 |
Welcome to thebackpacker.com create account login |
 |
Trickle Down EconomicsView MessagesViewing posts 51 to 100 of 484 messages posted.
Jump to Page << prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next >> “Bingoooooooooooooooo ---” 11:24:02 AM 12/27/03 “And some recommended reading for Strat, LOL Better get crackin'! I think he cranks out another book every 2 weeks.” 11:28:12 AM 12/27/03 “The Death of Horatio Alger by PAUL KRUGMAN The Nation The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago. The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society. And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of "class warfare." Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant. Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality. Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid. The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes. It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people. Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born. Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role--and will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the future. Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do? One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes. Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy. And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees. It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it? Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that current policies will eventually create "a class of rentiers in the U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can't compete." If he's right--and I fear that he is--we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential. Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream.” 11:35:16 AM 12/28/03 “Reduce font” 11:36:19 AM 12/28/03 “sheesh Violin. Watch those fingers!!” 2:14:58 PM 12/28/03 “The farsighted among us appreciate the font. What is the average age of TTer’s anyhoo? 55?” 3:14:30 PM 12/28/03 “Hey, size=2 woulda been fine” 1:07:21 AM 12/29/03 “let's just kill anyone who suceeds.......” 10:52:16 AM 12/29/03 More wisdom from stratworld: “Up is down. Black is white.” 10:59:51 AM 12/29/03 Suburbia, Ohio - A Real Case “Bush does the following: 1. Tax cuts for rich folks. 2. Passes, then doesn't fund "No Child Left Behind" 3. Big Business, such as Drug Companies, reap big profits during recession, and help fund Bush's campaign. Results: 1. Major job losses, many in manufacturing. 2. Tax burden for NCLB falls on State and Local governments. 3. Unchecked, drug companies and health care rates rise 30-130% in 3 years. N. Ridgeville, Ohio - A growing suburb in Ohio, needs to pass a tax levy in order to keep the school operating at capacity. If levy fails: 1. over 50 employees will be laid off 2. programs will be cut 3. class sizes increase, quality of education suffers Why do they need a levy in order for this to happen? 1. $200,000 p/y loss of tax revenues due to loss of manufacturing business (inventory is taxed). 2. 1.5 million p/y needed to pay for NCLB Act. 3. 90% increase in healthcare costs results in $900,000 per year increase. 4. Republican led State of Ohio cut $500,000 per year in aide to schools. Total - 3.1 million that has to be made up in order to keep schools functioning. 1. N. Ridgeville has a higher rate of unemployment than State of Ohio. 2. A nice percentage of the community is elderly and retirees, who, due to HC increases over the past 3 years are financially strapped and may not be able to afford a tax increase. 3. Cost would be $150 - $300 per home to pass levy that would negate the increases. For N. Ridgeville, Bush's Trickle Down Bushonomics result in: 1. Higher tax rates, impoverished elderly folks, and loss of "tax cut" money for middle class folks or 2. Loss of jobs, loss of educational quality, etc. and most of all...... CHILDREN left behind. Thanks George, keep up the good work, and be sure to blow smoke up my a$$ by telling me the economy is growing quicker than it has in 20 years!” 4:59:28 PM 2/03/04 “Thats right, dazzle us with facts. Thanks BB Oh yea, in his new budget, he's going to increase spending for education about 6%...but he's cutting some 38 education programs. Who needs smart kids anyway, especially poor smart kids.” 5:03:37 PM 2/03/04 Whooo “My error, the spending increase is 3%, while cutting programs like art in education, school counseling and Even Start, a program for improving reading skills in poor children.” 5:06:58 PM 2/03/04 “Yeah Steve, that's the beauty of all of this. My wealthy suburbs will pass the levy, because people with $500,000 homes can better afford the increases over those with $125,000 homes. Those kids will be better educated. So I guess, Bush's plan should be.......... No Wealthy Child Left Behind. I should also state that the guy with the $500,000 home's "tax cut" will barely be effected by the cash he will have to dish out to pass they levy.” 5:08:11 PM 2/03/04 “How frustrating. I wish somebody here would dispute/discuss this information, I really do. This info. doesn't come from damned spinster. It's cold, hard facts. I voted for idiot Bush. I supported the war in Iraq. Where is Nigal, Busk, bacpac, stumprider? Somebody, please dispute this, and if not, please explain why you support the moron that perpetuates this scenario.” 9:44:28 PM 2/03/04 “Hey BB, perhaps if you wanted to discuss issues instead of your cliche rhetoric, you'd get more takers. This silly "tax cut for the rich" crap is tired old cliche. It was a tax cut across the board for those who pay taxes. You talk about destroying economies, have you seen what the Dems have done to California? Dems had both the governor's office and huge majorities in the state senate. This place flourished until the libs completely took over. It took a recall to get the libs out of there. Plain and simple, you want the real estate market to flourish? Cut interest rates and see the market get hot with more buyers and sellers and jobs created and everyone wins. You wanna see the economy flourish? Cut taxes. Despite what you doomsdayer depressed angry bitter political types think, the economy is doing quite well, thank you very much. Another 4 years and Bush'll really get it hummin'. Of course you think otherwise, but that's cool. I don't. The voters will decide in Nov. If Bush doesn't win re-election, another dude will have a shot. It's pretty simple. In the meantime, man, smile, enjoy life, it's actually pretty good! Yes, Life is good®.” 9:54:11 PM 2/03/04 “Buck, thanks for regurgitating (sp) a typical Rush Limbaugh comment. You back your opinion up with no FACTS, as usual. Provide facts, and feel free to dispute mine, until then, you are a schrill that takes nice pictures.” 9:57:57 PM 2/03/04 “The "rich" people in this country are not condemned people. You act like they should be tried and hung for being successful. The "rich" in this country already pay BY FAR the most taxes. The rich people are the ones who start companies that employ people, they invest in stocks to keep companies strong, they invest in housing so those who can't afford to buy can rent. Rich people are good. Believe me, I'm not rich so I'm not defending them based on personal interest, but merely because we need very successful people to make the wheels turn. You could be rich too if you really wanted to. I don't know why you folks think being rich is so bad.” 9:58:10 PM 2/03/04 “Regurgitate Rush? I don't listen to Rush. Boy, it sure seems Rush is listened to by the libs here and not the conservatives, ha ha! I have no idea what Rush is saying. Thanks for letting me know! Rock on with your angry worldview, BB! Don't worry, your bitterness isn't catchy. Woo Hoo!” 9:59:46 PM 2/03/04 “You act like they should be tried and hung for being successful. Why would I want to try and hang myself. According to how "rich" is defined in this country, I'm rich. The rich people are the ones who start companies that employ people, they invest in stocks to keep companies strong, they invest in housing so those who can't afford to buy can rent. Bull#&%!$! The rich (people employed by big companies making $250K or more) may invest in stocks, but we all can see that they create jobs IN OTHER COUNTRIES, and when they do create jobs in this country, they do so to try to keep wages and benefitys as low as possible. It's called capitalism dude, that's how it works when unchecked. Rich people are good. Believe me, I'm not rich so I'm not defending them based on personal interest, but merely because we need very successful people to make the wheels turn. I agree, we do need successful people to make the wheels turn, however, cpaitalism is based on greed (ask anybody), and when left unchecked, successful people (or those they employ) will expose every loophole and do everything they can to raise stocks, in order to remain successful. This benefits successful businesspeople, when left unchecked, and destroys the majority (check my example). You could be rich too if you really wanted to. I don't know why you folks think being rich is so bad. Our country is great because anybody, for the most part, can achieve. Being rich isn't bad, unless to destroy or break the back of others to get there (see greed, and capitalism when left unchecked). Republicans give rich folks the vehicle to enhance the rich, fueling your dillusions that that enhancement will create jobs, and boost the economy. Based on my original post, I have proved this wrong. Now, I ask you to prove me wrong. Good luck.” 10:11:29 PM 2/03/04 “"The rich people are the ones who start companies that employ people" Those are the same folks that are exporting our jobs overseas, right? Or are we speaking of the ones that want to bring in all the illegals and get them to work for sub wages. and one more thing.... Show me the WMD... oh yea, ya can't. Sorry, had to.” 10:12:34 PM 2/03/04 “I'm a conservative Democrat. I go to church. I don't spend money like crazy. I believe in living within my means. I believe in showing compassion for the poor. Guns and Gays are fine. Abortion is bad, but necessary. I'd take a true conservative president any day. The worst situation is a liberal Republican like Bush. Spend. Spend. Spend. Next year's budget has a half-trillion dollar deficit. The recovery is an illusion based on loose monetary policy and massive government spending. Let's get the Liberal, Spend, Spend Bush out of there.” 10:13:37 PM 2/03/04 “Where are all those millions of jobs....all those companies are making record profits, why aren't they hiring. Oh yea, thats right, they want Mexicans or Indians to do the work.” 10:14:29 PM 2/03/04 “Oh, yeah, the Republicans also refused to extend unemployment benefits at Christmas time. We've just had massive losses of jobs in Michigan. It's a fundamental reordering of the economy. Screw the unemployed.” 10:21:41 PM 2/03/04 “You are damned right Steve! And this "less government", let's privatize everything approach will just bring us down to some poor Indian 5 year old working for $1.00 an hour. Republicans want the mjority to lower our standards to make the minority rich. What makes this all more amusing is RL's statement about religion. People vote on that crap (sorry RL) People will vote mainly on thier faith-based belief that abortion is wrong, and get screwed on every other thing they believe in, just because "the religious belief of the day" tells them to do so. How friggin' sad, how unamerican!” 10:22:53 PM 2/03/04 “Why would I want to try and hang myself. According to how "rich" is defined in this country, I'm rich. BB, if you're rich, then why are you so upset? I'd bet high odds you took the tax cut then yourself, correct? You know, you don't HAVE to take tax cuts if you don't wanna. The IRS takes donations. I bet you take the tax cut yet complain all the same. It's the liberal way. Bull#&%!$! The rich (people employed by big companies making $250K or more) may invest in stocks, but we all can see that they create jobs IN OTHER COUNTRIES They would create jobs right here in this country if they could afford the demands of unionized labor. Unions have negotiated themselves right out of the capitalistic market place. And BB, I bet you always look for the best value on stuff, don't you? I mean, if you see two exact items priced differently, do you buy the higher priced item so they can provide better bennies for their employes? I doubt you do. You want low prices but high wages. Go figure. It's the liberal way. agree, we do need successful people to make the wheels turn, however, cpaitalism is based on greed (ask anybody), and when left unchecked, successful people (or those they employ) will expose every loophole and do everything they can to raise stocks, in order to remain successful Oh come on. Of course capitalism is based on greed, that's why we have a little thingy called government, and regulation. You talk about loopholes... when you file your taxes, do you not file smartly, or do you add a big tip at the end of your 1040 for the government and say "thanks for the great service"? You wanna talk about loopholes? I work for a government agency that helps folks on welfare. Let me tell you about the fraud and those on welfare trying take advantage of every looophole available, BB. It's ridiculous what I see in my job. They take every penny they can get and then some and often spend it on cigarettes and drugs and booze and fast food. Republicans give rich folks the vehicle to enhance the rich, fueling your dillusions that that enhancement will create jobs, and boost the economy. Based on my original post, I have proved this wrong. Uhhh... BB? You didn't prove anything other than you have a different philosophical approach to social issues, which is fine. It'd be nice if you were a sweety pie about it, but nooOOOoo, you gotta go with the whole stereotypical angry bitter guilt-ridden pissed-off liberal gig. I feel Republicans better give everyone a chance to succeed, and I feel Democrats provide a vehicle for those to get addicted to government reliance and taxing the very people who invest in companies to create jobs. But I won't claim I just proved you wrong, I'm more mature than that and more accepting of contrary views. How "conservative" of me. Ha ha!” 10:27:39 PM 2/03/04 “You wanna talk about loopholes? I work for a government agency that helps folks on welfare. Let me tell you about the fraud and those on welfare trying take advantage of every looophole available, BB. It's ridiculous what I see in my job. They take every penny they can get and then some and often spend it on cigarettes and drugs and booze and fast food. This explians alot, and you can't prove me wrong, because you have no facts to debate me with. Alll you have is opinion, and, quite frankly, your opinion means #&%!$ to me, if you have no facts to back it up.” 10:31:43 PM 2/03/04 “Bush just passed the prescription drug benefit for seniors and LIED about the cost. Within a few months, the cost increased by one-third. Bush spends and spends and spends. And he lies about it. Bush spends now and taxes the future.” 10:35:27 PM 2/03/04 Trickle Down Economics? “  ”10:39:30 PM 2/03/04 “The jobs started going overseas when NAFTA was passed. That happened before Bush was elected. Regardless of what he's done or not done to fix the problem, he wasn't the one who gave corps. the incentive to send jobs to Mexico.” 10:41:09 PM 2/03/04 “stikkie, I agree. NAFTA is bad enough alone, but with Bushenomics it's devestating.” 10:44:38 PM 2/03/04 “Well, I won't argue that. It does seem to be an awfully slow recovery. In the end, I find economics so boring I can't get motivated enough to look up facts and present arguments. That would change of course if it started affecting me personally.” 10:47:41 PM 2/03/04 “This silly "tax cut for the rich" crap is tired old cliche. It was a tax cut across the board for those who pay taxes. Hey Buck - could you take a look at this study prepared by the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice and tell me how you can possibly make the above statement? By 2010, the richest 1% will receive 51.8% of the benefit. Is this 'crap'?” 8:05:21 AM 2/04/04 Citizens for Tax Justice “Nonpartisan... technically. Unbiased... No way. Its a Think tank funded by the big labor unions.” 9:07:48 AM 2/04/04 “Trickle Down economics is another name for pissing on the workers and trying to convince them that it's raining. ABB” 9:48:59 AM 2/04/04 “I wonder what 'Senior' thinks of Junior's voodoo economics? I mean really.” 10:07:49 AM 2/04/04 “Some of Bush's tax cuts were really audacious. Retroactive cuts were simple give aways with no incentive value. The complete elimination of inheritance tax is really an outrage and, in my opinion, anti-American. The inheritance tax is a long tradition in this country, supported in part because it helps prevent the development of a heriditary aristocracy - a ruling class with growing power due to inherited ownership of businesses and lands. One of the worst things about the tax cuts is that they are really phony cuts - the whole deficit has to be paid back with interest and we all get the bill.” 10:36:28 AM 2/04/04 “The Bush teams economic priorities are also clear in their rule forbidding the government from negotiating pharmaceutical prices.” 10:41:38 AM 2/04/04 “And now Billy Tauzin is going to forego his congressional seat to work for the pharmaceutical industry? (I mean, work directly for the pharmaceutical industry....)” 10:50:18 AM 2/04/04 “"Ain't no place to pee on Mardi Gras day, but the rich folks get to pee on mardi gras day, they stand out on the balcony, they pee all over you and me, the rich folks get to pee on mardi gras day." (anybody got the complete, correct lyrics to that song?)” 10:53:24 AM 2/04/04 “Everyone deserves tax cuts, especially those who pay most of the taxes in America, the "rich". I think the best solution is a flat tax, but I know those who despise rich people would still think a flat tax would be unfair. Personally, I think we should reward risk-takers and those who are successful in business. We all have different priorities, and whatever it is we strive for in life, be it money, be it fame, be it charity, be it exploring wild places, be it raising a family, be it religion, be it whatever we choose, we should reap what we sow, and our efforts should be rewarded. I don't care about monetary rewards myself and I don't seek financial riches, but others do and I'm glad. They make the financial world go 'round. For those who are willing to take risks and put their money on the line and make things happen, let their rewards be great.” 11:01:00 AM 2/04/04 “The economy is coming back strong! Where are the jobs? Productivity is the highest it's ever been. Where is my raise? Just a couple of thoughts.” 11:10:55 AM 2/04/04 “That's fine Buck, as long as those with the success and power don't subvert our democratic process by buying our legislators.” 11:31:34 AM 2/04/04 “Yes, MarkO, I agree, but that's why our country is set up as it is. That's why we have elected officials that are voted in by the masses, not just the rich. That's why we are a "republic" and not a "democracy", so it's not mob rule. That's why we have the Constitution. That's why we have the balance of power with Congress and a President, and a judicial branch, a legislative branch, and an executive branch. That's why our elected officials must run again every four years, etc. That's why we're the greatest country in the world! YAAAAAA!!!” 11:38:50 AM 2/04/04 “Rah rah, whoop whoop, whoopee! Our legislators are being bought, hence legislation written in the interest of contributors and not in the public interest.” 11:42:12 AM 2/04/04 “Voodoo Economics.......Fuzzy Math...... Same chit, different President. It is very obvious, by the record turn outs in this Dem nomination run, that Gee Double U will have his hands full come election time. I just hope, that people, who ever it turns out to be, is taking notes so we can slam this bastard back to da Ranch!” 12:27:50 PM 2/04/04 “Buck – on another thread, you seemed offended when someone accused you of ignoring facts that didn’t fit your preconceived notions, or something to that effect. Earlier you said “This silly "tax cut for the rich" crap is tired old cliche. It was a tax cut across the board for those who pay taxes.” I posted a link to a study that shows that by the year 2010, the richest 1% will receive 51.8% of the tax cut. You answered (I guess) with this: “Everyone deserves tax cuts, especially those who pay most of the taxes in America, the "rich".” Would you please address my original simple and straightforward question? If the wealthiest 1% receive over 50% of the benefit, is this not a tax cut for the rich? Weren’t you mistaken in calling the phrase "tax cut for the rich" a silly, crappy cliché?” 2:56:19 PM 2/04/04 “Weren’t you mistaken in calling the phrase "tax cut for the rich" a silly, crappy cliché?" Violin, in 1999, the richest 1 percent of Americans took in 19.5 percent of the income. But they paid 36.2 percent of the taxes. The figures are similar for the top 5 percent, who made 34 percent of the money but paid 55 percent of the taxes. So much for rich people escaping taxes with sneaky loopholes, sleazy accountants and offshore shelters. Here you have the top 5% of people in America paying 55% of the taxes. Thank God we have hard working smart rich people so our government can operate. And you think it's totally fair that only 5% of Americans pay for 55% of the taxes? Violin, your taxes and my taxes are subsidized by the rich, because if they didn't pay so much of their income to run this government, they'd have to suck a lot more out of our paychecks to make up the diff. The Rich Pay Our Taxes So yes, I stand by my "tax cut for the rich a silly cliche".” 3:07:17 PM 2/04/04 “You haven't answered my question.” 3:14:44 PM 2/04/04 “I think I have. Where do we go from here? Arbitration? Lawyers? Oil wrestling?” 3:47:46 PM 2/04/04 “I don’t really want to get into all the irrelevant and misleading bits of your post and the article you link to. Can you at least concede that when a very small group receives most of the benefit, the program was for them?” 4:26:27 PM 2/04/04
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
|
SearchReady to Buy Gear?Sponsored Links
Great Outdoor SitesLinks |
