| Author |
|
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2834
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 7:28pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Kevin, to that I must say: True Dat.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:24pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Michael: Of course I have looked at Obama's proposed spending
plans. I think they're great. A corporate neo-con? Well, it's a
mixture of two terms. Corporate means :::::SNIP:::::And Neo-Con means: ::::SNIP:::::In our modern political terminology, it refers to a conservative who favors the business end of things. |
|
|
No, Mike, it doesn't. NEVER has it supported your proposed definition in any of its various usages. This is simply an example of you tossing off something glib by way of a term you obviously enjoy using but don't really understand. Mike, did you stop to wonder why even the NY Times bit you seem to have quoted makes specific reference to Foreign Policy?
QUOTE:
| It must be hard for you, to have to look words up. Gets you all
frustrated. You start spiting and ranting and typing angry things on
the computer. |
|
|
Mike, I'm not the cat trying to lay down this "it can mean whatever I say it means" line.
QUOTE:
| But to answer your question about Reganomics - so... if it was so
great - and yeah, I'm just some dumb hick - I don't get big words and
fancy economic logic - but if it was so great, why come we owe so much
monies every time it put in effect? Why come average income down so
much? Why come more poor people? Duh.... me stupid... but I'm not
that stupid. |
|
|
Mike, would you admit that you were wrong about supply-side economics not helping to provide an increase in GDP, applied general investment capital, and employment? All, while simultaneously helping to reduce the inflation rate, in real terms, to half of what it had been (arguably, the biggest feat under Reagan's economic policy). You stated , flatout, that it "didn't work", didn't you? That capital doesn't, in fact, "trickle down"? Well, those are economic indicators which indicate it does 'work'. With regard to capital formulation, I can show it has worked during President Bush's two terms, as well. Why not simply argue that--depending on the overall state of the economy--traditional, large-scale progressive taxation can also be demonstrated to 'work'? In this vein, though not truly traditional with regard to overall aspect, President Clinton's massive tax increase came at a time when the overall economic situation could not only afford it, but actually capitalized on those factors and helped (along with basic adherence to pay/go) to acheive the first surpluses since Truman.
Mike, deficit spending has absolutely nothing to do with the goal of what you're calling "trickle down" economics, since its only possible goal is to enhance capital formulation. There is no causal link to be made. Average income "down so much"? More poor people? Don't even get me started on the poverty index. But, to respond to your two statements; one, the real median household income in 2006 climbed, for the second consecutive year (latest figures available are for 2006, 2007's figures hit in August), two, the nation's official poverty rate declined from 12.6% in 2005 to 12.3% in 2006 (again, latest figures). Fluctuations in an economy the sheer size of that of the United States'? Of course, but initial your statements were so broad and all-encompassing, that any counter divergence is all that is needed to refute the basis of those statements.
Regarding the out-of-date poverty index used in America: What other nation has 43% of its official poor owning their own homes, owning more appliances than above median income earners in other nations, owning larger homes than above median income earners in other countries (the average 'poor' respondent--this is a survey after all--owned a three-bedroom home with garage and patio), only 6% reporting living in 'over-crowded' conditions, 75% owning their own vehicles (with 30% of the households owning more than one automobile), and 98% saying they've never been hungry or done without? What other nation doesn't include general entitlements, or even welfare and Medicare, payments in their calculation of the index (no outside assistance is calculated)? Only America.
QUOTE:
| Why, look here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm -
I don't see unemployment too drastically changed by Trickle Down
Economics - in fact - I see some pretty high spots of Unemployment. |
|
|
Mike, coming out of the inherited recession and record high inflation, you saw 19.9 million net jobs added under Reagan's economic policie. You can't refute this point.
Variation in the numbers over the years? You are always going to see variation. You saw it in the 90's under Clinton. Well, would it surprise you to learn that President Carter actually presided over a better annualized adding of jobs than either presidents Reagan or Clinton? Even with Clinton's welfare reform and 4% unemployment rate and Reagan's inheriting in his first term of an official recession from Carter, that is the case. Why don't the figures look better for Carter, then? Carter's difficulty was keeping pace with a surged increase in the labor force; hence, the lackluster figures for Carter's term in office. My point is that this isn't a isn't a zero-sum formulation, and understanding the actual numbers, vis-a-vis all pertinent factors, is an imperative. In Reagan's case, we see, for only two examples, not only an official recession in his first term, but an increase in the labor force.
Mike, the median household income (your table is for median household income) has, with obvious fluctuation, increased 31% since 1967. Disposable, per-capita income was $27,600 in 2005-2006; compared to, in inflation adjusted dollars, $19,385 in 1972. That's a 43% increase. In unadjusted dollars, it is a 469% increase. America ranks only behind Switzerland in Purchasing Power Parity with GDP, and there is no genuine comparison possible given Switzerland's population and the actual size of their GDP. This is an involved issue beyond even these simple facts.
Boy, you said a mouthful. Rational revolution, huh?
"We have a room with 5 people in it. The total value of all the money in the room is $10. 00. Sam enters the room and says that he has $10. 00 that he wants to give to Jim. This makes everyone else unhappy of course and everyone says that they will beat Jim up if he takes the money."
Laughing my ass off. I realize the author covers his ass by offering the obvious caveat of "this is not a 100% accurate model of our economic system, and it assumes that 'all other aspects of the economy are equal'," but Jiminy-FUCKING-Cricket, are you kidding me? Not 100% accurate? Gee, ya think? And the ONLY "major principle" I see represented is a truly weird distortion of capital formulation...that's it. Tell you what, Mike, if you think you can defend this page's notions, then lay out your argument. I'll be more than happy to attempt to counter your specifics...and I know how much you love being specific.
So, what did you think of this author crediting Reagan with a remark actually made by JFK, or am I missing something? It was Kennedy, when he cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70%, who actually said that, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:28pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Al wrote:
| Right. Knew that it had to be the Democrats fault somehow. No way the
Republicans would have to shoulder any of that blame! |
|
|
Now, is this really how you see it, Al...that someone besides Mike is reducing this argument to an "us versus them" routine? For the sake of completeness, Al, no president--or economic policy--is completely liable for any economy. I'd even argue that presidents and governments fight an uphill battle to even attempt to "control" an economy as large and diverse as the U.S. economy. The fact is that we place the blame, or praise, on presidents simply because it is convenient to reduce seemingly opposing economic policies to this sort of shorthand.
Dismal? Maybe, judged by American expectations.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:33pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Yeah, it's time to go Third World. Excuse me while I go rummage in garbage heaps for food and sing praises of Bush and the Republicans.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:34pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I wrote:
Right. Knew that it had to be the Democrats fault somehow.
No way the Republicans would have to shoulder any of that
blame! |
|
|
Michael Myers wrote:
Now, is this really how you see it, Al...that
someone besides Mike is reducing this argument to an "us versus them"
routine? For the sake of completeness, Al, no president--or economic
policy--is completely liable for any economy. I'd even argue that
presidents and governments fight an uphill battle to even attempt to
"control" an economy as large and diverse as the U.S. economy. The fact
is that we place the blame, or praise, on presidents simply because it is
convenient to reduce seemingly opposing economic policies to this sort of
shorthand.
Dismal? Maybe, judged by American expectations. |
|
|
My point was that people oversimplify and choose scapegoats --
pretty much everything you just said*. Cool.
*Except for the taking a shot at somebody part. That was all
you.
Edited to add quotes for context (someone else posted between
Michael's post and my response).
Edited by Al Cook on 26 July 2008 at 9:41pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:43pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Such BS. Nobody told Bush to lead us into war. Nobody but him and his neo-fascists got us trillions and trillions into debt. It was he and Greenspan who engineered the real-estate and sub-prime bubble. Such BS.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:46pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Josh Sherwood wrote:
| 4. We've seen trickle down economics in effect. So have intelligent
businessmen. Just go study the case of any professional athlete who
made a ton of money and then blew it on buying cars, houses, and drugs
for their friends. That, my
friends, is trickle down economics, and no businessman or woman with
half a brain would ever endorse or act such a policy. People get rich
by saving, not by spending. |
|
|
Josh, I don't even know where to start. You are mistaken on every point and, even, in the gist of your example.
QUOTE:
| 5. Everything is the Democrats
fault. I'm just pointing it out. The fact that America had a
Republican controlled Congress for more than a decade, including during
the first 6 years of a Republican President's term in office, while a
conservative bench served on the Supreme Court, means nothing. It's
the Democrats faults that everything has gone to hell. Right? Am I
right? |
|
|
You'd have trouble proving that by reliance on the posts of people in this thread. Even with reliance on people given a political ideology like my own. And no, the republicans did not control both bodies of congress for ten years or the first six years of President Bush's term in office. I don't really know what to make of your Supreme Court comment. Anyway...
I'd say the Republicans made the Democrats look like pikers when it came to pork (both discretionary and the increase of non-discretionary spending) and growing the size of government. And President Bush did NOTHING to help curb spending under the Republican congress. In fact, Bush seemed to encourage government growth beyond all expectations of a supposedly Republican president. For balance, on the other hand, President Clinton, fighting a Republican house and mostly adhering to the origional GHWB's pay/go agreement (ideal: opposition and spending caps), actually had the smallest government in terms of a percentage of the GDP of any president since President Lyndon Johnson.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 9:47pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
What's BS, Joe?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Sherwood
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 10:01pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I suppose that serious people have serious problems with satire.
That said, I for one have serious problems with people who seriously believe that all good things occur because of the acts of one political persuasion and all bad things occur because of the other.
I also believe that when a machine is broken, it's time to fix it. The turmoil we're in, the problems we've seen recently, it seems increasingly evident to me that our machine has broken. One person, be he an idealistic senator from Illinois, or a veteran senator from Arizona, will not be able to repair this country. It will take a combined effort by good people who are willing and able to work together.
Senator Obama strikes me personally as being willing and receptive to working hard to implement the repairs necessary. Senator McCain seems tremendously old hat. While Senator Obama may ideally wish to spend money to the moon and back, his plan still ultimately has Americans spending minimally 144 billion dollars less per year than Senator McCain's.
In other words, until the Republican Party has remembered the ideals and characteristics that made them strong and growing, until they have found their way again, I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 10:07pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"My point was that people oversimplify and choose scapegoats --
pretty much everything you just said*. Cool."
Sorry, Al, I must have been mistaken. See, I thought your point was that everyone else, besides Mike, was responsible for trying to scapegoat and oversimplify the matter.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 26 July 2008 at 10:12pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
"In other words, until the Republican Party has remembered the ideals
and characteristics that made them strong and growing, until they have
found their way again, I cannot in good conscience vote for John
McCain."
Fair enough, Josh.
Until Senator Obama actually lays out his proposed spending in concrete terms (McCain too, for that matter), we'll have to disagree on the figure of $144 Billion...it can't be supported.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Sherwood
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: 27 July 2008 at 12:27am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Michael - 144 billion is the known cost of the Iraq war on a yearly basis. Some speculate it could be even more expensive.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
