Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[Brain357]

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

You can't give money to illegals without it coming from some other pot. Government spending does not help the economy. It does not produce one more car or one more pound of hamburger.

Private spending is better.

 

[Brain357]

So now there would be tax cuts? So no balancing the budget? No being fiscally responsible?

Where do you think money to pay welfare comes from? The magic welfare fairy? Before you can buy votes with welfare, you must first take that money from those who earned it. Before capital can be looted, it must first be created.

Sorry I forgot repubs don't really want a balanced budget. I assumed a country deeply in debt would be fiscally responsible. Repubs always claim cuts for a balanced budget. I forgot they lie, sorry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You continue to prove you have the mentality of a child.

Explain to the class, in Keynesian terms, what are "turns?" What is this concept related to? In what circumstance is this applicable?

You are too ignorant to even grasp who you are up against. There are clues in my posts, but you are so devoid of knowledge that you fail to recognize them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yet I was right based on you agreeing. I guess you know nothing also?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry I forgot repubs don't really want a balanced budget. I assumed a country deeply in debt would be fiscally responsible. Repubs always claim cuts for a balanced budget. I forgot they lie, sorry.

Your talking point fails to address the question.

Where do you think the money for welfare comes from?

 

[bripat9643]

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

You can't give money to illegals without it coming from some other pot. Government spending does not help the economy. It does not produce one more car or one more pound of hamburger.

Private spending is better.

Welfare isn't private spending.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

Sounds like jealousy to me.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry I forgot repubs don't really want a balanced budget. I assumed a country deeply in debt would be fiscally responsible. Repubs always claim cuts for a balanced budget. I forgot they lie, sorry.

Your talking point fails to address the question.

Where do you think the money for welfare comes from?

I explained why I wouldn't assume there would be tax cuts. Am I going to fast for you? How could I have known you don't want a balanced budget?

 

[Brain357]

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

You can't give money to illegals without it coming from some other pot. Government spending does not help the economy. It does not produce one more car or one more pound of hamburger.

Private spending is better.

Welfare isn't private spending.

It is for the recipients.

 

[bripat9643]

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

You can't give money to illegals without it coming from some other pot. Government spending does not help the economy. It does not produce one more car or one more pound of hamburger.

Private spending is better.

Welfare isn't private spending.

It is for the recipients.

I thought we were discussing economics, not psychology.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some jobs are only worth 6-7 an hour, like flipping burgers or stocking shelves etc.

That isn't a link supporting your claim.

That's common sense, no link needed...

We have increased min wage and that has never happened. So you are just wrong.

You dumbasses keep telling us this, despite the proof that it DOES happen. So I have to think the real problem is just that you refuse to believe it, no matter what the evidence, and you think if you shout your lies loud enough and long enough, other people will believe them.

Minimum Wage Leads to Benefit Cuts, Unemployment

Yes, Minimum Wages Still Increase Unemployment

I don't see any proof there it has happened. Seattle is fine.

I know you don't see any proof it has happened. This is because every time someone offers you proof, you immediately close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout, "Seattle did it yesterday, and it's fine today! Lalalala!" There are two links right there in the post you're responding to, and what's the first thing out of your mouth? "I don't see any proof." You can't make it any more obvious that the problem isn't a lack of evidence; the problem is you.

The fact that you think economics change on a dime and economic impact can be measured within days of a change happening is the surest indication that you're a fucking moron who should never be listened to on economic issues.

 

[Brain357]

That isn't a link supporting your claim.

That's common sense, no link needed...

We have increased min wage and that has never happened. So you are just wrong.

You dumbasses keep telling us this, despite the proof that it DOES happen. So I have to think the real problem is just that you refuse to believe it, no matter what the evidence, and you think if you shout your lies loud enough and long enough, other people will believe them.

Minimum Wage Leads to Benefit Cuts, Unemployment

Yes, Minimum Wages Still Increase Unemployment

I don't see any proof there it has happened. Seattle is fine.

I know you don't see any proof it has happened. This is because every time someone offers you proof, you immediately close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout, "Seattle did it yesterday, and it's fine today! Lalalala!" There are two links right there in the post you're responding to, and what's the first thing out of your mouth? "I don't see any proof." You can't make it any more obvious that the problem isn't a lack of evidence; the problem is you.

The fact that you think economics change on a dime and economic impact can be measured within days of a change happening is the surest indication that you're a fucking moron who should never be listened to on economic issues.

Your links were filled with theory. We don't need theory as it is being done now and has been done before. Stop the silly scare tactics already.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, you are blatantly lying.

SNAP is given to people who make low wages and have passels of children. Walmart is not impregnating women nor is it prohibiting people from finishing high school. It merely offers and a job that requires no skill, which the lowest segments of society are drawn to.

And without that job the Waltons make nothing. So they should be providing for their employees, not the tax payer.

They provide their employees what their labor is worth. They're not obligated to provide anything else.

If you don't want to give people tax money, then stop. But that's a separate issue.

The labor makes them billions so it seems to be worth quite a lot. It makes me nothing so my tax dollars should not subsidize it.

Nice try, but no. If we use your metric of "let's look at all of it at ONCE!" then the labor also COSTS them billions. Doesn't mean the individual unskilled worker is worth any more per hour than he's getting.

Again, if you don't want your tax dollars subsidizing the individuals who get welfare, then vote to stop welfare. Don't bitch about the people actually doing something to help the poor instead of just shuffling them off on a government bureaucracy to send them a check. Your fantasies that someone magically "owes" an uneducated person on welfare a jump from nothing to above the poverty level mean nothing to me.

Vote to stop welfare? That would kill our economy.

So basically, you want to have it both ways. You want to screech in horror at the very IDEA that welfare should be curtailed in any way, but then you also want to blame anyone and everyone else for welfare dependency.

Basically, this is just all about lack of personal responsibility. You don't think individuals on welfare and making low wages should take responsibility for their own lives, and you don't think you should take responsibility for the cultural wreckage leftist policies and attitudes have wrought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Oh, please. "We changed it yesterday, and everything's fine today! Everyone knows economics change on a dime!" Tell us more about your economic ignorance.

Ah sorry but your scare tactics have no factual backing.

This might mean something if it wouldn't be the exact same answer no matter what I said or what evidence I offered. "I'm not looking! I refuse to see the evidence, so there IS no evidence!"

 

[Brain357]

And without that job the Waltons make nothing. So they should be providing for their employees, not the tax payer.

They provide their employees what their labor is worth. They're not obligated to provide anything else.

If you don't want to give people tax money, then stop. But that's a separate issue.

The labor makes them billions so it seems to be worth quite a lot. It makes me nothing so my tax dollars should not subsidize it.

Nice try, but no. If we use your metric of "let's look at all of it at ONCE!" then the labor also COSTS them billions. Doesn't mean the individual unskilled worker is worth any more per hour than he's getting.

Again, if you don't want your tax dollars subsidizing the individuals who get welfare, then vote to stop welfare. Don't bitch about the people actually doing something to help the poor instead of just shuffling them off on a government bureaucracy to send them a check. Your fantasies that someone magically "owes" an uneducated person on welfare a jump from nothing to above the poverty level mean nothing to me.

Vote to stop welfare? That would kill our economy.

So basically, you want to have it both ways. You want to screech in horror at the very IDEA that welfare should be curtailed in any way, but then you also want to blame anyone and everyone else for welfare dependency.

Basically, this is just all about lack of personal responsibility. You don't think individuals on welfare and making low wages should take responsibility for their own lives, and you don't think you should take responsibility for the cultural wreckage leftist policies and attitudes have wrought.

No I think we create a better job environment where people can get good jobs and get off welfare. With stagnant wages there aren't great jobs waiting to be filled. Cutting welfare now would further slow a slow economy.

 

[Brain357]

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Oh, please. "We changed it yesterday, and everything's fine today! Everyone knows economics change on a dime!" Tell us more about your economic ignorance.

Ah sorry but your scare tactics have no factual backing.

This might mean something if it wouldn't be the exact same answer no matter what I said or what evidence I offered. "I'm not looking! I refuse to see the evidence, so there IS no evidence!"

I've already done a lot of research on the subject and have concluded it has no effect on employment. As long as it stays below skilled jobs I expect little issue. For every link you give saying it lowers employment I have several stating no effect. Most importantly the cities that have already increased are doing fine.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

No I think we create a better job environment where people can get good jobs and get off welfare. With stagnant wages there aren't great jobs waiting to be filled. Cutting welfare now would further slow a slow economy.

Yes, but why would anyone care what you think? You have demonstrated that you have utterly zero grasp of economics. This isn't the Austrians battling Keynesians, this is the educated trying to make sense of your ignorant ramblings.

You have literally no clue what you are babbling about. No one is going to take the idiocy you post seriously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've already done a lot of research on the subject and have concluded it has no effect on employment. As long as it stays below skilled jobs I expect little issue. For every link you give saying it lowers employment I have several stating no effect. Most importantly the cities that have already increased are doing fine.

Logging on to DailyKOS isn't "research," moron.

Pick up a book someday. Start with the "General theory of employment, interest, and money." At least gain some idea of what you are so clumsily trying to promote.

 

[Brain357]

I've already done a lot of research on the subject and have concluded it has no effect on employment. As long as it stays below skilled jobs I expect little issue. For every link you give saying it lowers employment I have several stating no effect. Most importantly the cities that have already increased are doing fine.

Logging on to DailyKOS isn't "research," moron.

Pick up a book someday. Start with the "General theory of employment, interest, and money." At least gain some idea of what you are so clumsily trying to promote.

We have history to look at. It is foolish of you to ignore it.

 

[Brain357]

[

No I think we create a better job environment where people can get good jobs and get off welfare. With stagnant wages there aren't great jobs waiting to be filled. Cutting welfare now would further slow a slow economy.

Yes, but why would anyone care what you think? You have demonstrated that you have utterly zero grasp of economics. This isn't the Austrians battling Keynesians, this is the educated trying to make sense of your ignorant ramblings.

You have literally no clue what you are babbling about. No one is going to take the idiocy you post seriously.

So far we have learned I am right and you just babble stupidly.

Btw what politician is going to committ political suicide and cut welfare for tax breaks? You don't seem to live in the real world.