.

It's obvious you never notice reason.

You were screaming that the rich must invest their income because the money must "go SOMEWHERE ELSE!".

I see, mistaking inevitability of economic law with choice. Like water finding the lowest point, money finds the greatest profit. Are you still so naive to believe people hide it in mattresses or in coffee cans under the porch? It 'must' go somewhere else because it will not STAY sitting still.

Now at least you see how clueless YOU were.

How can you see with that railroad tie in your eye?

As for the reasons, it would be pointless discussing them with a person who seriously believes that the US economy has two distinct types of money in the circulation. Keep wondering were is that hyperinflation that the rights have been predicting for more than 3 years.

Just like that housing bubble and derivatives market bubble that never popped. If I cared, I'd stage an intervention for you. You're obviously an intellectual danger to yourself and others with this inconceivable blindness to what is happening.

The government did not set up anything, certainly not the subprime mortgages and the way the investment banks were selling them as AAA securities. The government failed to intervene and regulate the financial sector because the rights (Greenspan and Co) got the upper hand.

Riiiiight.... the Community Reinvestment Act, threats against 'Redlining' by banks to people who were unable to pay the base mortgages by the Reno justice department and the bundling of defaulted mortgages in bulk packages to hide the bad paper are just made up. It was all the market's fault, and the government taxpayer backed guarantees by Freddie and Fannie had NOTHING to do with creating the situation.

Fucking blind.

In any case, the housing bubble was the result of rich people having too much money to invest in the absence of the good investing opportunities. So your argument about how we all benefit from the rich people investing is demonstrably false -- they are no better investors than anyone else.

If you refuse to accept the historical record of what happened and what is happening, there's no point in talking to you any more. Now go off and keep repeating the same things to yourself over and over till that's all you ever hear anymore. I'll leave the reality therapy to someone with more patience and in desperate need of a hobby.

 

[ilia25]

So here is bottom line. You asked were is my proof that inequality harms people. Here is you proof:
In the past 30 years 100% growth in productivity translated into 0% growth of median household income.

Then you claimed that more inequality is good because the rich have the money to invest. That is BS because the rich are as bad investors as anyone else, including the government:
1. For the past 3 years the economy was starving for the investments, but the private sector was holding them back (and the rights were screaming bloody murder when the government tried to pick up the slack).
2. Before the crisis they were investing in the housing bubble because that was the only place they saw after their dotcom bubble burst.

 

[Big Fitz]

So here is bottom line. You asked were is my proof that inequality harms people. Here is you proof:
In the past 30 years 100% growth in productivity translated into 0% growth of median household income.

Then you claimed that more inequality is good because the rich have the money to invest. That is BS because the rich are as bad investors as anyone else, including the government:
1. For the past 3 years the economy was starving for the investments, but the private sector was holding them back (and the rights were screaming bloody murder when the government tried to pick up the slack).
2. Before the crisis they were investing in the housing bubble because that was the only place they saw after their dotcom bubble burst.

1. the assumption is that this is meaningful. It is not. It has never been proven to be meaningful showing a direct causative link between income equality and problems in society. Productivity has far more factors to its cause as well as effects than that of 'impoverishing workers' while enriching owners.

2. I have not said that inequality is inherently good OR bad. it is the natural result of a market that has not been tampered with by government. I have said forced income EQUALITY with no proof of benefit is dangerous. Often the proponents of this philosophy want to be exempted from it, which basically shows that it is NOT a good policy.

3. We are in a global market and money will go to the best profit margin possible every single time. This can give areas which are dominated with high risk, low reward policies will suffer regardless of how productive they are. Saying it's 'not fair' means nothing. What matters is how good an area you are for investment. If you refuse to adjust to compete in a global marketplace, you have only yourself to blame.

4. To reinflate the housing bubble with tax payer funds DID impoverish Americans who pay taxes (mostly the rich) and make this nation a worse place to do business because we are less likely to recover now with added burden instead of letting those who made bad investments (mostly the rich) to lose their shorts and then other people could pick up their assets cheap following a natural market process. It would have been a short but sharper depression or what was known as a 'panic'. But we'd have come out of it roaring by now.

You're more interested in how much people have based on esoteric ideas of fairness, rather than merit. that's far more unfair than what you bitch about.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no proof that income inequality harms anyone.

Really? Let me give you an extreme example -- two people, each were making $1000. Then something had changed and now one of the making 2000, and another 0, so he starves to death. You still thinks that inequality does not harm anyone?

I gave you an extreme case just so you got the idea, but the same logic applies to any level of inequality -- it harms people. And the only reason we allow it in the first place is because the inequality also motivates people to work harder, thereby making the whole society more productive.

But as with many other thing, there is no linear relationship between the level of inequality and productivity. At some point rising inequality does not cause a corresponding rise of the productivity -- meaning its only effect will be leaving most of people with less income.

That's what had been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same.

Actually, when you do have someone super rich, they can't spend all that money, so it actually facilitates investment spending

And why would anyone invest in the new production capacity if the lion share of money goes to the top and is not spent on goods and services?

More inequality does not make us invest more. And the US economy grew much faster before the inequality started to explode in the 70s, than in the past 30 years.

If my pay went from 100K to 200K it has nothing to do with what you make.

In fact my wife and I have tripled our income in the past 5 years and no one has made any less because of it.

In fact all our employees are making more than they were 5 years ago.

Now tell me who is making less because I, my wife and my employees are all earning more than they were?

 

[Liability]

There is no proof that income inequality harms anyone.

Really? Let me give you an extreme example -- two people, each were making $1000. Then something had changed and now one of the making 2000, and another 0, so he starves to death. You still thinks that inequality does not harm anyone?

I gave you an extreme case just so you got the idea, but the same logic applies to any level of inequality -- it harms people. And the only reason we allow it in the first place is because the inequality also motivates people to work harder, thereby making the whole society more productive.

But as with many other thing, there is no linear relationship between the level of inequality and productivity. At some point rising inequality does not cause a corresponding rise of the productivity -- meaning its only effect will be leaving most of people with less income.

That's what had been happening in the past 30 years -- productivity grew by 100% in that period, but the median family income stayed the same.

Actually, when you do have someone super rich, they can't spend all that money, so it actually facilitates investment spending

And why would anyone invest in the new production capacity if the lion share of money goes to the top and is not spent on goods and services?

More inequality does not make us invest more. And the US economy grew much faster before the inequality started to explode in the 70s, than in the past 30 years.

If my pay went from 100K to 200K it has nothing to do with what you make.

In fact my wife and I have tripled our income in the past 5 years and no one has made any less because of it.

In fact all our employees are making more than they were 5 years ago.

Now tell me who is making less because I, my wife and my employees are all earning more than they were?

But but but . . .

what about the children?

iliac is gonna bust a gut coming up with an answer to your post. Your post, you see, contains actual logic.

iliac is evidently allergic to it.