Look Who's Lying Again

12357

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    It should also be noted that the some of the biggest harm to the poor and (to a slightly lesser extent) middle and lower middle classes are things like taxes, inflation, trade barriers, limited school choices.



    Taxes are ultimately always paid by the consumers of goods and services. Since the poor have a higher propensity to consume they will be hurt by higher taxes throughout the economy and tax structure. Even if it doesn't appear that they are being taxed directly. Corporate income taxes, for example, are not paid by corporations...they're paid by the customers of that corporation.



    Inflation erodes the value of the dollar. It benefits who gets the newly created money first. This is typically not the poor. And the poor, whose incomes tend to be more fixed, are hurt, again, disproportionately compared to other economics levels by inflationary monetary policies executed by The Fed.



    Trade barriers tend to keep the prices of good and services higher than they would be in a more free trade environment. Again this will negatively affect the poor more than other economic levels because of their higher propensity to consume.



    The poor have much less choice when it comes to schools. They are usually stuck with the, often, sub-standard public schools in their areas while those in higher economic levels have choices like home schooling and private schooling or even the option to move to better school districts.



    Let's not even get started on housing and government's effects on raising prices there...
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And I notice you're very careful not to say the poor have been helped through jobs. But that's the whole premise of "Trickle-down", not that goods and services will become more affordable through corporate profitability, but that the more money the rich and corporations keep, the more jobs will be created. Again, that's not happening.



    Most people who are poor are temporarily so as noted by MJ. They are young adults or children. The long term poor, especially when measured by "households" are largely those who the government have grown into dependency. They are people who are single mothers, or those who have now steered themselves into the every growing Social Security Disability program (which is suddenly and massively growing with people claiming thing like ADHD as rendering them unable to work.)



    MJ linked to this important point as well perhaps the most important points of all.



    Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in singleparent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost threequarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.



    What is creating, growing and sustaining these single parent households that otherwise would not be sustainable? Government. Why do they avoid getting married and moving their "household" out of poverty? They do this because the government would suddenly declare there to be no problem and they would lose their assistance.



    This isn't something I'm making up. This is something I absolutely experience as a teacher and landlord. The single mother and kids show up to rent and soon afterwards the perpetual "boyfriend" moves in. The "household" has to be established with government money and then afterwards the boyfriend shows up and everyone can sit home with the toys and let the government foots the bill.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Seems this is the tune you were singing pre-November 2010, before the "shellacking."



    It appears that "the liberal part of the cycle" only lasted until the very next election.



    When we're in Obama's second term I'll remind you that you said that.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    When we're in Obama's second term I'll remind you that you said that.



    You said pretty much the same thing pre-shellacking.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I agree! So... what's your definition of poverty?



    Oh my goodness don't try to pin him down to a straight forward answer!
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    You said pretty much the same thing pre-shellacking.



    The last I looked that election involving a second term hasn't been held yet.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    The last I looked that election involving a second term hasn't been held yet.



    You crack me up jimmac. It's the only reason I still read your posts. You are correct. But you know what I mean. You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    You crack me up jimmac. It's the only reason I still read your posts. You are correct. But you know what I mean. You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election.



    Quote:

    You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then



    We still are.



    This part if you're saying it came from me is simply made up by you :
    Quote:

    and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election



    Please show me the quote where I said exactly this.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    We still are.



    Obviously!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    This part if you're saying it came from me is simply made up by you :









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Please show me the quote where I said exactly this.



    Nice try.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Obviously!



















    Nice try.



    In other words you can't. You'd rather color my words with your interpretation. As a matter of fact I seem to recall saying the democrats would probably lose some seats. But I'm sure you glossed right over that. The emperor has no clothes!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Obama isn't looking for tax increases. He's proposing "Spending reductions in the tax code."



    He almost couldn't keep a straight face when he said it...which at least indicates that even he doesn't believe what he's saying...only that the American public is so fucking stupid it will just accept anything he says.



    Other than that line from Obama, the best line was Stewart wondering if we can do all that and still afford the royalty checks Obama will need to send to George Orwell.



    Obama/Biden 2012: Because we're not fucked enough.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Obama isn't looking for tax increases. He's proposing "Spending reductions in the tax code."



    He almost couldn't keep a straight face when he said it...which at least indicates that even he doesn't believe what he's saying...only that the American public is so fucking stupid it will just accept anything he says.



    Other than that line from Obama, the best line was Stewart wondering if we can do all that and still afford the royalty checks Obama will need to send to George Orwell.



    Obama/Biden 2012: Because we're not fucked enough.



    Or any of the consevative candidates because we want to be even more fucked.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And I notice you're very careful not to say the poor have been helped through jobs. But that's the whole premise of "Trickle-down", not that goods and services will become more affordable through corporate profitability, but that the more money the rich and corporations keep, the more jobs will be created. Again, that's not happening.



  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    What sort of fun could we have captioning this one:







    I'll give it a try...



    "And they thought we'd only tax the 'rich'!"



    "And then...we told them we'd end the wars."



    "And so we told them if we didn't immediately spend $800 billion we'd have higher unemployment!"



    "We told that that we'd reduce the deficit."



    "And so we convinced them that if they elected me, things would change...for the better!"



    "So, basically, they think I'm actually smarter than my predecessor."
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Supply-side economics has been proven to be a failure. Keynes, not so much. There is zero poverty in several European countries thanks to Keynesian economics. Show me one country where there is no poverty due to supply-side economics. One. Just one. Any size.



    I'd rather place my bets on the proven theories, instead of the ones that have been proven to fail.



    And no, Keynesian economics has never really been tried, without "compromises" that make it useless, in the US. Actually, I take that back. It was tried with the New Deal. And it worked. It was tried by Kennedy. And it worked. Again.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    You just don't want to hear the truth. Your world view doesn't fit with the truth, so you ignore it and deny it. Fact is, you'll keep hearing "this shit" until you get it. And the US won't EVER have reduced poverty until people in the US get it.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    You just don't want to hear the truth. Your world view doesn't fit with the truth, so you ignore it and deny it.



    Yeah,...that's it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Fact is, you'll keep hearing "this shit" until you get it.



    Fact is, believe it or not, I actually used to think what you think and believe what you believe and assume what you assume. But then I educated myself.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And the US won't EVER have reduced poverty until people in the US get it.



    This is true, but the "it" is not what you think.
Sign In or Register to comment.