Simple Words From Robert Reich

[fabb600]

I love how it's always the Right that's funded by the ubber-weathly and big business. Both sides are supported by a crap load of money - and in many cases from the same sources!

[ShadowFlyP]

(1) Austerity economics (on which the nation has embarked) is a cruel hoax

Any debate of Austerity vs Keynesian ecomomics is pointless because they both assume that it is the role of the government to create jobs. Austerity arguments are simply that the government can "create jobs" better by leaving capital in the marketplace, while Keynesian assumes that the goverment can be a good participant in the marketplace. Both of these are contrary to a view that the best government is a small government. Last I looked, "creating jobs" wasn't in the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

(2) Trickle-down economics is an old fraud

We must have a different understanding of the world "old" if we are talking about a political talking point that was established during the Reagan administration. Trick-down is simply a watering down of austerity economics so that it can be used as a talking point and then repeated enough until it becomes a platitude like "common-sense legislation".

The median wage, adjusted for inflation, is lower today than it was in 1981.

And? What about the average wage? If the average wage is going up then it means that those on the top are being rewarded for their economic output more than those on the bottom, but that doesn't mean the system is unfair. What is the economic value, adjusted for inflation, of the output of those on the bottom?

There is far less economic value (profit per person-hour) today than 1981 in jobs like manufacturing. There has been a shift in the jobs of low-wage jobs from manufacturing to service. If someone with no education and little skills was making a widget with 200% profit in 1981 and today they're stocking shelves in retail, I wouldn't be surprised if their wages have decreased, nor would I consider it unfair. Even though stocking shelves might require as much physical exertion it has less economic value and therefore less wages. (I'm not trying to degrade retail work here but using that as a specific example of my point.)

Rather than quoting low-information statistics like "median wage" are there any real studies on why there is a growing economic disparity? Or is this just another attempt to use a low-information statistic to push an agenda?

(3) Neither of these bogus economic theories would be as dangerous were it not for the explosion of big money in politics

Again, and? Last I checked we still have 1-person/1-vote. Or is this a claim that there is corruption in government (ex. lobbying, campaign contributions to "buy" laws)? Maybe there is some relation to the first point here where we've let the government grow too big, to the point where corrupting political power has too much influence?

[jdege]

Deficit to GDP is actually 7.3% (see CBO). Debt to GDP, a more useful metric, is over 100%. This is a problem.

The most immediate problem is that we're taking on "debt" that nobody is willing to buy. We're not borrowing money, we're inventing it out of thin air.

The consequences of continuing this are inevitable and unescapable.

[St. Olaf]

Nothing, I just want them to pull their weight like the rest of us.

We're doing more than our fair share.

Baloney. According to the distribution of wealth information, you're hardly contributing the weight of a couple of sparrows.

We at least want to get you up to a couple of chickens.

[St. Olaf]

Deficit to GDP is actually 7.3% (see CBO). Debt to GDP, a more useful metric, is over 100%. This is a problem.

The most immediate problem is that we're taking on "debt" that nobody is willing to buy. We're not borrowing money, we're inventing it out of thin air.

The consequences of continuing this are inevitable and unescapable.

Yes, and it continues as the Party of No continues to block any and every solution.

[grousemaster]

Deficit to GDP is actually 7.3% (see CBO). Debt to GDP, a more useful metric, is over 100%. This is a problem.

The most immediate problem is that we're taking on "debt" that nobody is willing to buy. We're not borrowing money, we're inventing it out of thin air.

The consequences of continuing this are inevitable and unescapable.

Yes, and it continues as the Party of No continues to block any and every solution.

What's the solution? What tax rate schedule would balance our budget?

[St. Olaf]

Any debate of Austerity vs Keynesian ecomomics is pointless because they both assume that it is the role of the government to create jobs. Austerity arguments are simply that the government can "create jobs" better by leaving capital in the marketplace, while Keynesian assumes that the goverment can be a good participant in the marketplace. Both of these are contrary to a view that the best government is a small government.

Since the theory that the best government is a small government is a Tea Party opinion, a minority opinion, a Fox News talking point and clearly extremist and simplistic--it simply doesn't hold any water as a theory.

Truth is, the best government is the right size to do the job and determining the right size is a little more complex than anybody on Fox News is going to have the capacity to figure out.

[grousemaster]

Any debate of Austerity vs Keynesian ecomomics is pointless because they both assume that it is the role of the government to create jobs. Austerity arguments are simply that the government can "create jobs" better by leaving capital in the marketplace, while Keynesian assumes that the goverment can be a good participant in the marketplace. Both of these are contrary to a view that the best government is a small government.

Since the theory that the best government is a small government is a Tea Party opinion, a minority opinion, a Fox News talking point and clearly extremist and simplistic--it simply doesn't hold any water as a theory.

Truth is, the best government is the right size to do the job and determining the right size is a little more complex than anybody on Fox News is going to have the capacity to figure out.

Not sure what Fox News has to do with this discussion, but what tax rates would you propose to balance our current budget problem?

[St. Olaf]

What's the solution? What tax rate schedule would balance our budget?

Balance it when?

It will take some years, even with a wise and measure approach. Here's a plan that would work.

http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/resou ... nfo_v4.png

[White Horseradish]

Since the theory that the best government is a small government is a Tea Party opinion, a minority opinion, a Fox News talking point and clearly extremist and simplistic--it simply doesn't hold any water as a theory.

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement that is fascinating in how many fallacies are packed into it. The idea of small government pre-dates both Fox and the Tea Party. Their use of the theory does not reflect on it's validity. Being a minority opinion does not invalidate any theory. It being extremist and simplistic is not clear to anyone but you.

So, we have poisoning the well, appeal to the masses, and begging the question. In the same sentence. Spectacular.

[grousemaster]

What's the solution? What tax rate schedule would balance our budget?

Balance it when?

It will take some years, even with a wise and measure approach. Here's a plan that would work.

http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/resou ... nfo_v4.png

That's not a plan, that's Obama propaganda. How about, balance it within 10 years. How much do we need to tax those Fox News watching evil rich folks (that already pay most the tab) to balance our budget and keep your pension well funded?

[2in2out]

I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but this would be a great discussion to move on over to Off-Topic Politics, correct?

[NMRMN]

I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but this would be a great discussion to move on over to Off-Topic Politics, correct?

good point. it has absolutely nothing to do with firearms.

[St. Olaf]

What's the solution? What tax rate schedule would balance our budget?

Balance it when?

It will take some years, even with a wise and measure approach. Here's a plan that would work.

http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/resou ... nfo_v4.png

That's not a plan, that's Obama propaganda. How about, balance it within 10 years. How much do we need to tax those Fox News watching evil rich folks (that already pay most the tab) to balance our budget and keep your pension well funded?

Actually, my pension is already well-funded.



And the Obama plan is the only one that will work and it will be implemented......the "Party of No" can only stall so long.

They can run, but they can't hide.

[NMRMN]

Actually, my pension is already well-funded.

Mine isnt. how about I take some of yours, to make it "more equal"? :booyah: