Ryan's Budget Proposal - It's a Start

[utgibbs]

how can one debate such stupidy when it comes to economics. the fact is social programs have drained our economy over the past 40+ years and it has done SQUAT to actual decrease these problems.

False in every particular.

But I would agree. It is getting boring trying to debate what is going on in the real world outside the back door when fantasy is what is routinely posted here.

 

[joevol320]

False in every particular.

But I would agree. It is getting boring trying to debate what is going on in the real world outside the back door when fantasy is what is routinely posted here.

then stop posting your government controlled fantasy.


It's really sad that you actually think the government is the only way people have to survive. you must have no real responsibilities. or maybe you just love welfare.

it's really sad, but like they say some people feel they need to be rulled and not governed.

you would have been the perfect surf during the dark ages.

 

[gsvol]

The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight
days preceding the deal to cut $38.5 billion in federal
spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which
runs through September.

Senior Advisor to the President David Plouffe
called the cuts the White House agreed to in
order to avoid a government shutdown were
draconian.

And did the liberals tone down the rhetoric in
answer to their call to be civil???

HELL NO!!!!!

Off the top of my head, they said it was like
rifighting the civil war, like bombing unarmed
civilians, an attack on women and like something
you would expect to see in an old WWII movie
about nazi Germany.

So much for democrat party hypocisy, we've
learned to expect that on every issue, an oh
yeah, they call it religious, meaning we should
crucify some more Christians.

The Department of Health and Human Services
has taken one 6-page section of the Obamacare
law and turned it into 429 pages of regulations.
Wow. We haven't seen a return on investment
like that since Hitlery played with cattle futures.

 

[MG1968]

wait, isn't "Saving Ryan's Privates" a pr0n movie? or maybe it's "Shaving Ryan's Privates"

whatever, back to our regularly scheduled discussion

 

[utgibbs]

then stop posting your government controlled fantasy.


It's really sad that you actually think the government is the only way people have to survive. you must have no real responsibilities. or maybe you just love welfare.

it's really sad, but like they say some people feel they need to be rulled and not governed.

you would have been the perfect surf during the dark ages.

Classic.

*surf

joe, my entire meme is about liberating human time in service of our own ends. You are actually subservient to a system which has created real 21st century serfdom. As someone I knew in Russia said: "Our great grandparents were the tsar's serfs; our parents were the Party's serfs; and now we are Yeltsin's bums...."

Serfdom is on the march, but it originates in the Chicago School doctrines.

 

[n_huffhines]

Ryan severely disappointed me with his cuts. This plan doesn't even make a dent.

 

[n_huffhines]

False in every particular.

But I would agree. It is getting boring trying to debate what is going on in the real world outside the back door when fantasy is what is routinely posted here.

You should read Losing Ground. It's pretty good. Poverty among blacks fell from the upper 40's% to the mid 20's% in the 20 years leading up to the start of the war on poverty. In the last 40 years it's fallen by 1% or so.

The book is written by Charles Murray who dedicated the first half of his life to helping the poor through welfare policy until he realized he was spinning his wheels.

 

[CSVol]

Ryan severely disappointed me with his cuts. This plan doesn't even make a dent.

Can't cut costs and taxes at the same time. Unfortunately we're too far gone for that.

 

[utgibbs]

You should read Losing Ground. It's pretty good. Poverty among blacks fell from the upper 40's% to the mid 20's% in the 20 years leading up to the start of the war on poverty. In the last 40 years it's fallen by 1% or so.

The book is written by Charles Murray who dedicated the first half of his life to helping the poor through welfare policy until he realized he was spinning his wheels.

I'll try to pick it up.

But look at the numbers and time frames. I think we've discussed ad infinitum what happened during those time periods.

No one has gained ground (except the top 1%) in the last 40 years.

 

[n_huffhines]

Can't cut costs and taxes at the same time. Unfortunately we're too far gone for that.

Well, we can, just special interests won't allow for it.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'll try to pick it up.

But look at the numbers and time frames. I think we've discussed ad infinitum what happened during those time periods.

No one has gained ground (except the top 1%) in the last 40 years.

If you mean gaining ground as far as income disparity, I don't give a damn. As far as absolute wealth, everyone in the US is far better off. The Cleavers from Leave it to Beaver would be below the poverty line by today's standards. That's how well we live today.

 

[utgibbs]

If you mean gaining ground as far as income disparity, I don't give a damn. As far as absolute wealth, everyone in the US is far better off. The Cleavers from Leave it to Beaver would be below the poverty line by today's standards. That's how well we live today.

That is shockingly false. A one income household with all the amenities we enjoy today except cell phones and computers?

Shockingly false. A swing and miss so bad it's like 3 strikes with one pitch, Nbak.

Technology can improve livelihood. But it DOES NOT automatically confer being better off. There was a far greater technological leap when prehistory Ice Age toolkit went up to Clovis Man.

 

[milohimself]

If you mean gaining ground as far as income disparity, I don't give a damn. As far as absolute wealth, everyone in the US is far better off. The Cleavers from Leave it to Beaver would be below the poverty line by today's standards. That's how well we live today.

Not sure how to respond to this...

We've made little progress on impoverished communities in the last few decades. I can currently walk out of my house and about half a mile north up the street and enter into a network of communities that spans a number of square miles where health outcomes are far lower than suburbs directly across the river, the majority of the population lives under 125% of the poverty line, crime rates jump significantly, drugs are available readily within a few blocks of wherever you might be, and high school graduation rate and percentage of students on free and recuded lunch both hover around 50%.

I've gone and checked those maps (in the university library, can't provide a link) and the situation has changed about || that much since the 80's.

If you don't believe in the government to help absolve these issues, then fine, but you should reevaluate your consideration of just how big the income gap is and who exactly is at the bottom; not only that, how those millions at the bottom affect your bottom line. I'm not necessarily talking about taxes either.

When they wait for their own health deterioration (caused by substandard living, malnutrition, poverty-related stressors, etc) to cause them to need to go to the emergency room, or when they are victims of violent crime, that affects how much it costs for me to go to the hospital when I need to. Perps for those crimes get sent to prison, which is paid for by my tax dollars, and when the prisons are overfull they let offenders back out on the streets near my neighborhood.

On some level, we all sink or swim together. This is an absolutely inescapable fact of life. I'd rather spend a little now to improve the living conditions of my neighbors than have them cost all of us a lot later. It is my most sincere wish that more people in this country would stop being so near-sighted with their money and time, and realize that improving the outcomes of all helps us at all levels in the long run.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[MG1968]

so, milo, you don't see the Great War on Poverty as having some responsibility here? Trillions of taxpayer dollars have gone into it, with little to show. I don't want to deal with gibbsian absolutes here, but throwing money at a problem has never been the cure and it never will be.

 

[utvolpj]

It is my most sincere wish that more people in this country would stop being so near-sighted with their money and time, and realize that improving the outcomes of all helps us at all levels in the long run.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

and it's mine that people would quit putting the responsibility on the village and realize they have every opportunity to help themselves. Not able to pinpoint it but at some point "can't" just becomes "won't" and it's then that I quit giving a damn about you. Sorry but I am not inclined to help people who won't help themselves first

 

[milohimself]

so, milo, you don't see the Great War on Poverty as having some responsibility here? Trillions of taxpayer dollars have gone into it, with little to show. I don't want to deal with gibbsian absolutes here, but throwing money at a problem has never been the cure and it never will be.

I believe the government has failed in this as well, but saying "because it's the government" isn't quite right. The approach we have taken has failed, and unfortunately it's cost trillions of taxpayer dollars.

and it's mine that people would quit putting the responsibility on the village and realize they have every opportunity to help themselves. Not able to pinpoint it but at some point "can't" just becomes "won't" and it's then that I quit giving a damn about you. Sorry but I am not inclined to help people who won't help themselves first

I'm not at all for entitlement to anything but the absolute necessities, and that's for those who are able and working or can at least show that they are making a sincere attempt at looking for work.

What are your thoughts on the idea of environment dictating conscience? I grew up in your typical, median white middle class neighborhood. For the better part of the last five years, I've lived amongst and around relatively impoverished African American communities, who I can tell you from an abundance of personal observation, have a much more fatalistic view of the world.

I completely agree that responsibility and self-reliance are the proper means. But, by and large, the empowerment isn't there. Sorry to throw out more cliches, but that good old Biblical one about giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish comes to mind.

Rather than giving the poor a good standard of living, I would rather see systemic changes made so they have a better path to earn their own good standard of living. Volumes have been written on how to go about that, but reforming failed inner-city schools (including changing education standards, re-introducing after school activities, sports, music, etc), taking a more measured approach to eradicating the drug problem, and perhaps most importantly, making these forgotten neighborhoods economically viable are all steps that can be taken.

 

[droski]

I've gone and checked those maps (in the university library, can't provide a link) and the situation has changed about || that much since the 80's.

the poverty line keeps moving up. those considered out of poverty in gibbs china utopia would be among the poorest 1% of americans.

 

[sjt18]

Check the record: Reagan raised taxes. The 'dirty little secret' is that trickle down economics doesn't work. The wealthy are not re-investing their gains at this time.

I guess you can argue with the statistical data all you want. Reagan simplified the code but the overall rates went down. "Supply side" does work and has each time it has been tried. The trickle up poverty Keynesian policies of the left also work. The current stagflation effects demonstrate that fully.

We also see another "dirty little secret" being exposed right now. "Fat Cats" like liberals. GE's special tax deals plus those of other corporations... the various exemptions being handed out to political allies in "big business"... bail outs to WS "fat cats"....

On the other side you have companies that won't kowtow carrying more burden. You have smothering regulation and "targeted industry" initiatives from OSHA and the EPA.

We are seeing economic fascism in practice. That IS the current practical economic method for Dems. Friends and supporters get sweet heart deals. Those who refuse to "play ball" get punished.

All the while the "common man" that Dems claim to be protected is getting torqued at every turn. Inflation is occurring at the consumer level- groceries, energy, gasoline... the things the "common man" uses. The gasoline price increase since Obama took office alone has eroded 5-10% of the average family's disposable income.

I don't like taxes. Nobody likes taxes. The fact is, with everything else, we're fighting 2.5 wars and nation building in 2 countries. Tax cuts now are inappropriate and irresponsible.

That would be true if the DIRECT evidence did not clearly show that tax cuts for investors lead directly to an increase in economic activity which in turn leads directly to more revenue. There is an equillibrium point. If you go below that point you actually do start eroding revenues. We are STILL well above that point.

We'd be in better shape if Bush had maintained levels to pay as we went instead of playing on credit.

That is absolutely, positively untrue. Where would the capital have come from to grow the economy out of the recession of the early 00's?... You know, the one that had its true roots in Clinton policies and the Y2K scare.

How on earth can you just assume that investors would have somehow found the same amount to invest if the tax burden remained higher? The simple fact is they wouldn't have.

If its ok for the old, young and economically challenged to sting then its ok for the rich.

Newsflash. Rich people hire people to do wealth creating and productive jobs. That is how the REAL wealth of the nation is increased. As JFK said before slashing the tax rates of the "rich".... A rising tide lifts ALL boats.

And please don't recite the tired mantra of how much the top whatever percent pays in relation to whatever. It'd be easier to type "Let them eat cake."

If it were simply a matter of the rich paying or someone else paying I would be on your side. It isn't. The issue is which policies will increase the wealth of the nation as a whole providing for EVERYONE. Raising the taxes of those who invest and hire people is the exact wrong prescription for generating wealth and jobs.

Gov't produces very little true wealth. It has few "products". It can only survive by taking money out of the private, productive economy. It behooves everyone to grow the private economy's ratio to gov't costs. If gov't policies help increase GDP from $12 trillions to $14 trillion then you can tax at a lower rate while getting the same revenue. Raising tax rates does not promote that kind of growth.

 

[milohimself]

the poverty line keeps moving up. those considered out of poverty in gibbs china utopia would be among the poorest 1% of americans.

In addition to poverty maps, I've looked at air quality, various disease rates and other health subjects, and crime rates. Same result. Besides, the federal poverty line for a family of four in the US as of '09 was around $22k. I know that Friedman likes to argue how outcomes for all have improved over time. Outcomes for lower income communities, particularly black and Hispanic, have increased at a snail's pace compared to everybody else.

 

[sjt18]

BTW, Clinton's strong dollar policy was a de facto tax cut for the investment class.

 

[milohimself]

sjt, I was gonna say (before I had some board issues) that "fat cats" don't prefer one side over the other because they always hedge their bets. They are set no matter who wins.

 

[droski]

In addition to poverty maps, I've looked at air quality, various disease rates and other health subjects, and crime rates. Same result. Besides, the federal poverty line for a family of four in the US as of '09 was around $22k. I know that Friedman likes to argue how outcomes for all have improved over time. Outcomes for lower income communities, particularly black and Hispanic, have increased at a snail's pace compared to everybody else.

air quality and crime rates are unquestionably improved from the 80s.

 

[n_huffhines]

That is shockingly false. A one income household with all the amenities we enjoy today except cell phones and computers?

Shockingly false. A swing and miss so bad it's like 3 strikes with one pitch, Nbak.

Technology can improve livelihood. But it DOES NOT automatically confer being better off. There was a far greater technological leap when prehistory Ice Age toolkit went up to Clovis Man.

I guess you aren't better off when you have more money but there are more toys to buy and you can't help your frivolity.

Microwaves, AC, more affordable cars, better healthcare, affordable long distance phone service, affordable washer/dryer, affordable TV, more affordable food, etc.

I'll find out where my Dad got this "leave it to beaver" statement. He's a Phd Economist and knows his stuff.

 

[utgibbs]

Just like JFK and Reagan before him... he cut taxes, people invested and created jobs in the private economy generating wealth, and revenues increased.

The stimulus spending has gone to dead end projects and for political payoff. None of it was effectively invested in anything that will create a ripple effect in the economy... Keynes was once again proven wrong in the real world.

Hmmm. I think history has something to say about all of this:

Those dips would be when we cut taxes. And Reagan gave us the double whammy - he increased spending relative to GDP:

 

[n_huffhines]

I guess you aren't better off when you have more money but there are more toys to buy and you can't help your frivolity.

Microwaves, AC, more affordable cars, better healthcare, affordable long distance phone service, affordable washer/dryer, affordable TV, more affordable food, etc.

I'll find out where my Dad got this "leave it to beaver" statement. He's a Phd Economist and knows his stuff.

Interestingly it was cited by my Dad's colleague who is one of the few "socialist" Economists I've encountered. It was a statement made comparing median real income from 1950 to to 2011 poverty.

In 2000 dollars you see that 1950 Median Income was about $23K

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median Household Income.pdf