Democrats helped create income inequality

[Dovahkiin]

If you truly believed all that, you'd be doing something about it. Are you?

Reagan destroyed our economy. Then Bush destroyed it more by lying us into invading Iraq. Then Bush allowed the Koch Brothers to loot every bank in America and the taxpayers had to bail them out. This was after Republican billionaires paid off Congress to repeal Glass Steagal and force Clinton, under threat ofimpeachment to sign it.
Right?

Reagan helped the economy thanks to his deficit spending.

 

[Dovahkiin]

View attachment 66432
Here is a graphic I have posted before. It shows something very interesting with regard to the "shrinking middle class." First of all, the 7 years of ObamaEconomy are not shown. This is data from 1967-2009.

It clearly shows us the decline of "middle class" families coinciding with the rise in "upper income" families, while the "lower income" families remain relatively unchanged. Of course, if the chart extended on out to 2016, you'd see the upper income families decline some more, as they are starting to do here and lower income families would increase.

What you see happening, all through the 70s, 80s, 90s and into the 00s, is families not being content with "middle income" and striving for more. So they are going away but a lot of them are becoming the new rich.

That's a great chart, but I want to add another one for comparison:

View attachment 66434

Receiving government assistance has nothing to do with complete dependency. Think about a tax refund, the government creates dollars out of thin air to add some numbers to your account. I guess that's dependency. The private sector relies on the government, we're all "dependent." Liability free dollars? Thank the government. The highway system we drive on? Our military for protection?

 

[Dovahkiin]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

Income inequality is a real issue. My view on it has nothing to do with envy. Remember, the private sectors only way of getting liability free dollars is from the government in the form of deficit spending, spending past tax receipts. Now, spending is what drives an economy, and the people who spend most of their income? The poor and middle class. The rich are accumulating most new dollars and saving them, moving them between each other, doing absolutely nothing productive. An economy does better when the poor have more to spend, see my signature for an IMF paper on this.
The problem has been getting worse for decades, booming with the neoliberal ideology coming to popularity in the 70s. "Lower taxes for unreal growth." That sort of nonsense.
I do agree that our current assistance programs need to be changed. We need a job guarantee to provide anyone willing to work with a public sector job, the specifics vary from proposal to proposal, but the idea is to set a wage floor and make sure no productivity is lost. Doing this also lets us replace many of our assistance programs. Did I mention the private sector will compete for these laborers?
Small businesses have been failing because of a lack of demand for their products, mainly due to stagnant wages. If you want to help small businesses, encourage deficit spending. More liability free dollars that the people can earn.
Of course payments increased under Obama, the most brutal recession since the GD, coupled with stagnant wages for decades..

 

[Boss]

Income inequality is a real issue.

It's a "real issue" like climate change is a real issue. There is no question that the climate changes. Whether man contributes and to what extent, is the real question. The same is true with income inequality... it happens naturally as the result of free market capitalist action.

Imagine our free market economy as a marathon race. You have some runners who are seasoned veterans in wealth acquisition... they know how to do it well... You have some runners who are aspiring to be great... And you have some runners who are proverbial couch potatoes. The veterans represent the wealthy, the 'aspiring to be greats' represent the middle class and the couch potatoes are the poor. This marathon lasts for months but each day, the results are tabulated and we can see where everyone in the marathon is at. Okay, after the first day or two, it becomes clear the veterans are leading the pack, the aspiring are next and the couch potatoes are lagging behind. Each day that passes, the veterans are going to be further ahead, the gap between themselves and the aspiring is growing but the gap between the aspiring and the couch potatoes is growing even more.

This isn't a problem, it is a result of a natural phenomenon. There will never be a time in the marathon where the couch potatoes are gaining ground on the veterans. The inequality will continue to widen throughout the marathon and this is a natural consequence. And the same thing applies to wealth inequality... it is a natural consequence of free market capitalism. There will always be people who make more money than others because they have the tools, the experience, the know-how... they are the seasoned veterans. There will always be the couch potatoes lagging further and further behind because they lack the motivation, they lack the tools and know-how.

Your idea for a solution is to somehow hobble the veterans so they cannot gain ground and hopefully, the couch potatoes can catch up... but you see, that is a stupid failure of an idea. It completely destroys the concept and purpose of the marathon to do such a thing. A MUCH better idea and approach would be to motivate the couch potatoes, inspire them, teach them and train them up to be "aspiring" and at the same time, help the "aspiring" to be greater... to learn the tools of the veterans... encourage them on... promote greatness. You won't ever completely resolve the wealth inequality issue but you can mitigate it to a certain degree by encouraging success instead of punishing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 66432
Here is a graphic I have posted before. It shows something very interesting with regard to the "shrinking middle class." First of all, the 7 years of ObamaEconomy are not shown. This is data from 1967-2009.

It clearly shows us the decline of "middle class" families coinciding with the rise in "upper income" families, while the "lower income" families remain relatively unchanged. Of course, if the chart extended on out to 2016, you'd see the upper income families decline some more, as they are starting to do here and lower income families would increase.

What you see happening, all through the 70s, 80s, 90s and into the 00s, is families not being content with "middle income" and striving for more. So they are going away but a lot of them are becoming the new rich.

That's a great chart, but I want to add another one for comparison:

View attachment 66434

Receiving government assistance has nothing to do with complete dependency. Think about a tax refund, the government creates dollars out of thin air to add some numbers to your account. I guess that's dependency. The private sector relies on the government, we're all "dependent." Liability free dollars? Thank the government. The highway system we drive on? Our military for protection?

Government is needed for "some"things, but not most. They just happen to butt their nose in where it doesn't belong all the time.

In most cases, income tax refunds are too much money you gave to the government that they are merely giving back.

As for roads and bridges, that is covered in the US Constitution. In fact, if we stuck to federal spending only outlined in the US Constitution, not only would our taxes be lower, but we would have no debt either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

Income inequality is a real issue. My view on it has nothing to do with envy. Remember, the private sectors only way of getting liability free dollars is from the government in the form of deficit spending, spending past tax receipts. Now, spending is what drives an economy, and the people who spend most of their income? The poor and middle class. The rich are accumulating most new dollars and saving them, moving them between each other, doing absolutely nothing productive. An economy does better when the poor have more to spend, see my signature for an IMF paper on this.
The problem has been getting worse for decades, booming with the neoliberal ideology coming to popularity in the 70s. "Lower taxes for unreal growth." That sort of nonsense.
I do agree that our current assistance programs need to be changed. We need a job guarantee to provide anyone willing to work with a public sector job, the specifics vary from proposal to proposal, but the idea is to set a wage floor and make sure no productivity is lost. Doing this also lets us replace many of our assistance programs. Did I mention the private sector will compete for these laborers?
Small businesses have been failing because of a lack of demand for their products, mainly due to stagnant wages. If you want to help small businesses, encourage deficit spending. More liability free dollars that the people can earn.
Of course payments increased under Obama, the most brutal recession since the GD, coupled with stagnant wages for decades..

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

 

[easyt65]

In America you have the right to choose to sit on your ass and do nothing ...

Unfortunately you also have the right to then stick your hand out and demand others - hard-working people - give you money...

And unfortunately there are liberals to tell these people they are 'victims', take money out of other people's pockets, and offer 'free stuff' to the people with their hands out in exchange for their votes.

 

[easyt65]

These uppity negroes gave something they have never had before...power behind their movement. We need to give them something ... but not enough to make a difference. I will have these ni@@ers voting 'Democrat' for the next 200 years.
-- President LBJ, after Civil Rights passed

This was the start of 'Economic Slavery'.

 

[Geaux4it]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

 

[Geaux4it]

The official poverty measure does not count most of the value of government assistance that the poor receive. If you count that assistance,

the real poverty rate is about 4%.

If you take away the assistance given to the poor, as the GOP wants to do, THEN the poverty rates goes into the teens, at least.

Well if our government programs are making sure people are not living in real poverty, then what's the point of working? I think that's the point here.

Why work 40 hours a week when 28 plus food stamps and other benefits such as Medicaid or huge subsidies on Commie Care will fill in the gaps?

Without the over generous social programs, people would work more hours or take measures to increase their income.

If you can prove that countries with little or no assistance for the poor have fewer poor people,

let's hear it.

Here is another comparison to other countries again as truth. Stop by the Chinese gay thread and contribute because over there, its different, we don't want to be like other countries. LMAO

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

This is one of the topics that Fux Noise moderators intentionally ignored. They were so busy trying to attack Trump, they forgot to look at what pro-business policies would do for the debt.

Democrat policies sound good, but they are designed to increase the debt while destroying the Middle-Class. Bernie Sanders talks about income inequality, which is a massive Red-Herring. He tells everyone he's gonna give them free everything, which will double the debt in a few years, and then he whines about how all of these people who are collecting entitlements he supported are not making enough money. It's a total scam. More people collecting benefits means less people earning and producing and fewer people paying taxes, which means less revenue to pay down the debt. The goal of the Democrats is to increase the debt. Eventually they will just write it all off and just act like it doesn't exist.....screwing you and me out of our futures. This is why everyone feels that America's best days are behind her.

 

[mudwhistle]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

Income inequality is a real issue. My view on it has nothing to do with envy. Remember, the private sectors only way of getting liability free dollars is from the government in the form of deficit spending, spending past tax receipts. Now, spending is what drives an economy, and the people who spend most of their income? The poor and middle class. The rich are accumulating most new dollars and saving them, moving them between each other, doing absolutely nothing productive. An economy does better when the poor have more to spend, see my signature for an IMF paper on this.
The problem has been getting worse for decades, booming with the neoliberal ideology coming to popularity in the 70s. "Lower taxes for unreal growth." That sort of nonsense.
I do agree that our current assistance programs need to be changed. We need a job guarantee to provide anyone willing to work with a public sector job, the specifics vary from proposal to proposal, but the idea is to set a wage floor and make sure no productivity is lost. Doing this also lets us replace many of our assistance programs. Did I mention the private sector will compete for these laborers?
Small businesses have been failing because of a lack of demand for their products, mainly due to stagnant wages. If you want to help small businesses, encourage deficit spending. More liability free dollars that the people can earn.
Of course payments increased under Obama, the most brutal recession since the GD, coupled with stagnant wages for decades..

Total nonsense. An economy does better when people spend their own money, not the peanuts that the government throws to them to barely get by on.

If you're dependent on government your spending habits change. If the economy is poor, people cut back on spending. If the government doesn't inspire confidence because of the debt, this causes people to feel that they need to save instead of spend.

 

[Moonglow]

The GOP crashes the economy yet it's the next presidents fault.....

 

[Wildman]

What are you doing about it?

twice now you have asked this Q.
what are you doing if anything ? do you even care ? get off your lazy welfare ing ass and get a job.

my son tells me there are tons of jobs in Mobile Alabama if you have the skill to open a can of beer/soda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The official poverty measure does not count most of the value of government assistance that the poor receive. If you count that assistance,

the real poverty rate is about 4%.

If you take away the assistance given to the poor, as the GOP wants to do, THEN the poverty rates goes into the teens, at least.

Well if our government programs are making sure people are not living in real poverty, then what's the point of working? I think that's the point here.

Why work 40 hours a week when 28 plus food stamps and other benefits such as Medicaid or huge subsidies on Commie Care will fill in the gaps?

Without the over generous social programs, people would work more hours or take measures to increase their income.

If you can prove that countries with little or no assistance for the poor have fewer poor people,

let's hear it.

Here is another comparison to other countries again as truth. Stop by the Chinese gay thread and contribute because over there, its different, we don't want to be like other countries. LMAO

-Geaux

So you can't name a single country where there are fewer poor people because the government doesn't help the poor,

and yet you think ending our help to the poor will eliminate poverty.

You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The remaining liberals on here can't handle anything more complex than a dog whistle. I posted this article a couple of days ago and it wont nowhere.

Let me explain what's happening there... because it happens to me frequently as well...

You see, the liberals here haven't received their talking points yet. They don't bother engaging in these kind of threads until they are armed with propaganda links and pseudo-intellectual blather to throw at your points. Most of them are barely smart enough to get their PC booted up.

Now, I have found that if you keep bumping the thread back up, eventually one of the lesser savvy ones will inevitably make some kind of smart ass comment or take a pot shot. Then another one may jump in and attempt to derail the thread by taking it off topic. If nothing else, they'll flood the thread with personal insults and denigration.

You're not going to have an intellectual debate with them on this, it's beyond their limited ability. I've almost forgotten how it was to sit down with a lefty and actually debate on merit. There are so few of them left nowadays as they have moved toward the radical axioms of Saul Alinsky and others.

The bullshit of the OP has already been debunked and refuted dozens of times, your denial notwithstanding.

 

[mudwhistle]

The GOP crashes the economy yet it's the next presidents fault.....

Oh....Congress didn't have a hand in it?

Explain the program Bush put in place via EO that caused this to take place.

 

[Kondor3]

I don't know the extent to which Democrats are responsible for the CREATION of Income Equality.

But it's obvious to even the worst dullard, just how profoundly and extensively they're responsible for the PERPETUATION of Income Equality.

By creating an entire Welfare Dependency Class - a.k.a. the "Depends" ...

 

[Dovahkiin]

We keep hearing the left sound the alarms about income inequality. When you look closely at the problem, you realize that, like many things, the left has systematically created or worsened this problem just so they could advance their agenda by introducing "solutions" that take us even farther left. You don't help people by discouraging them to do more for themselves, you merely make them more dependent on you. And that is exactly what the left has been doing. It's also becoming less advantageous for some to work. Many middle class families had two adults working full time. Not so now. Between many small businesses being destroyed and taxes punishing that middle class income, it's better for many to settle for one income. Removing the rungs on the ladder to success only serves to further the divide between high and low income. When you cut out the middle income earners, that divide appears even greater. I think this is all a carefully conceived plan to create more dependent Dem voters. And it's working. There is so much ignorance out there and few stop to ask what caused some problems.


"Money matters, but so do other policies, such as the long, historic sweep of the expanding welfare state. In 1968, government transfer payments totaled $53 billion or roughly 7% of personal income. By 2014, these had climbed to $2.5 trillion—about 17% of personal income. Despite the redistribution of a sixth of all income, inequality measured by all three of the Census Bureau’s indexes is far higher today than in 1968.

Transfer payments under Mr. Obama increased by $560 billion. By contrast private-sector wages and salaries grew by $1.1 trillion. So for every $2 in extra wages, about $1 was paid out in extra transfer payments—lowering the relative reward to work. Forty-five million people received food stamps in mid-2015, an increase of 46% since the end of 2008. Similarly, 71.6 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an increase of 13.3 million since October 2013.


In 2008, during the deepest recession in 75 years, 13.2% of Americans lived below the government’s official poverty line. The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but in 2014, after five years of economic expansion, 14.8% of Americans were still in poverty. The economy was better, and there were a lot more handouts, but still poverty rose.

The structure of American households shows how this happened. From 2008 through 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of two-earner households declined. These two-earner households have become the backbone of the American middle class.

Research by the Hamilton Project and http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/65/4/ntj-v65n04p759-82-how-marginal-tax-rates.pdftheUrban Institute show that when families with children making between $20,000 and $50,000 attempt to have a second earner go back to work, the effective tax rate on the extra earnings—including lost government benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and medical support payments—is between 50% and 80%. This phaseout of the ever increasing array of benefits has created a "working-class trap" instead of a "poverty trap" that is increasing inequality and keeping the income of these households lower than they might otherwise be.


While the number of two-earner households declined during the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of households with no earners rose by almost five million. In other words, two thirds of the increase in the number of families under Mr. Obama was accounted for by households with no one working. This is the reason the middle class has shrunk, and the reason inequality has increased. And unless we increase the number of people wanting to work and the number of jobs through economic growth, inequality will only increase.


It may not be Democrats' fault that the family is breaking down - that more people are having children out of wedock and doing other things that put them at an economic disadvantage - but it is their fault they keep subsidizing these behaviors with counterproductive public policy.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and all the transfer payments Democrats insist on making from producers to non-producers have two very destructive effects: 1. The lessen the urgency to either get a job or get a better one; 2. They reinforce the cultural message that you're not entirely responsible for taking care of your own needs.

I don't care how much liberals insist that doesn't disincentivize work. It does. They're no way it can possibly not. Human nature allows for no other possibility. And what Lindsey demonstrates in his piece proves that it has that effect.

Think about it like this: Let's say you've spent many years in the workforce and you've always been gainfully employed. One day, a liberal comes along and takes all your money away from you and gives it to someone who has never worked - and gets you fired from your job. But nothing else changes. You still know how to work. You still have the same experience. You still have the same skills and good habits. And the person who was given your money still lacks all that.

Fast forward five years: What do you think are the chances you're back on your feet and he's back where he was before the wealth transfer? Pretty strong, right? Because even though you were dealt a blow and he got a momentary windfall, you still know the right things to do and he still doesn't.

That's what wealth transfers on a massive scale do. The same people end up doing well in the end, and the same people end up doing poorly, but the ones who do poorly are given a false sense of security that they don't have so much to worry about because someone else is going to take care of them. In the end, they put less effort than they otherwise would have into improving their situations - and it's the fault of the people who claim they want to help them."

http://www.caintv.com/lawrence-lindsey-explains-how

Income inequality is a real issue. My view on it has nothing to do with envy. Remember, the private sectors only way of getting liability free dollars is from the government in the form of deficit spending, spending past tax receipts. Now, spending is what drives an economy, and the people who spend most of their income? The poor and middle class. The rich are accumulating most new dollars and saving them, moving them between each other, doing absolutely nothing productive. An economy does better when the poor have more to spend, see my signature for an IMF paper on this.
The problem has been getting worse for decades, booming with the neoliberal ideology coming to popularity in the 70s. "Lower taxes for unreal growth." That sort of nonsense.
I do agree that our current assistance programs need to be changed. We need a job guarantee to provide anyone willing to work with a public sector job, the specifics vary from proposal to proposal, but the idea is to set a wage floor and make sure no productivity is lost. Doing this also lets us replace many of our assistance programs. Did I mention the private sector will compete for these laborers?
Small businesses have been failing because of a lack of demand for their products, mainly due to stagnant wages. If you want to help small businesses, encourage deficit spending. More liability free dollars that the people can earn.
Of course payments increased under Obama, the most brutal recession since the GD, coupled with stagnant wages for decades..

Why Rich Consumers Matter More

That's from 2009, and the amount of spending is hilarious low.

 

[Dovahkiin]

View attachment 66432
Here is a graphic I have posted before. It shows something very interesting with regard to the "shrinking middle class." First of all, the 7 years of ObamaEconomy are not shown. This is data from 1967-2009.

It clearly shows us the decline of "middle class" families coinciding with the rise in "upper income" families, while the "lower income" families remain relatively unchanged. Of course, if the chart extended on out to 2016, you'd see the upper income families decline some more, as they are starting to do here and lower income families would increase.

What you see happening, all through the 70s, 80s, 90s and into the 00s, is families not being content with "middle income" and striving for more. So they are going away but a lot of them are becoming the new rich.

That's a great chart, but I want to add another one for comparison:

View attachment 66434

Receiving government assistance has nothing to do with complete dependency. Think about a tax refund, the government creates dollars out of thin air to add some numbers to your account. I guess that's dependency. The private sector relies on the government, we're all "dependent." Liability free dollars? Thank the government. The highway system we drive on? Our military for protection?

Government is needed for "some"things, but not most. They just happen to butt their nose in where it doesn't belong all the time.

In most cases, income tax refunds are too much money you gave to the government that they are merely giving back.

As for roads and bridges, that is covered in the US Constitution. In fact, if we stuck to federal spending only outlined in the US Constitution, not only would our taxes be lower, but we would have no debt either.

The government created the market.
LOL. The government doesn't "store" tax dollars somewhere, it deletes numbers from an account and that's that.
"No debt." Absolutely insane. How do you propose we get new liability free dollars?