|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2014 16:53 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" Now, if we wanted to go back to the most period of growth for the 'middle class' in America, we'd have to go back to 1880 to 1905 (for ex. per capita income rose over 50% during this time and standard of living exploded).
To quote myself in responding to introvert, you know, some things can be proven with a quick google search. So factual statements like "the most period of growth for the middle class' (if excuse the total ambigiuity of it) can be proven if we just quickly enter into google "1880 US economy" annnnnd google says we get...the United States in the middle of a terrible depression. In fact before the 1930s version, they called this period of time "The Great Depression"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States
The recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[23] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[23] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[23] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883-1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[23] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[23] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884-1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[23]
So for future references you might want to move your date to the magical period of awesomeness to 1885 when a recovery began...or maybe not since 8 years later, in 1893, another recession struck. So again lets go to good old Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
As a result of the Panic, stock prices declined. 500 banks were closed, 15000 businesses failed, and numerous farms ceased operation. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened in order to help feed the destitute. Facing starvation, people chopped wood, broke rocks, and sewed in exchange for food. In some cases, women resorted to prostitution to feed their families. To help the people of Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree started "Pingree's Potato Patch" which were community gardens for farming.[9]
The severity was great in all industrial cities and mill towns. Farm distress was great because of the falling prices for export crops such as wheat and cotton. "Coxey's Army", the first populist "march on Washington", was a highly publicized march of unemployed laborers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several Western states to demand relief in the form of a jobs program.
And what ended this horrible terrible recession? Klondike Rush gold rush that injected optimism and money into a deeply recessed economy, a nice little short victorious war against the Spaniards, the annexation of Hawaii, some dabbling with imperialism in China, and a new trade tariff on trade with Europe.
|
On February 20 2014 17:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 15:55 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 14:23 Mercy13 wrote:On February 20 2014 14:03 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 13:50 Mercy13 wrote:
Okay... but he allowed spending to rise, which is completely anathema to conservatives today. "allowed" is an odd word to use. But was he perfect? No. The reason I brought him up, apart from the record that we could delve into some other time, is that A) people said he couldn't win B) he had to fight the establishment, and C) he was able to communicate his ideas and get people behind him. That's why I brought him up. He had to deal with a democratic house his entire presidency. And let me say, Tip O'Neill was no John Boehner. Tip fought for what he wanted, helped shut down the government multiple times, and attached irrelevant things to debt ceilings and budgets. Sound familiar? When the democrats aren't whining about it, they're doing it. If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %). Most of the large spending came from dems in the House and his military spending. Reagan even wanted to get rid of the DOE, but couldn't- his own party was against it. So he wasn't perfect (his stance and actions on gun control are unfortunate), but the point is that he actual got in with a solid conservative message and did his darnedest to achieve conservative goals. besides that, he was 10x better for the American people than Carter, who was rightly viewed as weak and demoralizing. Why is allowed an odd word to use? It just seems odd to me that conservatives hold a president in such reverence who compromised with Democrats on multiple occasions and presided over a period of increasing deficits and spending. I cannot see the current conservative champions such as Cruz supporting either of those things, whatever the circumstances. It's confusing to you because the common propaganda line is that the Tea Party is against compromise (nevermind it was Obama who said "I will not compromise"). Reagan had the fortitude to fight and actually make real gains. Could he accomplish everything? No. But you can only do so much, especially considering the cold war. He made deals, but unlike today's Republicans, he actually got something from them. The modern republican party just throws a hissy fit then gives Obama 90% of what he wants. It's called the "era of Reagan" for a reason. He did as much as he could. Were Cruz to become president, he wouldn't be able to undo 100 years of progressive garbage, but he could at least slow the advance. I already explained the deficit to you. He held domestic spending relatively constant while (re)building the military. He made deals to get as much as he could. He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part. TL;DR he did what he could, as is evidenced by the way the left hates him, while their politicians simultaneously try to claim him. Reagan was a buffoon. He expanded the size, scope, and power of DC more than Carter did...never mind his bellicose foreign policy (at least he had the decency to pull out of Lebanon). I think Murray does a superb job: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.htmlHas the Reagan Administration done nothing good in its eight ghastly years on earth, you might ask? Yes, it has done one good thing; it has repealed the despotic 55-mile-per-hour highway speed limit. And that is it.So, that about sums it up. Which frankly makes the other posters prop about 'laissez-faire' or whatever post-1980 pretty laughable. How many times must we hear this out-right lie time and time again.
That article had a bone to pick with him. Do have to give libertarians credit though, they all seem to write quite well and don't mince words.
I know libertarians are no fans of Reagan's (they may hate him more than the left does), but my point was not to discuss the good and bad of his presidency. He was protectionist, grew the government, etc. I didn't even have to read the article to see those lines, I've heard them before. I never claimed to be some sort of cultist. I do, however, think that outside of some constitutional, structural fix, we are never going to get any where. One particular president will only be able to slow the growth of government, not stop it. It would take a string of good presidents to have any shot at that, ignoring what the supreme court has done over the decades.
The article seems to think that were some libertarian to be elected president, that he could change all these things on a whim. The problems are too deep for that. And this is the part that irks me about libertarians. There is literally nothing and no one that could satisfy them. Everyone is a statist unless they adopt every single plank and refuse to compromise at all. Like trying to get rid of the two DOE's. (Education and Energy). If you can't do it, you can't do it.
I am going to skip the editorializing for the most part because I accept that sometimes people just disagree but you know, some of the statements you make can be verified factually with just literally a second of googling:
In 1980, Debt to GDP is approximately 20%.
In 1988 its over 50%. In 1992 its over 60%. T Clinton knocked it down to a level Reagan.
I don't recall denying that the debt was high when he left office, I said that the economy was doing well enough that it wasn't a crisis.
My point was not to point to our lord and savior, Ronald Reagan. It was to demonstrate that a conservative can actually overcome the party, the accusations of being too "out there," etc.
|
On February 20 2014 17:28 Introvert wrote:
[
I don't recall denying that the debt was high when he left office, I said that the economy was doing well enough that it wasn't a crisis.
uhm, this is what you said
If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %).
and He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part.
Which seems to suggest you actually did believe that he decreased the debt...or at least based on your exchange of comments with that German fellow....
And yes I agree that debt of the US is not at a crisis now or then but your original statements were factually wrong.
But I accept that you were making your bigger point about how a conservative can win. Since we've talked circles around that issue I offer no new opinion.
|
On February 20 2014 17:31 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 17:28 Introvert wrote:
[
I don't recall denying that the debt was high when he left office, I said that the economy was doing well enough that it wasn't a crisis.
uhm, this is what you said Show nested quote +If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %). and Show nested quote +He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part. Which seems to suggest you actually did believe that he decreased the debt...or at least based on your exchange of comments with that German fellow.... And yes I agree that debt of the US is not at a crisis now or then but your original statements were factually wrong. But I accept that you were making your bigger point about how a conservative can win. Since we've talked circles around that issue I offer no new opinion.
In the first part, I acknowledged that debt rose, but domestic, non-military spending was essentially flat.
The second part I was saying that yes the debt was high, but so was the economy-this meant that it could be worked off. It wasn't a $500 billion deficit on a failed stimulus, though there was a bail out of sorts in there.
Read what I said again, I never said he lowered the debt.
|
While on the one hand, it's good for everyone to feel they have a voice in government; on the other hand, alot of people are crazy and have very little idea of how to run a country.
I'm wondering what the most effective ways are to make sure people feel heard, while weeding out the crazy so you can actually get effective work done.
|
On February 20 2014 17:16 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 16:53 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" Now, if we wanted to go back to the most period of growth for the 'middle class' in America, we'd have to go back to 1880 to 1905 (for ex. per capita income rose over 50% during this time and standard of living exploded). To quote myself in responding to introvert, you know, some things can be proven with a quick google search. So factual statements like "the most period of growth for the middle class' (if excuse the total ambigiuity of it) can be proven if we just quickly enter into google "1880 US economy" annnnnd google says we get...the United States in the middle of a terrible depression. In fact before the 1930s version, they called this period of time "The Great Depression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_StatesShow nested quote +The recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[23] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[23] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[23] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883-1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[23] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[23] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884-1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[23] So for future references you might want to move your date to the magical period of awesomeness to 1885 when a recovery began...or maybe not since 8 years later, in 1893, another recession struck. So again lets go to good old Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893Show nested quote +As a result of the Panic, stock prices declined. 500 banks were closed, 15000 businesses failed, and numerous farms ceased operation. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened in order to help feed the destitute. Facing starvation, people chopped wood, broke rocks, and sewed in exchange for food. In some cases, women resorted to prostitution to feed their families. To help the people of Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree started "Pingree's Potato Patch" which were community gardens for farming.[9]
The severity was great in all industrial cities and mill towns. Farm distress was great because of the falling prices for export crops such as wheat and cotton. "Coxey's Army", the first populist "march on Washington", was a highly publicized march of unemployed laborers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several Western states to demand relief in the form of a jobs program. And what ended this horrible terrible recession? Klondike Rush gold rush that injected optimism and money into a deeply recessed economy, a nice little short victorious war against the Spaniards, the annexation of Hawaii, some dabbling with imperialism in China, and a new trade tariff on trade with Europe.
It certainly wasn't perfect, and that wasn't my argument. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Note how from 1870 to 1913 US GDP more than doubled, and we led even England at the time (supposed World economic super-power). Not only that, but the average standard of living more than doubled. Electricity, heating, luxuries, etc. were wide-spread by 1910. This is also taking into account wide-spread deflation during this period which makes the GDP increases much more impressive (e.g. more than doubled PPP). Not only did the average American make more, they could buy more with their dollars than they could before. Compare this to say, 1970 to now, or 1950 to 1980, and the difference is stark. Of course you can cherry pick single events that were short-lived and write off the facts of the time period, but hey, you have a line to tow and it can't handle this time period.
Also, war, imperialism, and tariffs destroy the average persons standard of living and real PPP. Just ask the average person living in the US during WWII how 'good' they had it. I'm sure the rationing and availability of consumer products were at all-time highs! Yay, War!
|
On February 20 2014 17:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 17:31 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 17:28 Introvert wrote:
[
I don't recall denying that the debt was high when he left office, I said that the economy was doing well enough that it wasn't a crisis.
uhm, this is what you said If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %). and He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part. Which seems to suggest you actually did believe that he decreased the debt...or at least based on your exchange of comments with that German fellow.... And yes I agree that debt of the US is not at a crisis now or then but your original statements were factually wrong. But I accept that you were making your bigger point about how a conservative can win. Since we've talked circles around that issue I offer no new opinion. In the first part, I acknowledged that debt rose, but domestic, non-military spending was essentially flat. The second part I was saying that yes the debt was high, but so was the economy-this meant that it could be worked off. It wasn't a $500 billion deficit on a failed stimulus, though there was a bail out of sorts in there. Read what I said again, I never said he lowered the debt.
but the debt wasnt worked off. After Reagan left the office his fiscal policies contributed to an even higher debt level under Bush, which is when he made the foolish mistake of promises no new taxes and then raising them...
|
On February 20 2014 17:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 17:16 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 16:53 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" Now, if we wanted to go back to the most period of growth for the 'middle class' in America, we'd have to go back to 1880 to 1905 (for ex. per capita income rose over 50% during this time and standard of living exploded). To quote myself in responding to introvert, you know, some things can be proven with a quick google search. So factual statements like "the most period of growth for the middle class' (if excuse the total ambigiuity of it) can be proven if we just quickly enter into google "1880 US economy" annnnnd google says we get...the United States in the middle of a terrible depression. In fact before the 1930s version, they called this period of time "The Great Depression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_StatesThe recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[23] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[23] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[23] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883-1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[23] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[23] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884-1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[23] So for future references you might want to move your date to the magical period of awesomeness to 1885 when a recovery began...or maybe not since 8 years later, in 1893, another recession struck. So again lets go to good old Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893As a result of the Panic, stock prices declined. 500 banks were closed, 15000 businesses failed, and numerous farms ceased operation. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened in order to help feed the destitute. Facing starvation, people chopped wood, broke rocks, and sewed in exchange for food. In some cases, women resorted to prostitution to feed their families. To help the people of Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree started "Pingree's Potato Patch" which were community gardens for farming.[9]
The severity was great in all industrial cities and mill towns. Farm distress was great because of the falling prices for export crops such as wheat and cotton. "Coxey's Army", the first populist "march on Washington", was a highly publicized march of unemployed laborers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several Western states to demand relief in the form of a jobs program. And what ended this horrible terrible recession? Klondike Rush gold rush that injected optimism and money into a deeply recessed economy, a nice little short victorious war against the Spaniards, the annexation of Hawaii, some dabbling with imperialism in China, and a new trade tariff on trade with Europe. It certainly wasn't perfect, and that wasn't my argument. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capitaNote how from 1870 to 1913 US GDP more than doubled, and we led even England at the time (supposed World economic super-power). Not only that, but the average standard of living more than doubled. Electricity, heating, luxuries, etc. were wide-spread by 1910. This is also taking into account wide-spread deflation during this period which makes the GDP increases much more impressive (e.g. more than doubled PPP). Not only did the average American make more, they could buy more with their dollars than they could before. Compare this to say, 1970 to now, or 1950 to 1980, and the difference is stark. Of course you can cherry pick single events that were short-lived and write off the facts of the time period, but hey, you have a line to tow and it can't handle this time period. Also, war, imperialism, and tariffs destroy the average persons standard of living and real PPP. Just ask the average person living in the US during WWII how 'good' they had it. I'm sure the rationing and availability of consumer products were at all-time highs! Yay, War! Huh? "Single events" like two massive depressions that put millions out of work? And no economic historian would seriously say that in 1913 England was the leading industrial power. Both the US and Germany had overtaken her by then.
I am also confused what your random selection of a period in America's history as the best time ever has to do with the technological progress at the time....yes the Second Industrial Revolution brought many amazing things..so did the electronics revolution...or the computer revolution for that matter...
But lets look at your arbitrary table there. The GDP increased even more between 1820 and 1870, why not make that the magical time period instead?
I mean there was a small matter of the whole 'civil war' business but hey, whats a bunch of dead Americans in the face of statistically the most significant increase in GDP! But why stop there. Look at Mexico, its GDP more than doubled between 1950 and 1973 and that was a period of a statist system where the government had a heavy hand in the economy, maybe that generates better results?
or hell italy beween 1950 and 1973 TRIPLED their GDP!
|
On February 20 2014 18:02 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 17:36 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 17:31 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 17:28 Introvert wrote:
[
I don't recall denying that the debt was high when he left office, I said that the economy was doing well enough that it wasn't a crisis.
uhm, this is what you said If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %). and He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part. Which seems to suggest you actually did believe that he decreased the debt...or at least based on your exchange of comments with that German fellow.... And yes I agree that debt of the US is not at a crisis now or then but your original statements were factually wrong. But I accept that you were making your bigger point about how a conservative can win. Since we've talked circles around that issue I offer no new opinion. In the first part, I acknowledged that debt rose, but domestic, non-military spending was essentially flat. The second part I was saying that yes the debt was high, but so was the economy-this meant that it could be worked off. It wasn't a $500 billion deficit on a failed stimulus, though there was a bail out of sorts in there. Read what I said again, I never said he lowered the debt. but the debt wasnt worked off. After Reagan left the office his fiscal policies contributed to an even higher debt level under Bush, which is when he made the foolish mistake of promises no new taxes and then raising them...
I meant it could be worked off in the future, given the economic growth happening. And it was. I have no problem with debt so long as it's for some defined cause with a planned resolution (and as long as it's not absurdly high). Is that what it was when Reagan was done? I admit ignorance- I have no idea. But that wasn't my point.
If I were to support a balanced budget amendment (I do) then it would obviously have a mechanism for which the nation can go into debt.
That's the problem with today. The democrats would spend more and more, then try to cover it with higher and higher taxes. No cuts at all! (except to the military). All while continuing to fill bloated, ever hungrier federal programs.
I'm not saying that increasing the debt was great, and I'm not saying that getting rid of it was easy. But in that case, it wasn't back-breaking.
Edit: I am a fan of Reagan generally speaking, and I'm not going to criticize him for things that were almost impossible for him to actually do. That being said, no one gets a free pass, either. The gun control thing sticks in my mind as particularly noteworthy. But considering the other presidents we've had? Yea, I'd take him over them any day.
|
On February 20 2014 18:09 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 17:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 17:16 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 16:53 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" Now, if we wanted to go back to the most period of growth for the 'middle class' in America, we'd have to go back to 1880 to 1905 (for ex. per capita income rose over 50% during this time and standard of living exploded). To quote myself in responding to introvert, you know, some things can be proven with a quick google search. So factual statements like "the most period of growth for the middle class' (if excuse the total ambigiuity of it) can be proven if we just quickly enter into google "1880 US economy" annnnnd google says we get...the United States in the middle of a terrible depression. In fact before the 1930s version, they called this period of time "The Great Depression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_StatesThe recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[23] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[23] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[23] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883-1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[23] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[23] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884-1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[23] So for future references you might want to move your date to the magical period of awesomeness to 1885 when a recovery began...or maybe not since 8 years later, in 1893, another recession struck. So again lets go to good old Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893As a result of the Panic, stock prices declined. 500 banks were closed, 15000 businesses failed, and numerous farms ceased operation. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened in order to help feed the destitute. Facing starvation, people chopped wood, broke rocks, and sewed in exchange for food. In some cases, women resorted to prostitution to feed their families. To help the people of Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree started "Pingree's Potato Patch" which were community gardens for farming.[9]
The severity was great in all industrial cities and mill towns. Farm distress was great because of the falling prices for export crops such as wheat and cotton. "Coxey's Army", the first populist "march on Washington", was a highly publicized march of unemployed laborers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several Western states to demand relief in the form of a jobs program. And what ended this horrible terrible recession? Klondike Rush gold rush that injected optimism and money into a deeply recessed economy, a nice little short victorious war against the Spaniards, the annexation of Hawaii, some dabbling with imperialism in China, and a new trade tariff on trade with Europe. It certainly wasn't perfect, and that wasn't my argument. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capitaNote how from 1870 to 1913 US GDP more than doubled, and we led even England at the time (supposed World economic super-power). Not only that, but the average standard of living more than doubled. Electricity, heating, luxuries, etc. were wide-spread by 1910. This is also taking into account wide-spread deflation during this period which makes the GDP increases much more impressive (e.g. more than doubled PPP). Not only did the average American make more, they could buy more with their dollars than they could before. Compare this to say, 1970 to now, or 1950 to 1980, and the difference is stark. Of course you can cherry pick single events that were short-lived and write off the facts of the time period, but hey, you have a line to tow and it can't handle this time period. Also, war, imperialism, and tariffs destroy the average persons standard of living and real PPP. Just ask the average person living in the US during WWII how 'good' they had it. I'm sure the rationing and availability of consumer products were at all-time highs! Yay, War! Huh? "Single events" like two massive depressions that put millions out of work? And no economic historian would seriously say that in 1913 England was the leading industrial power. Both the US and Germany had overtaken her by then. I am also confused what your random selection of a period in America's history as the best time ever has to do with the technological progress at the time....yes the Second Industrial Revolution brought many amazing things..so did the electronics revolution...or the computer revolution for that matter... But lets look at your arbitrary table there. The GDP increased even more between 1820 and 1870, why not make that the magical time period instead? I mean there was a small matter of the whole 'civil war' business but hey, whats a bunch of dead Americans in the face of statistically the most significant increase in GDP! But why stop there. Look at Mexico, its GDP more than doubled between 1950 and 1973 and that was a period of a statist system where the government had a heavy hand in the economy, maybe that generates better results?
or hell italy beween 1950 and 1973 TRIPLED their GDP!
It's pretty easy to have rapid growth rates when you're industrializing and/or rebuilding after a war, regardless of who's in charge.
|
On February 20 2014 19:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 18:09 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 17:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 17:16 Sub40APM wrote:On February 20 2014 16:53 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" Now, if we wanted to go back to the most period of growth for the 'middle class' in America, we'd have to go back to 1880 to 1905 (for ex. per capita income rose over 50% during this time and standard of living exploded). To quote myself in responding to introvert, you know, some things can be proven with a quick google search. So factual statements like "the most period of growth for the middle class' (if excuse the total ambigiuity of it) can be proven if we just quickly enter into google "1880 US economy" annnnnd google says we get...the United States in the middle of a terrible depression. In fact before the 1930s version, they called this period of time "The Great Depression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_StatesThe recovery, however, proved short-lived. Business profits declined steeply between 1882 and 1884.[23] The recovery in railroad construction reversed itself, falling from 11,569 mi (18,619 km) of track laid in 1882 to 2,866 mi (4,612 km) of track laid in 1885; the price of steel rails collapsed from $71/ton in 1880 to $20/ton in 1884.[23] Manufacturing again collapsed - durable goods output fell by a quarter again.[23] The decline became another financial crisis in 1884, when multiple New York banks collapsed; simultaneously, in 1883-1884, tens of millions of dollars of foreign-owned American securities were sold out of fears that the United States was preparing to abandon the gold standard.[23] This financial panic destroyed eleven New York banks, more than a hundred state banks, and led to defaults on at least $32 million worth of debt.[23] Unemployment, which had stood at 2.5% between recessions, surged to 7.5% in 1884-1885, and 13% in the northeastern United States, even as immigration plunged in response to deteriorating labor markets.[23] So for future references you might want to move your date to the magical period of awesomeness to 1885 when a recovery began...or maybe not since 8 years later, in 1893, another recession struck. So again lets go to good old Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893As a result of the Panic, stock prices declined. 500 banks were closed, 15000 businesses failed, and numerous farms ceased operation. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened in order to help feed the destitute. Facing starvation, people chopped wood, broke rocks, and sewed in exchange for food. In some cases, women resorted to prostitution to feed their families. To help the people of Detroit, Mayor Hazen Pingree started "Pingree's Potato Patch" which were community gardens for farming.[9]
The severity was great in all industrial cities and mill towns. Farm distress was great because of the falling prices for export crops such as wheat and cotton. "Coxey's Army", the first populist "march on Washington", was a highly publicized march of unemployed laborers from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several Western states to demand relief in the form of a jobs program. And what ended this horrible terrible recession? Klondike Rush gold rush that injected optimism and money into a deeply recessed economy, a nice little short victorious war against the Spaniards, the annexation of Hawaii, some dabbling with imperialism in China, and a new trade tariff on trade with Europe. It certainly wasn't perfect, and that wasn't my argument. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capitaNote how from 1870 to 1913 US GDP more than doubled, and we led even England at the time (supposed World economic super-power). Not only that, but the average standard of living more than doubled. Electricity, heating, luxuries, etc. were wide-spread by 1910. This is also taking into account wide-spread deflation during this period which makes the GDP increases much more impressive (e.g. more than doubled PPP). Not only did the average American make more, they could buy more with their dollars than they could before. Compare this to say, 1970 to now, or 1950 to 1980, and the difference is stark. Of course you can cherry pick single events that were short-lived and write off the facts of the time period, but hey, you have a line to tow and it can't handle this time period. Also, war, imperialism, and tariffs destroy the average persons standard of living and real PPP. Just ask the average person living in the US during WWII how 'good' they had it. I'm sure the rationing and availability of consumer products were at all-time highs! Yay, War! Huh? "Single events" like two massive depressions that put millions out of work? And no economic historian would seriously say that in 1913 England was the leading industrial power. Both the US and Germany had overtaken her by then. I am also confused what your random selection of a period in America's history as the best time ever has to do with the technological progress at the time....yes the Second Industrial Revolution brought many amazing things..so did the electronics revolution...or the computer revolution for that matter... But lets look at your arbitrary table there. The GDP increased even more between 1820 and 1870, why not make that the magical time period instead? I mean there was a small matter of the whole 'civil war' business but hey, whats a bunch of dead Americans in the face of statistically the most significant increase in GDP! But why stop there. Look at Mexico, its GDP more than doubled between 1950 and 1973 and that was a period of a statist system where the government had a heavy hand in the economy, maybe that generates better results?
or hell italy beween 1950 and 1973 TRIPLED their GDP! It's pretty easy to have rapid growth rates when you're industrializing and/or rebuilding after a war, regardless of who's in charge.
Yeah and the catching up effect last 20 years ? lol
The GDP increase in the entire XIXth century was around 1% a year. It is big, if you compare it to before (almost 0%) but it is still lower than anything after the second world war. You can discuss this to the end, but those are facts. By the way, the industrialization was during the XIXth century.
|
On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" You want to prove one line, and then trot out the another one-"trickle down economics." Are you going to argue by pejorative only, or is there some reasonable basis for your claims? Cutting taxes is trickle down theory-->isn't that absurd ~ let's just Appeal to Ridicule (Is that even a step up from the more prevalent fallacy here, the Straw Man?)
It was an across the board tax cut for all Americans. Yet, we have so many class warfare lovers that would twist that to their purposes. You see the rich need to pay a greater percentage of their income to government because they can afford to miss it, yet when taxes are cut, they don't deserve the same cuts because they would save them much more having initially paid much more. You might say irony, I say tragedy. The boogeyman is success, and we must kill it until there is no income inequality and we're all poor.
Way to bait and switch on wages. We're talking at 23% cut in tax rates, allowing people to keep more of their money to invest or spend as they choose. Now you're using that word "allow" for how much money we "allow" the rich to keep (oh these people in it for the poor are heartwarming, I'm sure envy isn't even a part of it). You're also trying to dig dirt on the economic boom that followed to try to discredit it. You're welcome to try on disco clothes and bask in Carter's glory if you like low growth and high inflation. Don't forget that real people are hurt when government policy hurts the economy's ability to create opportunity in new jobs and expand business. We already know you're only interested in giving copious government cheese if their incomes drop low enough or they lose their job.
|
On February 20 2014 21:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.
But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.
Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position. Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president. As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years. "Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending. You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before. Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere" You want to prove one line, and then trot out the another one-"trickle down economics." Are you going to argue by pejorative only, or is there some reasonable basis for your claims? Cutting taxes is trickle down theory-->isn't that absurd ~ let's just Appeal to Ridicule (Is that even a step up from the more prevalent fallacy here, the Straw Man?) It was an across the board tax cut for all Americans. Yet, we have so many class warfare lovers that would twist that to their purposes. You see the rich need to pay a greater percentage of their income to government because they can afford to miss it, yet when taxes are cut, they don't deserve the same cuts because they would save them much more having initially paid much more. You might say irony, I say tragedy. The boogeyman is success, and we must kill it until there is no income inequality and we're all poor. Way to bait and switch on wages. We're talking at 23% cut in tax rates, allowing people to keep more of their money to invest or spend as they choose. Now you're using that word "allow" for how much money we "allow" the rich to keep (oh these people in it for the poor are heartwarming, I'm sure envy isn't even a part of it). You're also trying to dig dirt on the economic boom that followed to try to discredit it. You're welcome to try on disco clothes and bask in Carter's glory if you like low growth and high inflation. Don't forget that real people are hurt when government policy hurts the economy's ability to create opportunity in new jobs and expand business. We already know you're only interested in giving copious government cheese if their incomes drop low enough or they lose their job.
For all americans ? Please let's get serious a little.
|
United States43529 Posts
You think the left hate success and want everyone to be poor?
|
@wengandi
'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true.
The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” soruce
i thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal.
here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies.
In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source
|
On February 20 2014 17:41 zlefin wrote:
While on the one hand, it's good for everyone to feel they have a voice in government; on the other hand, alot of people are crazy and have very little idea of how to run a country.
I'm wondering what the most effective ways are to make sure people feel heard, while weeding out the crazy so you can actually get effective work done.
Educate the public. Then, representative democracy (done well). Representatives are elected on broad policy statements but the decisions made in office are theirs to make. Which they make (again, if done well) on a factual basis and sometimes against current popular opinion. It sounds counter-intiuitive to disregard public opinion but for many things this is the best option.
Edit: Basically the public doesn't know best for the vast majority of issues. Either due to lack of education, lack of information about the issue or sensationalism (Facebook memes, media skew etc). Noone has the time to get in to every and all legislation. It's a full time job. And that is why we've given the job to full time professionals, whose job it is to read up on the facts, assess the situation and make a decision. Based on the policy preferences of the public, of course.
|
On February 20 2014 23:07 KwarK wrote:
You think the left hate success and want everyone to be poor?
Obviously only rich people should be allowed to engage in "class werfare" because it's for the greater good, don't you know ?
|
DENVER (AP) — Colorado's legal marijuana market is far exceeding tax expectations, according to a budget proposal released Wednesday by Gov. John Hickenlooper that gives the first official estimate of how much the state expects to make from pot taxes.
The proposal outlines plans to spend some $99 million next fiscal year on substance abuse prevention, youth marijuana use prevention and other priorities. The money would come from a statewide 12.9 percent sales tax on recreational pot. Colorado's total pot sales next fiscal year were estimated to be about $610 million.
Retail sales began Jan. 1 in Colorado. Sales have been strong, though exact figures for January sales won't be made public until early next month.
The governor predicted sales and excise taxes next fiscal year would produce some $98 million, well above a $70 million annual estimate given to voters when they approved the pot taxes last year. The governor also includes taxes from medical pot, which are subject only to the statewide 2.9 percent sales tax.
Source
|
That's about $120 per capita annually spent on weed in Colorado
Wonder what will happen once other states realize the kind of tax revenues they're missing out on by prohibiting
|
On February 21 2014 03:51 TheFish7 wrote:
That's about $120 per capita annually spent on weed in Colorado
Wonder what will happen once other states realize the kind of tax revenues they're missing out on by prohibiting
You don't legalize just to gain more taxes...
Sometimes its not about money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
