The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Nov 8, 2010.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pleased/sad that Obama agrees with what I have been saying for several years. So much for Republican "Rising tide raises all boats" hypothesis.


    from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/07/AR2010110705223.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

    By Lori Montgomery
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, November 7, 2010; 10:31 PM
    Without additional government action to spur hiring, President Obama said Sunday that he fears the U.S. economy could enter a "new normal" in which corporate profits are high but the number of new jobs is too low to reduce the nation's 9.6 percent unemployment rate to pre-recession levels.
     
  2. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right! Their "rising tide" simply sinks many of the boats!
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Okay, but how are the boats that have not risen going to do so without the 'rising tide?'
     
  4. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    But don't you know that the best thing for the economy is to have only companies that make no profits? :rolleyes:
     
  5. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    The best thing for the economy is for the unemployment rate to be low so there is still demand. If we really wanted to create jobs, we would be subsidizing employers to keep employees. That could be done in place of the stimulus plan, and that would keep money in the pockets of workers, which would keep demand up, which would really stimulate the economy.
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Subsidizing companies to retain employees has a few down sides...

    It is merely wealth redistribution
    It is corporate welfare
    It puts inefficient companies at the same level as inefficient companies
    It does not allow the free market to function
    It causes poor employees to be retained for longer than they should be
    It is another taxpayer program that would have no end

    It is just a bad idea all around.

    BTW - why does "money in the pockets of workers" stimulate the economy more than the same money in the pockets of the taxpayers who would be forced to pay it?
     
  7. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right; it is wealth redistribution. The corporate welfare/ inefficient companies issue is one that is a legitimate downside to the idea. I'd focus on helping small businesses stay afloat. They could use the extra, subsidized employees to expand their operations and grow the economy. It would have to have a phase out with the goal of expanding the small businesses so they can continue to keep the employees after the temporary subsidies end. In response to your last argument, I never proposed requiring companies to keep employees that have conduct or performance issues. I'd make participation voluntary. Because my proposal is temporary, the businesses would have to do things with the employees that are profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep them. This would be a great opportunity to help support America's small businesses.

    As a side note, if you're a business owner who's looking to hire, now's a great time to do so because of so many highly qualified paople looking for work.
     
    #7 Paul3144, Nov 8, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2010
  8. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many small businesses hire family members.

    Under your proposal a marginal business would look for your subsidy as a way of keeping marginal family employees on the payroll.

    Many small business owners don't like to lay off or fire employees even if they are not very good employees.

    Under your proposal a soft hearted employer could keep those otherwise marginal employees on the payroll simply to lessen his feelings of guilt about having to let them go.

    Why should taxpayers subsidize all that?

    And you still haven't explained why money in the pockets of workers is better to the economy than money in the pockets of the taxpayers that would have put it out there for your plan.

    Businesses don't hire just because there are many highly qualified people looking for work - businesses hire because they need employees.

    If a business is looking to hire because they need someone - they do it - regardless of how many people are looking for work.
     
  9. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the top 10% of all earners paying 70% of the taxes...aren't they already "spurring" hiring and the economy from gov't perspective?

    Let's use almost half of Americans (and illegals) paying ZERO taxes to start "spurring" things for a change!
     
  10. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keeping family members and marginal employees is an issue that the business owner will have to deal with. If the owner is a poor manager, that's not something the government can fix. Even if some small business owners do as you described, it still has a stimulative effect in the overall economy by keeping demand up. It's not ideal for it to work that way, but it still helps the situation.

    People who have a lot of money spend a smaller portion of their income.

    I never said anything to the contrary.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    Yeah. They sure do hire a lot of people.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    The rich get richer - why - because they spend money - wisely - to make more money.

    I teach the Defensive Driving Course. Costs about $40 - in NY you receive a 10% discount off your insurance. The insurance for my wife and myself is about 2 grand a year. That means we save about $200 a year x 3 years. Lets see spend $80 save $600 = net of $580. (and since I teach the course, I only pay a few dollars for my certifications - (but do I make Mrs Salty pay:saint:)

    True you can not retire on the $580, but the principal is there, spend wisely, save and you will get ahead of the game. I wonder how much rich people pay in interest charge each month. I would say very little. If you have a charge card - take a look at the APR and monthly charges. Give up a soda or coffee each day for a month, save your loose change each day - and apply that $50-75 to your credit card and see how much your interest goes down. While you are at it - call the card and ask for a lower interest rate.
    Lots of ways to get ahead of the game - but it takes dedication and preference.

    As far as DDC, often I hear - I cant afford it.....
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct - so let's not take yet more money from the taxpayers to give employers for something that the government can't fix.


    What does proportion of income have to do with stimulating the economy.

    A dollar is a dollar in the economy.

    This really sounds more and more like you are only interested in your proposal for the wealth redistribution side of it.
     
  14. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    And let's not do anything unless we know it will work perfectly 100% of the time.

    What you fail to understand is that the income is being redistributed- upward. Ultimately it's bad eve for for the rich to have the income distribution we currently have. We built the middle class in this country during the 1950s-1970s with a top marginal income tax rate between 70 and 90 percent. When the income is concentrated at the very top, there's less to go around for everyone else and that causes economic dysfunction. Look at historical income distribution. When the top earners have the most income we see the economy tank.
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Lets see - Your good buddy Rush Limbaugh buys a new car for $30,000. The salesman makes a nice commission - extra money he can go out and spend. Of course, Rush wants to keep his car in tip - top shape - so a mechanic makes more money. I'm sure Rush doesn't go to the self service car wash - bingo - another car washer probably makes a nice tip....
    Problem is a lot of folks don't want to work extra or harder.... the dream is out there, but it takes a lot of sweat and tears....
     
  16. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, yes, the wonderful 1970's. What a great time for the economy.

    This post shows glaring omissions...

    Kennedy dropped tax rates. Result: Economic growth.

    Reagan, in the 80's, dropped rates. Result: Economic growth.

    Get it yet?
     
  17. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kennedy dropped tax rates, but he also closed many loopholes in the tax laws so that in many cases, there was a tax increase. During the 50s-70s, we didn't have crashes or boom and bust cycles. The economy just chugged along. During the 70s we did have stagflation, but no crash. When Reagan dropped the tax rates, we did have a short-term boom, but then we had the 1987 crash and we entered a cycle of boom and bust that continues to this day. Furthermore, if you look at wages in inflation-adjusted dollars, wages have been stagnant since the Reagan tax cuts even as worker productivity increases. Where does all the extra money from the worker productivity go? Straight to the top.
     
  18. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must admit, I got a good laugh out of your explanation for why Reagan's tax cuts hurt our country.

    You write good fiction. Keep it up.
     
  19. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know. I wrote piece of fiction on a blog about Census workers back in August under the name "Jax Enumerator".

    LCO=Local Census Office
    FOS=Field Operations Supervisor
    CL=Crew Leader
    LCOM=Local Census Office Manager
    PBOCS=Paper-based Operations Control System
    PII=Personally Identifiable Information
    AMFO=Assistant Manager for Field Operations
    NRFU=Non-response Follow-up
    CLA=Crew Leader Assistant

    The link is http://www.mytwocensus.com/2010/08/...rom-2010-census-debriefing-sessions/#comments

    That mytwocensus.com website was the non-partisan watchdog for the 2010 Census. The first comment on that article is another made up story that's pretty funny. There are also a bunch of others.

    Aren't I funny, Rbell?
     
  20. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    4
    :thumbsup: I'm very thankful that my parents taught me as a child to work hard and take pride in a job well done. With the economy the way it has been over the past few years I've worried from time to time about what would happen if my current job ever became obsolete. After studying on it a while I figured I'd be okay cause I'm not afraid to work, and the Lord rewards that.

    It saddens me to come across so many people in day to day life who just hate their jobs, as Dave Ramsey says they have the "Thank God its Friday, Oh God its Monday mentality".

    My dad always said "Poor people have poor ways", this may mean getting their paycheck and buying lotto tickets, beer, etc. I don't mind a bit to help anyone who truly needs it - we as Christians obviously have a duty to, but the truth of the matter is the problem with America today is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I believe like Salty that the dream is still achievable, but it doesn't happen overnight (unless your a sports star, pop star, etc.).

    Ok I'll now get off my soapbox. Please resume the discussion.:smilewinkgrin:
     

Share This Page

Loading...