Restrictions on welfare

[audtatious]

You mean without food stamps those families would have no need for food?

[Loki]

They should not be allowed to have ANY more kids once your on welfare.If you can't support yourself, why the F&(*% are you bringing more kids into this world?

The American government can never make up for the incredibly poor values of it's constituents. Welfare would be a whole different beast if those currently sucking on the system has been raised with principles.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Welfare recipients do pay taxes - they pay sales tax on the items they buy. In the process these consumers help the economy - because they buy items from a store etc. so that businesses stay in business. This is why this talk of redistribution is a bit of a stretch.

Another example where the benefactor may not be obvious to everyone is - Food Stamp programs. Besides low income individuals and families, food stamp programs subsidize the farming and agricultural industry. It helps to create a demand for the goods farmers produce.

The trickle-up effect, lol?

The talk of redistribution is no stretch. You're taking my money and giving it to someone else for no services rendered. That's redistribution of wealth.

[Cali 2 Balti G]

You mean without food stamps those families would have no need for food?

NO not at all - what I'm saying is that food stamps help ensure that the products produced by farmers are purchased and consumed.

[Cali 2 Balti G]

The trickle-up effect, lol?

The talk of redistribution is no stretch. You're taking my money and giving it to someone else for no services rendered. That's redistribution of wealth.

Trickle up - yes that is the basis of capitalism - the consumer. Without consumers capitalism does not work. If no one is buying the products then factories close. BTW this was one of the biggest reasons for the end of slavery as this country changed from an agricultural base to an industrial base. Slaves needed to be paid a wage so that they could consume the products produced by the factories. (but that is a whole other discussion).

As for redistribution - if you want to talk about it -you've got to talk about all forms of redistribution - including corporate- the latest example being the $700 billion redistribution plan funded by tax payers.

For me the stretch is when you don't look at the entire picture.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Trickle up - yes that is the basis of capitalism - the consumer. Without consumers capitalism does not work. If no one is buying the products then factories close. BTW this was one of the biggest reasons for the end of slavery as this country changed from an agricultural base to an industrial base. Slaves needed to be paid a wage so that they could consume the products produced by the factories. (but that is a whole other discussion).

As for redistribution - if you want to talk about it -you've got to talk about all forms of redistribution - including corporate- the latest example being the $700 billion redistribution plan funded by tax payers.

For me the stretch is when you don't look at the entire picture.

Jobs generate lasting consumers. Your slaves analogy is skating on thin ice... who purchased the goods before the slaves were freed? Once the slaves were freed, how did they get money? Oh right, from being in the employ of the wealthy who created the jobs. Give a man a fish...

I will gladly talk about all forms of redistribution, including corporate. My congresscritters were informed before the bailout that if they voted for it, I wouldn't be voting for them.

[480sx]

Trickle up - yes that is the basis of capitalism - the consumer.

Trickle up is nothing.. The trickle down 'theory' is a disproven theory that was commonly held 20-30 years ago by republicans and other people in favor of limitless buisness.

[audtatious]

What Obama means to me

http://www.youtube.com/v/381gFG4Crr8

[audtatious]

Trickle up is nothing.. The trickle down 'theory' is a disproven theory that was commonly held 20-30 years ago by republicans and other people in favor of limitless buisness.

He's from Baltimore thus it makes sense to him.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

a disproven theory that...

Wait, what?

[audtatious]

Trickle up is nothing.. The trickle down 'theory' is a disproven theory that was commonly held 20-30 years ago by republicans and other people in favor of limitless buisness.

Poor people do not create jobs and neither do "rich" people when they have more and more of their money taken from them which would have gone for investments.

Let's analyze a services field...say.....landscapers and those who do maintenance and spraying. They service people and charge them a fee. They are not creating jobs as they are a service to those who are willing to pay and can only grow and add jobs if more people are willing to pay for their services. Those who are charged a fee gladly pay it because they have the money for it and it's worth having someone else do it. Now, let's take money from those who purchase these services because they are considered "rich". What's one of the first things they are going to drop when money gets tighter (we are talking about those who make over 150k per Joe Biden)? Yep, what may be deemed an unnecessary service. So, all of a sudden a large amount of services are canceled. What impact does that cause? Well, the companies providing the services will lose revenue and start laying off their employees (probably folding as well), the companies that sell them supplies like fertilizer, landscaping rock, lighting, mulch, etc. will have less sales and will be potentially facing the same issue. The result is less employment and less money in the economy.

So, explain to me how avoiding the above is not to be considered trickle down economics?

[jdansmith]

Mandatory drug tests for Welfare recipients!

Random? I say a min. of 4 per year. This country needs to overhaul infrastructure, become greener and we have an untapped supply of welfare receivers we could use for the good of the nation all the while teaching a trade that could get them off the tax dime. How much time shall they work? Depends on how much help they receive. Community service and the suggestion of separating recyclables is genius , think of the jobs the jobless can help create. Recycle everything possible and if a politician wants to run on this platform, they have my vote.

[Cali 2 Balti G]

Jobs generate lasting consumers. Your slaves analogy is skating on thin ice... who purchased the goods before the slaves were freed? Once the slaves were freed, how did they get money? Oh right, from being in the employ of the wealthy who created the jobs. Give a man a fish...

I will gladly talk about all forms of redistribution, including corporate. My congresscritters were informed before the bailout that if they voted for it, I wouldn't be voting for them.

My use of the example of slavery is not an analogy it is fact. (again - that is a whole other discussion)

Fast forward to today - I'm not saying that welfare recipients create jobs- but what I am saying is that as consumers they help sustain the economy - just like any other set of consumers.

As for what you guys are calling "trickle up" - if you dont understand how individual consumers - are the basis of our economy then I'm not sure what to tell you. If individuals do not spend money then the business ceases to exist.

[audtatious]

Fast forward to today - I'm not saying that welfare recipients create jobs- but what I am saying is that as consumers they help sustain the economy - just like any other set of consumers.

So, you DO advocate wealth distribution. The money they have via welfare is given to them at the expense of others who earn it. Welfare should be a hand up and not a hand out. If they did not have the welfare they would have to work to earn the same products they get for free.

As for what you guys are calling "trickle up" - if you dont understand how individual consumers - are the basis of our economy then I'm not sure what to tell you. If individuals do not spend money then the business ceases to exist.

And with no jobs then how will anyone be able to be a consumer? Your whole analysis assumes that the consumer is more important than business. In general they should be equal but that is not necessarily true as it takes growth to increase the job market and increase pay which means more money in the cycle. Yes, business needs the consumer but the economy needs business to grow in order to allow more jobs and more money for consumers. You seem to only see one side of the equation.

[480sx]

Poor people do not create jobs and neither do "rich" people when they have more and more of their money taken from them which would have gone for investments.

Let's analyze a services field...say.....landscapers and those who do maintenance and spraying. They service people and charge them a fee. They are not creating jobs as they are a service to those who are willing to pay and can only grow and add jobs if more people are willing to pay for their services. Those who are charged a fee gladly pay it because they have the money for it and it's worth having someone else do it. Now, let's take money from those who purchase these services because they are considered "rich". What's one of the first things they are going to drop when money gets tighter (we are talking about those who make over 150k per Joe Biden)? Yep, what may be deemed an unnecessary service. So, all of a sudden a large amount of services are canceled. What impact does that cause? Well, the companies providing the services will lose revenue and start laying off their employees (probably folding as well), the companies that sell them supplies like fertilizer, landscaping rock, lighting, mulch, etc. will have less sales and will be potentially facing the same issue. The result is less employment and less money in the economy.

So, explain to me how avoiding the above is not to be considered trickle down economics?

Aud, your like a right-winged chicken little.

The trickle down theory sounds great. In practice is fails, fails hard. It is more commonly referred to as the 'Sponge' theory now. The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor. The theory is kind of like saying that because the rich are making more money, more of that money will 'trickle' down to the poor. In reality, that money just sits in bank accounts and the stock market getting fatter while the poor are still getting the same 'trickle' they always have.

The idea is kinda hilarious coming out of a capitalist mindset. The whole theory almost seems to be based on the 'generosity' of the rich, or their willingness to share the wealth. Uhh, enough said.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Aud, your like a right-winged chicken little.

The trickle down theory sounds great. In practice is fails, fails hard. It is more commonly referred to as the 'Sponge' theory now. The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor. The theory is kind of like saying that because the rich are making more money, more of that money will 'trickle' down to the poor. In reality, that money just sits in bank accounts and the stock market getting fatter while the poor are still getting the same 'trickle' they always have.

The idea is kinda hilarious coming out of a capitalist mindset. The whole theory almost seems to be based on the 'generosity' of the rich, or their willingness to share the wealth. Uhh, enough said.

It's not SHARING wealth. It's investing, and spending.

Jesda put it best (as always, it seems...):

"The rich" drink Cristal and eat fish eggs. Then after getting bored with that, they sail and stuff. They pay colored people to entertain them on their yachts.

...no.

They invest in real estate, new ventures, new businesses, and new ideas. They play a role in expanding the national and global economy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842

Money just doesn't SIT in bank accounts and the stock market. The banks turn around and loan you a rich person's money so you can pretend to own your house, and companies sell stock so they can spend money.

[audtatious]

I'm just a right wing bible thumper trying to force religion and homophobia down your throat. Everything you say is 100% factual and other POV's are worthless.

Gotcha, I understand.

charlieo, let it go. He's right, just ask him. If you argue with him you will simply get labeled and filed away.

[HashiriyaS14]

Both sides of this argument are sort of right and sort of wrong.

The conservative side is articulating their argument infinitely better, however.

That said, I'm staying out of it this time, lol. Everyone's heard my take on this.

[audtatious]

It takes both sides. Without one or the other they both fail. The question then turns to which is more important for the "big picture".

[480sx]

I'm just a right wing bible thumper trying to force religion and homophobia down your throat. Everything you say is 100% factual and other POV's are worthless.

Gotcha, I understand.

charlieo, let it go. He's right, just ask him. If you argue with him you will simply get labeled and filed away.

Man do you love to put words in peoples mouths or what? I said LIKE, it was a JOKE. I have taken a lot of time to argue points with you without discounting you simply because i believe your a rightist. Get off your high horse ffs. Very hypocritical

Bleh, ill compose a real argument later, no time atm.

[audtatious]

I said LIKE, it was a JOKE.

When you post a reply, see those little face things? It helps express whether you are joking or pissed and a number of other things. Don't assume what you are saying is taken as a joke.

This whole line is tiring and Obama is going to do what he wants anyway so the discussion is moot.

[480sx]

Trickle down economics do not make it so that middle america or the poor get any more money. That itself is the reason that it is a failed economic theory. It just ensures they have a place to work. This is IMO the ONLY benefit to trickle down economics.

However i believe that even if the rich are taxed at a higher percentage, they will still want to make money and invest. Very rarely is anyone ever satisfied with what they have, most people always have the desire for something more. This basic human nature is the driving force behind capitalism. Even if the rich are taxed at a higher percentage, this drive isnt going to go away. Were not talking about communism here at all.

When taxes are lowered for the rich this enables them to obviously make more capital, this is the main legislation behind the Trickle Down theory put into effect by Reagan. The problem here is that while they are investing their money to make more of it, the working class isnt really seeing any benefits from his employer. The employer is not going to raise salaries, he wants to make as much as he can to keep investing.

In addition, the divide between the wealthy and the working class grows bigger. The working class stays making median salaries and the rich keep getting richer. This can actually cause inflation, causing the working class persons dollar to be worth less or the same as it was before.

Since the 1970's, the 'working class poor' in America has gone up from 7 percent to 12 percent. This is the 'trickle down' effect in action.

This graph here is pretty self explanatory. It shows the relationship between the top 5 percent, as well as the rest of the 95 percent of America split into 5ths.



SOURCE ---> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc. ...ce=11

This graph shows the staggering difference between the top 1 percent and the rest of us. Notice what happens in the 1970's. I dont see much 'trickling down' to the rest of us.



SOURCE ---> www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/

This next graph shows family portions of income in America. Basically, which families earned the lions share of income in America split up 6 different ways. Again, notice the sharp increase in the top 5 percents net income, while everyone elses drops.



SOURCE ---> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/30x...e.pdf

Modified by 480sx at 12:46 PM 11/10/2008
Modified by 480sx at 10:32 AM 11/11/2008

[480sx]

When you post a reply, see those little face things? It helps express whether you are joking or pissed and a number of other things. Don't assume what you are saying is taken as a joke.

I made that assumption, and i apologize. I just figured you guys would know by now that im not out here to talk trash and label people.

Anyway, no hard feelings.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

What's this? An increase all around? Hmmm... Any graphs on social mobility?

Also, getting your uncited graphs from "rationalrevolution.net" is a bold move. Coming to a thread near you: OIF graphs from Code Pink.

[480sx]

Before you attack the credibility of my sources find some that prove them wrong, or give me some more credible reason why my source is bad. Im sure you didnt do any real research on the site or you just judged the book by the cover.

You say my source is bad but use it for your argument?

Oh by the way, the graphs were cited. You just didnt spend the time to find the citations. Heres your source for the majority of information.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/30x...e.pdf

BTW, thats the Congressional Budget Office of the US.
Modified by 480sx at 12:51 PM 11/10/2008

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Before you attack the credibility of my sources find some that prove them wrong, or give me some more credible reason why my source is bad. Im sure you didnt do any real research on the site or you just judged the book by the cover.

You say my source is bad but use it for your argument?

Perhaps I should have inserted one of those smilies I keep hearing about. But, you know, you've never been misunderstood on the internet, right?

Where's my social mobility graph, ehh?

Also, I don't know how you ninja-edited to add those citing, but I've caught you: your most recent post was edited after I made my post. I'm expected to be able to see into the future and notice you added citations? Nice try, though, you sent me for a loop.

Edit for myself: your links don't work. Explain yourself, where your sources be?

Edit again: the only link that works stops at 1997... AND I'm on p 31 right now, and some of the graphs aren't matching up.

Modified by charlieo at 3:39 PM 11/10/2008

Another edit:The graph presented on page 37 or 202 "Shares of After-Tax Household Income" which is probably a match to your "Shares of National Income" graph DOESN'T MATCH AT ALL. The page 70 of 202 graphs don't jive at all with your displayed "average income" graph. Not in the least. In fact, in 1997 (the last year the doc you gave) there's a $50,000 income disparity! The dips in your graph are all exagerated, as well.

Modified by charlieo at 3:53 PM 11/10/2008

More fun: check out page 68! The lowest's quintile's percent of excise tax is of the wall! I wonder why that is... oh yeah, don't booze and cigs have excise taxes...?
Modified by charlieo at 3:56 PM 11/10/2008

[480sx]

You post looked real scary until i read the titles to the graphs that you quoted.. None of which are of the same information as the graphs i quoted. Family is different from a household.

LOL i didnt mean to ninja you like that, i should have added in something about me adding those citations. Ill figure out why the links dont work now.

You keep bringing up a social mobility graph.. Why dont you find one if its so important to you?

Page 68 is kinda mind boggling that it works out like that. Maybe your right, booze and cigs, idk. Weird stuff tho. Idk if i like that really, people have a right to give themselves cancer and destroy their livers.. Not really a big fan of taxing something that is more commonly used by the poor. That is really kind of disturbing if our interpretation of that graph is correct. Id be curious to go back to 1989 and figure out why it was so low, and what taxes were increased in the early 90's to cause that large jump.
Modified by 480sx at 3:45 PM 11/10/2008

[Urabus GodofTraction]

You post looked real scary until i read the titles to the graphs that you quoted.. None of which are of the same information as the graphs i quoted.

LOL i didnt mean to ninja you like that, i should have added in something about me adding those citations. Ill figure out why the links dont work now.

Pg 37 "Shares of After-Tax Houseold Income by Income Group" does match one of your graphs:.

If it doesn't, please show me the information your graph uses to create itself. After all, we're citing the same document.

Pg 70 comes really, really, really, really freakin' close to this one:

It's so close that I'm wondering where the "top 5%" information came from.

DOUBLEDAMN your editing. That's like a 125% increase in text!

It's not my job to find the mobility graph. You're trying to prove the trickle-down is disproven. So, do it.

[480sx]

Or i could say your trying to prove that a theory that came out of the Regan era that is now officially over, is still a valid economic theory. Either way really, you have yet to attack any of the core ideas of my argument, just some graphs that i pulled from the net.

Find me some proof that it is still a valid theory. Iv done my end, made my case.

[OriginalWheelman]

Find me some proof that it is still a valid theory.

A May 16, 2006 editorial in the Wall St. Journal stated, "The Pacific Research Institute has crunched the tax numbers in all 50 states and published the 'U.S. Economic Freedom Index' ranking all states according to how friendly or unfriendly their policies were toward free enterprise... In 2005, per capita personal income grew 31% faster in the 15 most economically free states than it did in the 15 states at the bottom of the list. And employment growth was a staggering 216% higher in the most free states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...omics