View Full Version : True Progressivism
RandomGuy
10-11-2012, 12:10 PM
The economist calls for some new ideas for today's old problems.
You may want to read the whole thing before jabbering anything overly predictable from your team. They are calling for synthesis (philosophy term), and that takes a bit from what you like and a bit from what others like, with a very strong mix of actual results and data to guide it all.
To wit:
BY THE end of the 19th century, the first age of globalisation and a spate of new inventions had transformed the world economy. But the “Gilded Age” was also a famously unequal one, with America’s robber barons and Europe’s “Downton Abbey” classes amassing huge wealth: the concept of “conspicuous consumption” dates back to 1899. The rising gap between rich and poor (and the fear of socialist revolution) spawned a wave of reforms, from Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting to Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Governments promoted competition, introduced progressive taxation and wove the first threads of a social safety net. The aim of this new “Progressive era”, as it was known in America, was to make society fairer without reducing its entrepreneurial vim.
Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention—to come up with ways of mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth. That dilemma is already at the centre of political debate, but it mostly produces heat, not light. Thus, on America’s campaign trail, the left attacks Mitt Romney as a robber baron and the right derides Barack Obama as a class warrior. In some European countries politicians have simply given in to the mob: witness François Hollande’s proposed 75% income-tax rate. In much of the emerging world leaders would rather sweep the issue of inequality under the carpet: witness China’s nervous embarrassment about the excesses of Ferrari-driving princelings, or India’s refusal to tackle corruption.
In this section
Reprints
At the core, there is a failure of ideas. The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income-tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further—unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments, already far bigger than Roosevelt or Lloyd George could have imagined, are overburdened with promises of future largesse. A far more dramatic rethink is needed: call it True Progressivism
...
It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.
...
That is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.
In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.
...
Read the rest of it here:
http://www.economist.com/node/21564556
Clipper Nation
10-11-2012, 12:25 PM
Not a bad article at all, tbh.... the premise is solid, and inequality DOES need to be addressed.... the way to do this is to legalize competing currencies, and allowing private charities to grow and prosper instead of undercutting them with bloated inefficient government programs, tbh....
boutons_deux
10-11-2012, 12:50 PM
"Messrs Obama, Miliband and Hollande need to come up with something that promises both fairness and progress."
why? there won't be any change since the 1% own the US legislative/relgulatory levers.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 01:19 AM
I agree about letting the charities grow. Rather than the government becoming the charity, it should promote more growth in privately funded charities.
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 09:07 AM
I agree about letting the charities grow. Rather than the government becoming the charity, it should promote more growth in privately funded charities.
Privately funded charities are, generally, extremely inefficient means of helping people.
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 09:18 AM
Privately funded charities are, generally, extremely inefficient means of helping people.
Plus,many of them run very high overheads eg, salaries and expenses, and many are corrupted/misdirected by corporate/1%.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 09:19 AM
Privately funded charities are, generally, extremely inefficient means of helping people.
If you say so. If you think government is more efficient, then that's your prerogative. However.... Charities do not take money out of my pocket without my permission!
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 09:20 AM
Plus,many of them run very high overheads eg, salaries and expenses, and many are corrupted/misdirected by corporate/1%.
Then don't give to one of those ones.
Here's the real issue. With charities, you have a choice as to who to give to and who not to.
You guys hit a real low slamming charities...
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 09:31 AM
If you say so. If you think government is more efficient, then that's your prerogative. However.... Charities do not take money out of my pocket without my permission!
That is precisely why they are so inefficient. Ever look at the financials for most charities?
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 09:33 AM
That actually brings up a really good point.
When was the last time you (anybody reading this) looked at the financials of the charity or church you gave money to? Why or why not?
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 09:34 AM
That actually brings up a really good point.
When was the last time you (anybody reading this) looked at the financials of the charity or church you gave money to? Why or why not?
There's a rating agency for charities, but for the life of me I can't remember the name. Have any idea?
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 09:35 AM
nm....teh google ftw!
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?gclid=CO-S9M7Z-7ICFcxcMgodpiQAKg
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 09:38 AM
Interesting take on a case study.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/aipmethod.html
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 09:39 AM
There's a rating agency for charities, but for the life of me I can't remember the name. Have any idea?
My search brought up a lot of them. Heh, the best of course required a $40 donation to get their ratings list.
Latarian Milton
10-12-2012, 09:41 AM
^ there ain't many people who dare to embezzle or misuse government's money the way they do charity fund. although the government takes your money away w/o asking for your consent, it's safe to say it won't go straightly into an asshole's private account like the charity money could tbh
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 10:36 AM
My search brought up a lot of them. Heh, the best of course required a $40 donation to get their ratings list.
:lol
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 11:20 AM
^ there ain't many people who dare to embezzle or misuse government's money the way they do charity fund. although the government takes your money away w/o asking for your consent, it's safe to say it won't go straightly into an asshole's private account like the charity money could tbh
Two words:
Medicare fraud
Government programs have their own drawbacks/costs. It all has to be weighed.
If one agrees with the statement:
People who need help, should get it.
Then the only answer is how best to do that, which is all the squabbling over entitlement programs is, when you get down to it.
That is precisely why they are so inefficient. Ever look at the financials for most charities?
I look at this before I give to ANY charity:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
"United States Government" isn't listed, btw.
It's "War on Poverty" is half a century old - not THAT'S efficiency!
People who need help, should get it.
People can agree on the statement, but have VERY different views of the meaning of the word "need".
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 11:41 AM
I look at this before I give to ANY charity:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
"United States Government" isn't listed, btw.
It's "War on Poverty" is half a century old - not THAT'S efficiency!
IRS budget:
$12bn
% of federal budget spent on collections, assuming 100% of budget can be classified that way:
0.3%
That is one of the standard metrics of charity efficiency. Find one with a lower number.
I'll wait.
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 11:44 AM
I look at this before I give to ANY charity:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
"United States Government" isn't listed, btw.
It's "War on Poverty" is half a century old - not THAT'S efficiency!
Interesting logic. Let's see where it gets us.
The Catholic church has been giving to the poor for over a millennium, they must really suck at helping the poor.
Is the Catholic Church a failure at helping the poor?
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 11:46 AM
People can agree on the statement, but have VERY different views of the meaning of the word "need".
Indeed.
As Clinton's welfare reform showed, however, the views aren't as different or controversial as one might think, once one gets down to brass tacks.
Clipper Nation
10-12-2012, 11:47 AM
Privately funded charities are, generally, extremely inefficient means of helping people.
Because foreign aid, Social Security, and welfare are just a smash success....
IRS budget:
$12bn
% of federal budget spent on collections, assuming 100% of budget can be classified that way:
0.3%
That is one of the standard metrics of charity efficiency. Find one with a lower number.
I'll wait.
Wait, I'm looking for another charity with the U.S. government's ability to take houses, arrest people, etc... behind it to enforce collections - not to mention compel employers to collect for them, again under threat of anything, up to and including death.
It might be a while.
How about this metric.
How much does it spend?
What positive outcomes are achieved for THAT level of expenditure?
And, again, the "War on Poverty" is now 50 years old.
Interesting logic. Let's see where it gets us.
The Catholic church has been giving to the poor for over a millennium, they must really suck at helping the poor.
Is the Catholic Church a failure at helping the poor?
Seems like it. I don't give to the Catholic Church, however.
Oh, and I was in the Vatican this summer; the Catholic Church is actually a great example of ANOTHER organization that is too damn top heavy for its own good. Maybe less gilding in St. Peter's and a few more mouths COULD be fed.....Actually reminded me a lot of Washington D.C. - you know, the richest city in the country.
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 12:05 PM
IRS budget:
$12bn
% of federal budget spent on collections, assuming 100% of budget can be classified that way:
0.3%
That is one of the standard metrics of charity efficiency. Find one with a lower number.
I'll wait.
There is a fundamental flaw in this methodology. It strikes most napkin analysis of Fed programs. Conventional wisdom states that Medicare's efficiency is massively better than private insurers. It is more efficient, just not so massively when you take the administrative processes that are performed by other govt. agencies as their order of business.
Of course, the counter argument can be made for synergistic gains in the public model.
But it's still an apples to parachute pants comparison.
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Clinton's welfare
Dylan Matthews has already taken a look (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/06/fact-checking-bill-clinton-on-the-economy/) at the claim that millions moved off of welfare’s rolls and poverty was reduced. As he writes, the program’s numbers have steadily fallen since 1996: “Since reform, the rolls have shrunk (http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm) from 12.6 million to 4.6 million.” The number of people in poverty “fell by 6.4 million people under Clinton, whereas the number of people in poverty increased by 7.4 million between 1981 and 1993 (and the rate went from 14 percent to 15.1 percent).” There is a catch, though. “But it’s worth noting that welfare reform led to a huge spike in extreme poverty, as defined as the number of households making under $2 a day,” Matthews adds.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has done excellent work to track TANF’s failures. “While the official poverty rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level,” it reports (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3566). “Over the last 16 years, the national TANF caseload has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty have worsened.” In fact, nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much. Their purchasing power is below 1996 levels (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3625), adjusting for inflation, in every state but two. They fall below 50 percent of the poverty line in every state.
The rolls may be going down, but the need is not. The early employment gains among welfare recipients were tied to the strong economy. As the CBPP puts it, “The data suggest that a strong labor market is central to the success of a work-based assistance system.” When the labor market went into free fall, those gains were lost. But rather than low-income individuals finding themselves cushioned by TANF’s safety net, there was nothing to stop the fall.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169788/clinton-touts-welfare-reform-heres-how-it-failed#
The failure of Clinton's welfare reform is a huge reason why Repugs love to point to Clinton as better than Barry.
'
getting people off welfare into jobs is wonderful, but not so when there are no jobs. Millions of shitty jobs were created 1992-2000, but millions of those jobs are now gone. The needy just get screwed in the Banksters' Great (Jobs) Depression.
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Wait, I'm looking for another charity with the U.S. government's ability to take houses, arrest people, etc... behind it to enforce collections - not to mention compel employers to collect for them, again under threat of anything, up to and including death.
It might be a while.
How about this metric.
How much does it spend?
What positive outcomes are achieved for THAT level of expenditure?
And, again, the "War on Poverty" is now 50 years old.
That threat is part of why it costs relatively little for the IRS to collect money, hence its overall efficiency.
As for positive outcomes and so forth:
If you want to go down that road, you/we need to start defining an awful lot of terms.
I will accede a certain amount of inefficiency, as one would expect from any large-scale human endeavor. I would be willing to put forth it isn't quite as "inefficient" as you probably think it is.
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 12:33 PM
There is a fundamental flaw in this methodology. It strikes most napkin analysis of Fed programs. Conventional wisdom states that Medicare's efficiency is massively better than private insurers. It is more efficient, just not so massively when you take the administrative processes that are performed by other govt. agencies as their order of business.
Of course, the counter argument can be made for synergistic gains in the public model.
But it's still an apples to parachute pants comparison.
Indeed. I think such analysis is somewhat limited in value. It is still fun to do though, because most people don't really think about such things. Once one dives into the details, dogmatically held beliefs get hard to sustain, and ones pre-held simplifications get just as hard to justify. My kinda fun.
That threat is part of why it costs relatively little for the IRS to collect money, hence its overall efficiency.
As for positive outcomes and so forth:
If you want to go down that road, you/we need to start defining an awful lot of terms.
I will accede a certain amount of inefficiency, as one would expect from any large-scale human endeavor. I would be willing to put forth it isn't quite as "inefficient" as you probably think it is.
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).
Poverty level in U.S. in August of 1964 - ~15%
Poverty level in U.S. today - ~15%
...and down the road we go.
Th'Pusher
10-12-2012, 12:59 PM
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).
Poverty level in U.S. in August of 1964 - ~15%
Poverty level in U.S. today - ~15%
...and down the road we go.
The war on cancer has been going on since 1971. We still do not have a cure for cancer. Should we stop investing in cancer research?
LnGrrrR
10-12-2012, 01:04 PM
That actually brings up a really good point.
When was the last time you (anybody reading this) looked at the financials of the charity or church you gave money to? Why or why not?
I looked it up, and was surprised how little the money you donate goes to the people you want to give it to, even for the "good" charities.
The war on cancer has been going on since 1971. We still do not have a cure for cancer. Should we stop investing in cancer research?
There have been great strides in cancer treatments. What used to be death sentences (Breast, Colon) now have survivability rates over 90%. Sure, there is quite a ways to go, but progress is being made.
On the other hand:
15% = 15%
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 01:21 PM
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).
$Ts? really, got a link?
dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy are well over $1T now. You don't mind that, do ya?
RandomGuy
10-12-2012, 01:27 PM
There have been great strides in cancer treatments. What used to be death sentences (Breast, Colon) now have survivability rates over 90%. Sure, there is quite a ways to go, but progress is being made.
On the other hand:
15% = 15%
... and there is yet another problem.
What would it have been without the efforts we have made?
I would not have thought that unchallenged dogma was your thing. I know you are trying to make an argument, but this has been done before, here and elsewhere. We need something a bit more than regurgitated talking points, IMO.
I looked it up, and was surprised how little the money you donate goes to the people you want to give it to, even for the "good" charities.
I give to two organizations (actually raffle off a smoked brisket up here in Pa each year at my New Years party to support):
ICCAP (http://www.iccap.net/)
also give to:
American Red Cross (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277)
have been giving less and less to my church; not happy with how they've been spending money as of late - instead been sending that money as well as advice to a guy I met on a plane trip one time down to SA - he is starting churches in Maldova; and trying to teach people to (as he says) "do the business".
If you are careful, there are plenty of worthy places doing good work to give your money to.
dogma?
I am making this up as I go along; no dogma involved, or "regurgitated talking points" for that matter. Looked up the 15% number since we began this discussion on a hunch - the hunch turned out to be correct. The argument is simplistic, sure, but why should we complicate it any more? Do you think Johnson's bill would have been passed if the Congress at the time could have seen 50 years into the future? The answer has to be "no", doesn't it?
What would the poverty rate be if we hadn't done anything? I'm betting around 15% - just a hunch.
$Ts? really, got a link?
dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy are well over $1T now. You don't mind that, do ya?
No idea the source; just Googled it:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it)
and yes, I wouldn't mind the tax cuts expiring (all of them); we can't afford them.
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 01:39 PM
"the conclusions of a recent Cato Institute" :lol
Tell 45 years of Medicare and Medicaid recipients that "there's nothing to show for it".
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 01:40 PM
lol alternet.
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 01:44 PM
lol alternet.
Thanks for not playing, loser
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 01:46 PM
I already bitch slapped alternet on pg. 5, bot.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204139&page=5
http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif
TeyshaBlue
10-12-2012, 01:46 PM
The irony of you lol cato while posting 1000 links to alternet and thinkprogress.borg is not lost on anyone, simpleton.
LnGrrrR
10-12-2012, 01:58 PM
I give to two organizations (actually raffle off a smoked brisket up here in Pa each year at my New Years party to support):
ICCAP (http://www.iccap.net/)
also give to:
American Red Cross (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277)
have been giving less and less to my church; not happy with how they've been spending money as of late - instead been sending that money as well as advice to a guy I met on a plane trip one time down to SA - he is starting churches in Maldova; and trying to teach people to (as he says) "do the business".
If you are careful, there are plenty of worthy places doing good work to give your money to.
We have the CFC here in the military, which I give at least a $100 to each year, split up between four or five charities that look interesting. Last year I gave some to KaBoom playgrounds, a group dedicated to saving coral reefs, a Hispanic lawyer fund, and one or two other groups. I love going through the book and finding unique charities.
There have been great strides in cancer treatments. What used to be death sentences (Breast, Colon) now have survivability rates over 90%. Sure, there is quite a ways to go, but progress is being made.
breast cancer is at 88% at stage 1 but drops to 41 %at stage III B, colon at stage I is at 74% and 37% at stage II C; cancer overall is still the 2nd leading cause of death. there is no official cure for any form cancer, just some forms of treatment that have been substantially succesful.
also, every one is on board for finding a cure for cancer. there has never been a downward trend and the methodology has been consistent. comparing the paradigms of strategies on poverty v strategies on cancer research is like comparing economics to applied physics.
breast cancer is at 88% at stage 1 but drops to 41 %at stage III B, colon at stage I is at 74% and 37% at stage II C; cancer overall is still the 2nd leading cause of death. there is no official cure for any form cancer, just some forms of treatment that have been substantially succesful.
also, every one is on board for finding a cure for cancer. there has never been a downward trend and the methodology has been consistent. comparing the paradigms of strategies on poverty v strategies on cancer research is like comparing economics to applied physics.
Great. But I didn't erect that particular Straw Man; I just responded to it; you might want to direct you complaint to Th' Pusher.
No idea the source; just Googled it:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it)
and yes, I wouldn't mind the tax cuts expiring (all of them); we can't afford them.
what about free trade and capital flow ?
boutons_deux
10-12-2012, 04:01 PM
The irony of you lol cato while posting 1000 links to alternet and thinkprogress.borg is not lost on anyone, simpleton.
TB :lol
IRONY! :lol
CATO! :lol
http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif :lol such chagrin, such anguish! :lol
what about free trade and capital flow ?
What about them?
As they relate to letting the tax cuts expire?
What about them?
As they relate to letting the tax cuts expire?
do you think we can afford them?
do you think we can afford them?
I already said we couldn't afford the tax cuts.
I already said we couldn't afford the tax cuts.
i'm aware of that. i was referring to free trade and capital flow. what is your postion on them ?
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 06:45 PM
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).
Poverty level in U.S. in August of 1964 - ~15%
Poverty level in U.S. today - ~15%
...and down the road we go.
That's one reason I say we simply stop the government's war on poverty. We lost.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 06:46 PM
The war on cancer has been going on since 1971. We still do not have a cure for cancer. Should we stop investing in cancer research?
At least progress has been made with cancer.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 06:47 PM
... and there is yet another problem.
What would it have been without the efforts we have made?
Probably 15% still...
Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, we have about 15% who are just lazy enough they will do as little as necessary to get by?
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2012, 07:21 PM
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).
Poverty level in U.S. in August of 1964 - ~15%
Poverty level in U.S. today - ~15%
...and down the road we go.
This is asinine. You are talking about right before the Great Society was passed and now the shithole that we live in. Poverty rates have risen by over 4% in the last 12 years.
The changes since 2000 have not been an increase in antipoverty measures. No the changes have been giving Boomers better health care, tax cuts while starting wars, and banking deregulation.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2012, 07:23 PM
I already said we couldn't afford the tax cuts.
Have you ever thought you could afford a tax increase? Ever?
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 07:24 PM
Looks like normal cyclical movement to me, except we had a strong downward trend before we started the war on poverty.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/PovertyRateGraph1959-2010.png
I would suggest you keep an open mind to the possibility that people stopped working hard when they had an easy government out.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2012, 07:33 PM
Open my mind to an asinine ideology from you? i would rather get punched in the nuts.
Hmm trough from 1965 to 1980. Peak from 1980 to 1993 a steep decline from 1993 to 2000 and a steady rise since. Maybe if you think real hard.
this is not hard to figure out. the problem is that neither party as it currently exists provides a solution. You want to go back to 1980 while Dan wants the status quo. Both are shitty responses.
so the stagnation of median earnings, falling wages of less-educated workers, outsourcing, the shift from an industrial society to a financial society, the globalization of labor and declining unionization aren't even considered in the in-depth analysis provided by certain spurs forum self-proclaimed economists? and let's just ignore the fact that the war on poverty helped to increase the income levels of the elderly between 1965-73 because of medicaid, medicare and increase social security benefits.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2012, 07:52 PM
Maybe the solution is to back off on government assistance, and allow the normal course of events to take place.
ElNono
10-12-2012, 07:55 PM
so the stagnation of median earnings, falling wages of less-educated workers, outsourcing, the shift from an industrial society to a financial society, the globalization of labor and declining unionization aren't even considered in the in-depth analysis provided by certain spurs forum self-proclaimed economists? and let's just ignore the fact that the war on poverty helped to increase the income levels of the elderly between 1965-73 because of medicaid, medicare and increase social security benefits.
It's all cyclic, dummy!
It's all cyclic, dummy!
so we'll return to an industrial society with regulations on trade and banks and empower the unions again. okay.
ElNono
10-12-2012, 11:06 PM
so we'll return to an industrial society with regulations on trade and banks and empower the unions again. okay.
We're just going to forget everything we know and start from the industrial revolution again, tbh...
Have you ever thought you could afford a tax increase? Ever?
If we cant afford the cuts I think I AM arguing for the increase.
so the stagnation of median earnings, falling wages of less-educated workers, outsourcing, the shift from an industrial society to a financial society, the globalization of labor and declining unionization aren't even considered in the in-depth analysis provided by certain spurs forum self-proclaimed economists? and let's just ignore the fact that the war on poverty helped to increase the income levels of the elderly between 1965-73 because of medicaid, medicare and increase social security benefits.
I hope you arent talking about me -and if u are please refer to where I ever claimed to be an economist - Im not and I havent.
I brought up the war on poverty simply as a counter argumentvto RGs govt is efficient claim
FuzzyLumpkins
10-13-2012, 06:18 AM
If we cant afford the cuts I think I AM arguing for the increase.
i didn't ask 'if,' I asked if you have in the past at any point.
i didn't ask 'if,' I asked if you have in the past at any point.
Several times in this forum - yes
RandomGuy
10-15-2012, 09:44 AM
Probably 15% still...
Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, we have about 15% who are just lazy enough they will do as little as necessary to get by?
I know people like that exist. What I do NOT know, is what percentage of the population is that kind of lazy.
Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, the number of people in poverty aren't the same people all the time, work just as hard as everybody else, if not harder, and who just don't have the skills to earn more, is about 15%?
Meh. More trolling attempts. You know you can neither define, nor quantify such things, so you are safe in blathering on with this line of reasoning.
No one is really that smug and insulated.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.