Hillary or Generic GOP Candidate?

[PharmacistReb]

He'd probably fix the economy. Its been mismanaged for about 30 years now and needs a decisively leftist shift of some sort or else this economy will never get back on track.

Maybe we can pay more to the IRS and they can use that money for another stimulus package. Lots of shovel-ready jobs to fix our roads and bridges.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

That would do it. Higher taxes is the best way to get the economy revved up. That way when pay more to the IRS, we'll have all that extra cash leftover for economic stimulus.

Brilliant.

I'm always entertained by the "taxes are always bad!" camp. But they aren't. For whatever reason people think that what worked for Reagan in the 80s (i.e. remedying stagflation) will work today in an atmosphere where the problem is more depressed consumer demand. This is due to stagnant wages. Thanks to the automation revolution, workers are the most productive in history, but incomes haven't risen to coincide with this. Neither party will ever change what they want, but as it stands right now, a leftist economy for a solid 15-20 years will do a lot to correct the mismanagement of the economy since the mid to late 80s. When the majority of new income is distributed to the capital owning class, it can't be a good thing for an economy that more or less relies on the broader consumer demand.

You sound like a person that more or less listens to an echo chamber and regurgitates. That's fine...I guess...its just that nobody will take you seriously.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I'm always entertained by the "taxes are always bad!" camp. But they aren't. For whatever reason people think that what worked for Reagan in the 80s (i.e. remedying stagflation) will work today in an atmosphere where the problem is more depressed consumer demand. This is due to stagnant wages. Thanks to the automation revolution, workers are the most productive in history, but incomes haven't risen to coincide with this. Neither party will ever change what they want, but as it stands right now, a leftist economy for a solid 15-20 years will do a lot to correct the mismanagement of the economy since the mid to late 80s. When the majority of new income is distributed to the capital owning class, it can't be a good thing for an economy that more or less relies on the broader consumer demand.

You sound like a person that more or less listens to an echo chamber and regurgitates. That's fine...I guess...its just that nobody will take you seriously.

Yeah, let's do what Greece and half of the EU has done over the course of the 20th century. Originality. Those economies are doing excellent.

You sound like someone who just disagrees with my brand of politics.

Your only suggestion is "leftist policies will help". What the hell does that mean? Care to elaborate? What examples can you give of how this seems to be efficient?

 

[PharmacistReb]

I'm always entertained by the "taxes are always bad!" camp. But they aren't. For whatever reason people think that what worked for Reagan in the 80s (i.e. remedying stagflation) will work today in an atmosphere where the problem is more depressed consumer demand. This is due to stagnant wages. Thanks to the automation revolution, workers are the most productive in history, but incomes haven't risen to coincide with this. Neither party will ever change what they want, but as it stands right now, a leftist economy for a solid 15-20 years will do a lot to correct the mismanagement of the economy since the mid to late 80s. When the majority of new income is distributed to the capital owning class, it can't be a good thing for an economy that more or less relies on the broader consumer demand.

You sound like a person that more or less listens to an echo chamber and regurgitates. That's fine...I guess...its just that nobody will take you seriously.

Be honest -- how many hours of Rachel Maddow do you consume per week? The full 5?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Yeah, let's do what Greece and half of the EU has done over the course of the 20th century. Originality. Those economies are doing excellent.

That really is irrelevant to the US. And that's a very complex issue. Greece greatly mismanaged their economy with irresponsible bonds. The Eurozone is vastly different from the US. They can't unilaterally adjust monetary policy as needed like the US can. The Euro was pretty much a terrible idea because it beholdens the naturally weaker states like Greece to the more advanced economies like Germany. Greece needs their debts forgiven for them to stabilize, but Germany won't let that happen. Germans just want austerity, which has been proven beyond all doubts to get you nowhere as output is never maximized in those states. But, point is, the US is the world's biggest economy and the biggest issue right now is wage growth. Or lack thereof. And it needs addressed.

You sound like someone who just disagrees with my brand of politics.

I disagree with all brands of politics. That's exactly the problem, actually. Ideology is more important than trying some sort of fact-based governance. If you have a "brand of politics" then by definition, yes, I disagree with you.

Your only suggestion is "leftist policies will help". What the hell does that mean? Care to elaborate? What examples can you give of how this seems to be efficient?

There needs to be a shift in the distribution of income downwards. There are several ways to do this. But it must be done. If things keep going the way they are, the economy will be complete **** for about 70% of the country.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Be honest -- how many hours of Rachel Maddow do you consume per week? The full 5?

No. I don't really watch much TV. I'm aware of who she is though. "Meh" would be my feelings. She definitely isn't an expert on economics, so I have no idea why she would come up. You seem to like non-sequitors. I mean, if you are going to go that way at least stay inside the realm of economics and accuse me of listening to too much Krugman or Stiglitz or something.

If you are speaking strictly economics, I mostly read a lot of r/economics. Planet Money is my favorite financial podcast. They are actually doing a great series right now on how automation is changing the economy. Especially about how it will affect jobs, incomes of labor, etc. Its something I've shown concern about on here for years. I'm glad that people are finally starting to realize that 20th century economics will not work in the 21st century. But that needs to be a major concern going forward and, sadly, I really don't hear too many politicians talking about that. And its my #1 concern right now long term.

 

[PharmacistReb]

That really is irrelevant to the US. And that's a very complex issue. Greece greatly mismanaged their economy with irresponsible bonds. The Eurozone is vastly different from the US. They can't unilaterally adjust monetary policy as needed like the US can. The Euro was pretty much a terrible idea because it beholdens the naturally weaker states like Greece to the more advanced economies like Germany. Greece needs their debts forgiven for the Euro to stabilize, but Germany won't let that happen. Germans just want austerity, which has been proven beyond all doubts to get you nowhere as output is never maximized in those states. But, point is, the US is the world's biggest economy and the biggest issue right now is wage growth. Or lack thereof. And it needs addressed.



I disagree with all brands of politics. That's exactly the problem, actually. Ideology is more important than trying some sort of fact-based governance. If you have a "brand of politics" then by definition, yes, I disagree with you.



There needs to be a shift in the distribution of income downwards. There are several ways to do this. But it must be done. If things keep going the way they are, the economy will be complete **** for about 70% of the country.

Ok, first of all, you're talking yourself in circles. You subscribe to a brand of politics whether or not you want to categorize yourself as one of those people. You may loathe those that very boastfully identify with one side or the other. But when you say we need 10 to 15 years of leftist policies to stimulate economic growth and that Bernie Sanders would be good, then you are very clearly someone with a brand of politics. You may be cynical and loathe the system but you are on board with that ideology.

Secondly, and sadly, we're no longer the world's largest economy. China surpassed us last year to take that spot.

Thirdly, why do you assume redistribution will boost the economy? Again, what are you basing this on? Is something that you know will work based on evidence from a different country? And if you cite an example, please use a country that has the type of unemployment and poverty that we have in the inner cities. I'm curious how redistribution is going to bring people out of unemployment, poverty, and rev up the economy.

 

[PharmacistReb]

No. I don't really watch much TV. I'm aware of who she is though. "Meh" would be my feelings. She definitely isn't an expert on economics, so I have no idea why she would come up. You seem to like non-sequitors. I mean, if you are going to go that way at least stay inside the realm of economics and accuse me of listening to too much Krugman or Stiglitz or something.

If you are speaking strictly economics, I mostly read a lot of r/economics. Planet Money is my favorite financial podcast. They are actually doing a great series right now on how automation is changing the economy. Especially about how it will affect jobs, incomes of labor, etc. Its something I've shown concern about on here for years. I'm glad that people are finally starting to realize that 20th century economics will not work in the 21st century. But that needs to be a major concern going forward and, sadly, I really don't hear too many politicians talking about that. And its my #1 concern right now long term.

Automation has been changing the world economy for about 250 years. Whether its the printing press or tractors/combines or machine technology in factories replacing workers. Creative destruction has given way to new forms of industry with a need for a larger number of computer scientists, programmers, hardware experts. Creative destruction is a necessary form of advancement that makes life easier. The evolution of the work force will take shape with destruction.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Automation has been changing the world economy for about 250 years. Whether its the printing press or tractors/combines or machination in factories. Creative destruction has given way to new forms of industry with a need for a larger number of computer scientists, programmers, hardware experts. Creative destruction is a necessary form of advancement that makes life easier. The evolution of the work force will take shape with destruction.

You say that, but I fear that this time it is different. AI is a completely different ballgame. Physical labor has already been relegated to useless. What happens when robotics outperforms humans in cognitive tasks, too? And either way, my point stands. We re starting to get into this world of hyperefficient workers, be they humans with technology or just the technology independent of a worker, and our current politicians are mostly baby boomers that can't see beyond what they know (i.e. 20th century economics.)

 

[PharmacistReb]

You say that, but I fear that this time it is different. AI is a completely different ballgame. Physical labor has already been relegated to useless. What happens when robotics outperforms humans in cognitive tasks, too? And either way, my point stands. We re starting to get into this world of hyperefficient workers, be they humans with technology or just the technology independent of a worker, and our current politicians are mostly baby boomers that can't see beyond what they know (i.e. 20th century economics.)

What is this 20th century economics nonsense? You realize most of the world, in the 20th century, utilized the very leftist policies you are advocating. We're one of the most powerful nations in the world today because of being alone in the capitalist approach. And then China realized the only way to dominate in the world was to turn to capitalism and now they're sitting next to us as the world's 2nd super power.

What exactly are you advocating? This is a very specious argument based on nothing other than some generalization about "leftist policies" helping the country. What is it that you advocate for?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ok, first of all, you're talking yourself in circles. You subscribe to a brand of politics whether or not you want to categorize yourself as one of those people. You may loathe those that very boastfully identify with one side or the other. But when you say we need 10 to 15 years of leftist policies to stimulate economic growth and that Bernie Sanders would be good, then you are very clearly someone with a brand of politics. You may be cynical and loathe the system but you are on board with that ideology.

Not true, I'm interested in what will work. The time for austerity (i.e. paying off the national debt, etc) was in the early 00s. But we screwed that up, so we are where we are unfortunately. My thoughts on the economy changes based upon new evidence, etc. I'm not interested in which "team" it comes from. Right now, the team on the left offers the best plan for what the economy needs. Granted, its their ideology, which never changes...it just so happens to be that they are a broken watch and right now the time its stuck on it what time it is right now.

Secondly, and sadly, we're no longer the world's largest economy. China surpassed us last year to take that spot.

That's sort of a silly statistic, though. China isn't the most powerful economy on the planet. The US is. Its more sheer size that gets that number more than actual economic vitality.

Thirdly, why do you assume redistribution will boost the economy? Again, what are you basing this on? Is something that you know will work based on evidence from a different country? And if you cite an example, please use a country that has the type of unemployment and poverty that we have in the inner cities. I'm curious how redistribution is going to bring people out of unemployment, poverty, and rev up the economy.

Piketty probably wrote the book on the subject last year. I'd start there. Some great discussions from all sides center around his findings. Also, if you want past evidence, I'd simply look at the United States economy circa 1945-1970. There were vast social investments during that era. Though, again, that was a time when work for the common laborer was easily available and well rewarded. Its not easily translatable to today where workers are super efficient. The economy just doesn't need that many workers today and we need to come up with something new. Guaranteed basic income, larger social safety nets, increased wages by law. Several options are out there, but the discussion really needs to shift to how we will deal with the shift in labor markets.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Not true, I'm interested in what will work. The time for austerity (i.e. paying off the national debt, etc) was in the early 00s. But we screwed that up, so we are where we are unfortunately. My thoughts on the economy changes based upon new evidence, etc. I'm not interested in which "team" it comes from. Right now, the team on the left offers the best plan for what the economy needs. Granted, its their ideology, which never changes...it just so happens to be that they are a broken watch and right now the time its stuck on it what time it is right now.



That's sort of a silly statistic, though. China isn't the most powerful economy on the planet. The US is. Its more sheer size that gets that number more than actual economic vitality.



Piketty probably wrote the book on the subject last year. I'd start there. Some great discussions from all sides center around his findings. Also, if you want past evidence, I'd simply look at the United States economy circa 1945-1970. There were vast social investments during that era. Though, again, that was a time when work for the common laborer was easily available and well rewarded. Its not easily translatable to today where workers are super efficient. The economy just doesn't need that many workers today and we need to come up with something new. Guaranteed basic income, larger social safety nets, increased wages by law. Several options are out there, but the discussion really needs to shift to how we will deal with the shift in labor markets.

Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to sacrifice, for the betterment of the common man, 75-80% of your income if a large tax hike were passed and signed into law?

I know it's hypothetical. I'm just interested in what you think.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

What is this 20th century economics nonsense?

Mostly in relation to labor. We are entering a period of low wages for labor the more "free market" the US becomes. Again, Thomas Piketty described this phenomenon rather well.

You realize most of the world, in the 20th century, utilized the very leftist policies you are advocating. We're one of the most powerful nations in the world today because of being alone in the capitalist approach. And then China realized the only way to dominate in the world was to turn to capitalism and now they're sitting next to us as the world's 2nd super power.

China is a pretty weak country and most certainly not the 2nd most powerful entity in the world. Until they actually create a viable middle class, they will stay that way. If they actually shifted to the "left" as you put it and created certain social safety nets, they will create a MASSIVE consumer class and then be a major player internationally. Right now the US is actually becoming more like China with vast wealth stratification, interestingly.

Also, the US got where it was using a VERY heavily mixed approach. Regulations, social safety nets, etc. You are acting like the US is Somalia or something with no laws.

What exactly are you advocating? This is a very specious argument based on nothing other than some generalization about "leftist policies" helping the country. What is it that you advocate for?

A shift towards addressing what we will do with in relation to the death of labor. Coming up with viable solutions. Leaving behind this idiotic left vs right paradigm stuff and focusing more on reality.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to sacrifice, for the betterment of the common man, 75-80% of your income if a large tax hike were passed and signed into law?

I know it's hypothetical. I'm just interested in what you think.

Depends on what you mean. Would this end most suffering or cure cancer or end wars? Any of those - yes, no doubt. Otherwise, it depends on the governmental management. What services would I get? Free healthcare, free housing, free food? Sure. It would depend on what the plan is.

Though in the US, really a shift in income really only needs to affect roughly the top 0.4% of households. Which isn't you or me. Those are the owners of capital that are reaping the benefits of a more efficient work force, but aren't increasing incomes consummate with said increases. Due to this, incomes are stagnant and, here's the important part, our consumer driven economy is effected by it. This will only get worse over time and, newsflash, you aren't one of the people that will be benefiting from it.

Unless you are in Warren Buffett's will or something.

 

[PharmacistReb]

If you think China is a pretty weak country, then I'm having a debate with someone who literally has no understanding of the world at large. That has to be the single most ignorant thing that has been uttered in this entire thread.

Your entire debate lies in one book you read that piqued your interest.

In addition, I'm a proponent of safety nets. I believe there must be programs that support those that cannot make it any other way. And I certainly never said anything in this thread that would lead one to believe I think "America is like Somalia". Utterly ridiculous. Tell me more about non sequiturs.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Depends on what you mean. Would this end most suffering or cure cancer or end wars? Any of those - yes, no doubt. What services would I get? Free healthcare, free housing, free food? Sure. It would depend on what the plan is.

Though in the US, really a shift in income really only needs to affect roughly the top 0.4% of households. Which isn't you or me. Those are the owners of capital that are reaping the benefits of a more efficient work force, but aren't increasing incomes consummate with said increases. Due to this, incomes are stagnant and, here's the important part, our consumer driven economy is effected by it. This will only get worse over time and, newsflash, you aren't one of the people that will be benefiting from it.

Unless you are in Warren Buffett's will or something.

So far, from what I gather, you want a perfect utopia where we get to do all the things we have in a capitalist society as well as have free stuff. Either that, or you just finished reading The Communist Manifesto and you like what you read. What other system provides free food, housing, and healthcare other than the dream that Marx had for the world?

You are all over the board. This is the most erratic thing I've read in a while.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Depends on what you mean. Would this end most suffering or cure cancer or end wars? Any of those - yes, no doubt. Otherwise, it depends on the governmental management. What services would I get? Free healthcare, free housing, free food? Sure. It would depend on what the plan is.

Though in the US, really a shift in income really only needs to affect roughly the top 0.4% of households. Which isn't you or me. Those are the owners of capital that are reaping the benefits of a more efficient work force, but aren't increasing incomes consummate with said increases. Due to this, incomes are stagnant and, here's the important part, our consumer driven economy is effected by it. This will only get worse over time and, newsflash, you aren't one of the people that will be benefiting from it.

Unless you are in Warren Buffett's will or something.

So you're on board with more taxes if it means the end of cancer, suffering and wars. Well, you sold me. I want the IRS to have every penny. As long as we get that free food, free housing, and free healthcare. All of which (the food, housing, and healthcare), I am sure will be top notch. Also, as long as I get it free, I'm quitting my job. Will they allow me to put in pool behind my free house? I think I've got enough saved up for the added expenditure. I'll use that along with my government stipend.

 

[SClENCE]

I'd much rather pay for my own food, housing, and healthcare. 80% tax? There would be no incentive for financial risk/success/reward/innovation. I'd be just as well-off working at McDonald's. This road is apparently favored by 48% of Americans though which is scary.

 

[PharmacistReb]

In WVU's world, nobody would work. If the government took all of your money and then in turn provided for the entire nation, who would work? What incentive would anyone have to innovate anything?

I'm currently looking into real estate development in Oxford, MS because of the population and cultural boom in that part of the state. I'm also working towards another degree to better my professional opportunities. In WVU's America (where higher taxes means no more war or cancer), nobody would need to strive for personal betterment. The IRS would coddle all of us and we'd all be perfectly blissful in theorized utopia.

 

[SClENCE]

WVU really throws me off. He will say something that I couldn't agree with more and then he comes out and says this haha

 

[Old Timer]

I'm always entertained by the "taxes are always bad!" camp. But they aren't. For whatever reason people think that what worked for Reagan in the 80s (i.e. remedying stagflation) will work today in an atmosphere where the problem is more depressed consumer demand. This is due to stagnant wages. Thanks to the automation revolution, workers are the most productive in history, but incomes haven't risen to coincide with this. Neither party will ever change what they want, but as it stands right now, a leftist economy for a solid 15-20 years will do a lot to correct the mismanagement of the economy since the mid to late 80s. When the majority of new income is distributed to the capital owning class, it can't be a good thing for an economy that more or less relies on the broader consumer demand.

You sound like a person that more or less listens to an echo chamber and regurgitates. That's fine...I guess...its just that nobody will take you seriously.

Not just that. It's that what the R's want HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

You cannot cut taxes and cut spending and expect economic growth. There have been three major tax cuts in modern US history. The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. Each one of those happened at the same time as there was massive government spending.

Also, the idea that tax rates are holding back the economy is laughable. It's not 1963 with a 90% tax rate. Also, the Republican Ninja warriors can never explain how Bill Clinton was able to preside over economic growth after raising taxes. Also, they keep making predictions that never come true, they need to hock their crystal ball.

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Heritage, the go-to think tank for the Republican Party, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to "higher deficits" and that it served as a "recipe for a recession." The organization also predicted that the tax increase would "destroy jobs" and "undermine America's international competitiveness."

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): "The problem in not that we do not tax enough, it is that Government spends too much. The President has reverted to true form, that of a tax and spend, old-time Democrat. He has abandoned tens of millions of middle-class voters that trusted him. Raising taxes on the middle class is not patriotic, it is idiotic." (From the Congressional Record on February 17th, 1993)

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): "Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust to these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will be created." (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA):
Mr. President, I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MI): "Mr. Speaker, I hear, once again, like 1989, claims that by increasing taxes we will be able to shrink the deficit and fund new programs. But as history has shown us over and over, the only result of more taxes is more spending and bigger Government. Let us cut spending, not raise taxes." (From the Congressional Record on March 16th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ARCHER (R-TX): "I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite." (From the Congressional Record on May 24th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH: "I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery
and put us back in a recession.
It might take 1 and a half or 2 years, but it will happen." (From the Congressional Record on February 2nd, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL CRANE (R-IL): "President Clinton has been trying to sell his plan to the American people by claiming that it will create both tax fairness and economic growth. However, history proves that the tax increases which the President advocates will actually stifle economic expansion and the creation of jobs." (From the Congressional Record on March 16th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE JIM SAXTON (R-NJ): "A tax is a tax is a tax; it does not matter what we call it. One might ask, when is enough enough. Tax increases did not work in 1986 or in 1990 to help our economy grow." (From the Congressional Record on February 16th, 1993)

SENATOR DON NICKLES (R-OK): This tax bill…will not get the deficit down. What it will do is it will give him a lot of new money to spend. We will pass a National Service Program tonight. It is going to cost billions of dollars…There is no deficit reduction in this bill. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA): "I spoke with the chief financial officer of Owosso, George Lemmon, Jr., and he told me: `These taxes will mean that we will take fewer risks, we will make fewer investments, and we will have less working capital.' What does that mean? It means lower economic growth and fewer jobs." (From the Congressional Record on July 15th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM BAKER (R-CA): "Just when the economy is emerging from a recession caused in part by high taxes
the President proposes to slam the brakes on the recovery with his tax bill.
This tax package will reduce productivity and consumption , which will slow down a gradually recovering economy and
cause another recession." (From the Congressional Record on June 9th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER COX (R-CA): "This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain." (From the Congressional Record on May 27th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): "Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation's new jobs . And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because , when you raise taxes , you killjobs . When you raise taxes , consumer prices inevitably rise, demand falls off, and small businesses begin to collapse." (From the Congressional Record on July 13th, 1993)

Yet, the economy did grow and and the deficit was abolished. Who new, they really were full of sh**.

After the 2008 stimulus bill the same *****s that predicted the 1990's wrong were predicting massive inflation. Wrong again.

What Mikey pointed is clear to anyone with more than one functioning brain cell. The recession ws 10000000000000000% on the demand side. Unless you increase demand, there will be no inflation. If all you are going to do is repeat talking points, you will be seen as a person who is not really understanding the world as it us, just as they wish it to be.

 

[Old Timer]

China bigger than US:

And if you go per capita:

The US economy is 7X larger than China.

 

[DocJL]

Not true, I'm interested in what will work. The time for austerity (i.e. paying off the national debt, etc) was in the early 00s. But we screwed that up, so we are where we are unfortunately. My thoughts on the economy changes based upon new evidence, etc. I'm not interested in which "team" it comes from. Right now, the team on the left offers the best plan for what the economy needs. Granted, its their ideology, which never changes...it just so happens to be that they are a broken watch and right now the time its stuck on it what time it is right now.

The "team on the left" has been in charge of the economy for almost a decade. Both houses of congress from 2006-2010, and 2/3 of the federal government from 2006 until the most recent election.

What has this gotten us?
The weakest "recovery" in modern history.
The lowest labor participation rate in decades. (notwithstanding the phony unemployment stats cooked up by barry and his crue on a regular basis)
And on track for this administration to DOUBLE the national debt to TWENY TRILLION DOLLARS before barry leaves office - despite his campaigning against "bush being irresponsible and unpatriotic" for running up the debt to a much lesser degree.

So what exactly does your (and it is most certainly yours) "team" offer that "the economy needs"?

 

[Old Timer]

 

[BenJammin]

Yeah, let's increase demand for a product by raising the minimum wage and the taxes on all businesses. That's a recipe for disaster and why I don't see myself voting for a Democrat in the near future.

 

[W19]

George Bush is the last president that increased the federal minimum wage...

 

[PharmacistReb]

China bigger than US:

And if you go per capita:

The US economy is 7X larger than China.

That's a cute chart. Here's a link to the IMF website. Enjoy your crow. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...544,474,941,754,446,698,666&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=

 

[PharmacistReb]

Not just that. It's that what the R's want HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

You cannot cut taxes and cut spending and expect economic growth. There have been three major tax cuts in modern US history. The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. Each one of those happened at the same time as there was massive government spending.

Also, the idea that tax rates are holding back the economy is laughable. It's not 1963 with a 90% tax rate. Also, the Republican Ninja warriors can never explain how Bill Clinton was able to preside over economic growth after raising taxes. Also, they keep making predictions that never come true, they need to hock their crystal ball.


Yet, the economy did grow and and the deficit was abolished. Who new, they really were full of sh**.

After the 2008 stimulus bill the same *****s that predicted the 1990's wrong were predicting massive inflation. Wrong again.

What Mikey pointed is clear to anyone with more than one functioning brain cell. The recession ws 10000000000000000% on the demand side. Unless you increase demand, there will be no inflation. If all you are going to do is repeat talking points, you will be seen as a person who is not really understanding the world as it us, just as they wish it to be.

I would love to return to the 90's Clinton policies. I just happen to think the GOP provides a better path for 2016. Free trade, welfare reform, cuts in government employees, increases in police force, deregulation, capital gains tax cut from 28% to 20% -- I'm on board for more Clinton era policies. I just don't think it's Hillary who will provide such conservative stances.

Also, if you know anything about the Clinton years, it was the second term and following the 1994 losses and post tax-increases when Clinton started welfare reform and free trade and federal government spending restraint that the economy started lurching forward.

We will agree that the Clinton years were good. I would love to see Obama try some of those same policies.

 

[Old Timer]

That's a cute chart. Here's a link to the IMF website. Enjoy your crow. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=84&pr.y=9&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512,668,914,672,612,946,614,137,311,962,213,674,911,676,193,548,122,556,912,678,313,181,419,867,513,682,316,684,913,273,124,868,339,921,638,948,514,943,218,686,963,688,616,518,223,728,516,558,918,138,748,196,618,278,624,692,522,694,622,142,156,449,626,564,628,565,228,283,924,853,233,288,632,293,636,566,634,964,238,182,662,453,960,968,423,922,935,714,128,862,611,135,321,716,243,456,248,722,469,942,253,718,642,724,643,576,939,936,644,961,819,813,172,199,132,733,646,184,648,524,915,361,134,362,652,364,174,732,328,366,258,734,656,144,654,146,336,463,263,528,268,923,532,738,944,578,176,537,534,742,536,866,429,369,433,744,178,186,436,925,136,869,343,746,158,926,439,466,916,112,664,111,826,298,542,927,967,846,443,299,917,582,544,474,941,754,446,698,666&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=

No it doesn't. It's a made up number called purchasing power parity. Since China is in the precambrian age it doesn't cost anything to live. Also, they manipulate their currency. The straight GDP number is the number and the US is a bigger economy than China. Nice try though....

How do you like your crow cooked:

 

[Old Timer]

I would love to return to the 90's Clinton policies. I just happen to think the GOP provides a better path for 2016. Free trade, welfare reform, cuts in government employees, increases in police force, deregulation, capital gains tax cut from 28% to 20% -- I'm on board for more Clinton era policies. I just don't think it's Hillary who will provide such conservative stances.

Also, if you know anything about the Clinton years, it was the second term and following the 1994 losses and post tax-increases when Clinton started welfare reform and free trade and federal government spending restraint that the economy started lurching forward.

We will agree that the Clinton years were good. I would love to see Obama try some of those same policies.

You can't. Each period of time is different and each set of circumstances is different. It's not always good to cut or raise taxes. It's not always bad to deficit spend. You can't re-create what Clinton did because the spread between short term rates and long term rates is way to narrow and you can't get the stimulus that Clinton got from falling rates.

You can't get what Kennedy got from tax cuts because marginal rates were so high.

The Reagan tax cuts sucked for me because first he cut rates (good for me) then he increased the payrol tax and pushed through tax reform that took a lot of deductions so it was a net financial loser for me. Also, Reagan's economic period had a great deal to do with the Fed pushing up rates (CD rates were 18% on a 5 year cd) to crush inflation. Also the deficit ballooned under Reagan.

So I don't adhere to any specific ideology. I'm pretty much down the middle. To the left on social issues and to the right on Foreign policy issues. Right now there is no question in my mind that our economy is suffering from lack of demand. All of the corporate money is flowing to the share holders and not enough to the workers to create enough demand to move the economy forward. It wasn't that way in 1964, 1983, 1992, 2002. But it is now. I don't know the best way to increase demand. I don't know if increasing the minimum wage or any other specific policy would move demand. Increasing corporate profits is not working, that's for sure.

S&P 500 returns total/annual

Reagan: 50.098%/5.264%
Bush 41: 30.267%/6.984%
Clinton: 150.615%/12.305%
Bush 43: -45.275%/-7.332%
Obama: 117.481%/13.052%

Based on the S&P 500 the best economic Presidents are:

Obama
Clinton
Bush 41
Reagan
Bush 43

Reagan

Bush 41

Clinton

Bush 43

Obama

 

[W19]

I would love to return to the 90's Clinton policies. I just happen to think the GOP provides a better path for 2016. Free trade, welfare reform, cuts in government employees, increases in police force, deregulation, capital gains tax cut from 28% to 20% -- I'm on board for more Clinton era policies. I just don't think it's Hillary who will provide such conservative stances.

Also, if you know anything about the Clinton years, it was the second term and following the 1994 losses and post tax-increases when Clinton started welfare reform and free trade and federal government spending restraint that the economy started lurching forward.

We will agree that the Clinton years were good. I would love to see Obama try some of those same policies.

You happen to think--great, but the last time we had GOP in the WH and congress, they did not follow the majority of these policies. Are you against corporate welfare as well? You seem to be someone who believes in political propaganda...

 

[Old Timer]

The "team on the left" has been in charge of the economy for almost a decade. Both houses of congress from 2006-2010, and 2/3 of the federal government from 2006 until the most recent election.

What has this gotten us?
The weakest "recovery" in modern history.
The lowest labor participation rate in decades. (notwithstanding the phony unemployment stats cooked up by barry and his crue on a regular basis)
And on track for this administration to DOUBLE the national debt to TWENY TRILLION DOLLARS before barry leaves office - despite his campaigning against "bush being irresponsible and unpatriotic" for running up the debt to a much lesser degree.

So what exactly does your (and it is most certainly yours) "team" offer that "the economy needs"?

Again this all ideology. Not a fact based post.
Weakest recovery? Compared to what? The Depression in 1933? The crash in 2008 cannot be compared to the recession under Reagan or Bush 43.
Control of Congress by a party without a filibuster proof majority is not control of the government.
The economic numbers are the same numbers that have always been used and the same charges were used against Reagan about labor participation.
Your debit numbers couldn't be more wrong:

Increase in debt over the Presidential Terms:

Reagan: +187% (Almost doubled and doubled again)
Bush 41: +55%
Clinton: +2%
Bush 43: +115% (More than doubled)
Obama: + 71%
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm

So based on your abhorrence of the national debt you should vote democratic.

 

[PharmacistReb]

You can't. Each period of time is different and each set of circumstances is different. It's not always good to cut or raise taxes. It's not always bad to deficit spend. You can't re-create what Clinton did because the spread between short term rates and long term rates is way to narrow and you can't get the stimulus that Clinton got from falling rates.

You can't get what Kennedy got from tax cuts because marginal rates were so high.

The Reagan tax cuts sucked for me because first he cut rates (good for me) then he increased the payrol tax and pushed through tax reform that took a lot of deductions so it was a net financial loser for me. Also, Reagan's economic period had a great deal to do with the Fed pushing up rates (CD rates were 18% on a 5 year cd) to crush inflation. Also the deficit ballooned under Reagan.

So I don't adhere to any specific ideology. I'm pretty much down the middle. To the left on social issues and to the right on Foreign policy issues. Right now there is no question in my mind that our economy is suffering from lack of demand. All of the corporate money is flowing to the share holders and not enough to the workers to create enough demand to move the economy forward. It wasn't that way in 1964, 1983, 1992, 2002. But it is now. I don't know the best way to increase demand. I don't know if increasing the minimum wage or any other specific policy would move demand. Increasing corporate profits is not working, that's for sure.

S&P 500 returns total/annual

Reagan: 50.098%/5.264%
Bush 41: 30.267%/6.984%
Clinton: 150.615%/12.305%
Bush 43: -45.275%/-7.332%
Obama: 117.481%/13.052%

Based on the S&P 500 the best economic Presidents are:

Obama
Clinton
Bush 41
Reagan
Bush 43

Reagan

Bush 41

Clinton

Bush 43

Obama

I love how in one breath you say that corporations passing down huge sums of money to shareholders exclusively is not working and we have to fix that and in the next breath you say that Obama is the best economic president based on the S&P 500.

So essentially, Obama crawled into bed with the CEOs and is everything he promised not to be when it comes to being a corporate *****. I think this is fair.

 

[PharmacistReb]

In addition, your analysis of how each president raised the debt is ludicrous. You base it on percentage alone. That is absolutely inane. If Bush 43 started with less debt and increased it exponentially, it still pales in comparison to what Obama did in 6 years. Bush increased debt more, percentage-wise, because he obviously started with less debt.

You could make the argument for whoever the 45th president will be that they will achieve some of the greatest lack of debt growth percentage-wise, because they will be starting off with nearly 20 trillion in debt. It would be pretty tough to increase the debt to a percentage that would be higher than any of the previous presidents based on such a large number.

Why can't you just admit that Obama has exploded the debt and has dug us into a much deeper hole. Sure, Bush spent as did Reagan. Clinton was a much better steward of the economy. And do not chalk up the massive debt spending to Obama's necessity to spend 1 trillion in the stimulus. Even Obama himself went on record as saying those "shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought". We're in 2015 and we still hear the left cry about how we need more infrastructure spending when we spent 1 trillion on a bill that was supposed to do exactly that.

You say that you're left of center on social issues and right of center on foreign policy? What about fiscal policy? In one post you espouse the fiscal restraint of the Clinton years and then you hopelessly defend the Keynesian mountains of debt that Obama has incurred.

I would love to have a hawkish president with Clinton's fiscal restraint.

 

[PharmacistReb]

In addition to debt spending, if you look at percentages exclusively (which is absolutely ridiculous because you don't look at the actual dollar amount), FDR increased the national debt 1000%. FDR is lauded as one of the greatest presidents of all time. But again, his 1000% increase pales in comparison to the near 10 trillion Obama will likely add to the debt even after drawing down two expensive wars in his first term. Bush added nearly 6 trillion in debt to the books. Both bad. $10 trillion worse. $10 trillion much worse when you realize the labor participation rate in the country is at its lowest point in decades. More people not working today than at any point during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush era. The unemployment on the decline and underemployment continuing to be stagnant.

 

[PharmacistReb]

If you look at them side by side: Obama added about 6.2 trillion in s 6 years. Bush added 5.8 trillion in 8 years while also fighting two wars and bailing out the banking industry. With two years two spare, Obama could sent the debt to nearly 20 trillion. And we do not know what the next year and a half holds with the advent of ISIS and the Iranian talks/continued Middle East turmoil.

Reagan added about 1.86 trillion to a debt that was not quite a trillion dollars throughout the 1980s. If you account for inflation, that would be about $6 trillion dollars by today's standards over 8 years.

 

[Old Timer]

I like how you guys just change the goal posts. It was pointed out that Obama will double the debt. Well when you look at the numbers he didn't do so bad compared to others. Then you say, well who cares about doubling the debt it's about the whole number. It its about the % of GDP and we are fine. Actually Obama lucked out. He couldn't do this unless interest rates were as low as they are. If you are going to borrow, it was a good time. See, Roosevelt and Obama. What do they have in common? Recovering from a massive economic melt down? Roosevelt was all about the war. Our debt was sky high after the civil war too. Was a Lincoln a bad president?

As I pointed out, it's about the circumstances. The circumstances now show this is about generating demand. If you think cuting marginal rates would do it, I would be all in favor. It's clear cutting corporate taxes would not do anything for demand as corporations are awash in cash. I don't think pushing up the minimum wage would increase demand enough. We need a bigger stimulus. I'm not an economist so I don't know what the answer is. I would.

Off the top of my head I would look to a job credit of some kind. Hire someone new and get a tax credit if they stay employed for X period of time. The longer you employee them the bigger the credit. I would cut tax rates for people in the consuming class, who would spend the money.

 

[Old Timer]

I love how in one breath you say that corporations passing down huge sums of money to shareholders exclusively is not working and we have to fix that and in the next breath you say that Obama is the best economic president based on the S&P 500.

So essentially, Obama crawled into bed with the CEOs and is everything he promised not to be when it comes to being a corporate *****. I think this is fair.

Please read what I said. I said:

IF YOU GO BY THE STOCK MARKET
​

I didn't say I went by that. Th economy is too complicated for that. But business can't complain about Obama being President. They have done well. If you think this is about the government crowding business out of the market, you are nuts. We are suffering from a lack of demand. If you, don't you should explain what's wrong with the economy. Be specific and what you think we should do about it.

The economy is a zero sum game. If you cut government spending, you will lower GDP. SO if you cut taxes to stimulate the economy and at the same time cut government spending, you cancel out the effects of the tax decrease. You may claim the government is not the most efficient spender of money. Whether we build tanks or roads government spending contributes to GDP. If you just cut taxes, the deficit will go up. How would you deal with that? It's nice to criticize, but what is your prescription and what do you think the result will be?

 

[BidingMyTime]

You happen to think--great, but the last time we had GOP in the WH and congress, they did not follow the majority of these policies. Are you against corporate welfare as well? You seem to be someone who believes in political propaganda...

And this is the problem with ALL of the Republican/Democrat candidates running for office, there is no reason to believe a word they say. Their past voting records do not match up with their current promises. But they say what people want to hear, and even educated people are like the battered wife, they believe this time, their favorite party politician really means what he promises.

 

[PharmacistReb]

We'll agree to disagree. You'll vote for Hillary and I'll vote for whomever the GOP puts up. Salud.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Please read what I said. I said:

IF YOU GO BY THE STOCK MARKET
​

I didn't say I went by that. Th economy is too complicated for that. But business can't complain about Obama being President. They have done well. If you think this is about the government crowding business out of the market, you are nuts. We are suffering from a lack of demand. If you, don't you should explain what's wrong with the economy. Be specific and what you think we should do about it.

The economy is a zero sum game. If you cut government spending, you will lower GDP. SO if you cut taxes to stimulate the economy and at the same time cut government spending, you cancel out the effects of the tax decrease. You may claim the government is not the most efficient spender of money. Whether we build tanks or roads government spending contributes to GDP. If you just cut taxes, the deficit will go up. How would you deal with that? It's nice to criticize, but what is your prescription and what do you think the result will be?

The left tells us all the time that deficit spending is ok when your economy is stagnant. Deficit spending is necessary when you have a sluggish economy and most of America has stopped looking for work. Are you truly worried about the deficit? It's all good when we're discussing government expenditures. But then you throw in the word "tax cuts" and the left goes wild with how it's going to affect the deficit.

What are your thoughts on capital gains tax cuts? The only proven cuts that have actually shown a revenue increase due to the fact that capital gains are the most sensitive of the taxes. Touch them and people will immediately invest. Income tax cuts and sales tax cuts are always revenue losers. This is obvious. I would never argue otherwise.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Also, you mentioned the idea that somehow raising the minimum wage might increase the demand for workers in an earlier post... how so? That seems totally counter to common logic. Do you think people are out of work just because they won't accept jobs that are at the current minimum wage? And they're waiting for something better? Because if you follow that logic, then there are companies longing for people to apply for all of their low-paying positions and only an increase in wage will attract the workers? Am I following your line of thought correctly?

 

[PharmacistReb]

For what it's worth, I want you to know that I sincerely enjoy trying to understand why it is an opposing view thinks a certain way. I am not so closed-minded to not hear what it is that someone else has in mind and why they think it will work.

I am very much a free-market person but I recently read "America's Bitter Pill" which is a great read by a liberal author discussing how healthcare reform in the country didn't go far enough and did too much to placate big pharma and big hospital. And how cost containment will be necessary. But possibly at the expense of the greatest technology and the greatest drug research in the world. And that the world relies on America's investment in healthcare while also reaping the advantages of their low cost system (since they are not the ones doing the heavy lifting with R&D, technology, training).

The healthcare debate is one that I feel is the tipping point of the American system. When you consider the costs of Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security as it relates to our country's solvency over the next 30 years, there is still much work to be done. We didn't really reform the system. Increased access, sure. But the cost of healthcare remains totally unchanged.

 

[Old Timer]

Also, you mentioned the idea that somehow raising the minimum wage might increase the demand for workers in an earlier post... how so? That seems totally counter to common logic. Do you think people are out of work just because they won't accept jobs that are at the current minimum wage? And they're waiting for something better? Because if you follow that logic, then there are companies longing for people to apply for all of their low-paying positions and only an increase in wage will attract the workers? Am I following your line of thought correctly?

If person X works at CVS as a cashier making $8.00 per hour. If you increase his/her pay to $10.00 per hour that $2.00 per hour will all be spent in the economy. If that $2.00 per hour goes to share holders it does not. Our economy for better or worse is based on consumer spending (Demand). If the consumer is not spending you get the kind of recovery we have. It will not increase the demand for workers. You misunderstand demand. It's not demand for jobs. It's demands for goods and services. That's why despite all of the stimulation there is no inflation. There is no demand.

Listen to what Mikey is telling you. Uber is the largest taxi service in the world and they don't own a car and they have no employees. They don't create jobs in the traditional sense. In a sense all of the drivers are independent contractors. They have off loaded their costs to their employees. Is this good? I don't know. Maybe we are in a time of massive economic change and the uncertainty around that is affecting the economy. You are replacing human beings at the low end by off loading costs to them and reducing the number of people needed to do a job. CVS has less techs than they used to. Is that good? For whom?

 

[PharmacistReb]

Yes, this is true. The more money the American worker makes, the more money that they spend in the economy. However, for small businesses that don't have gobs of money like CVS, that $8.00/hr turning into $10/hr means that the hamburger that the same worker would order on break from the business with which they work will now cost $.50 more. Because if the small business guy is having to pay his 10 burger shop employees an extra $2.00 per hour, then that affects what he makes every day and in turn, he charges more for his hamburgers. Which then sucks up the extra cash you just paid your employee. OR -- that employer decides he can't employee 10 employees for $10/hr, so he has to lay off 2 of them. So 2 are making extra money and paying more for goods or services and two are back to searching for work.

If we're discussing minimum wage, then we have to look at the cons. You are spinning minimum wage as the more we raise it, the more spending that occurs. Well that's not true if the consumer is having to spend much more for what he would have paid for the same good or service pre-minimum wage. Or if that business can't exist selling what it does for a certain price and having to pay its employees X amount of dollars.

What number would be too high? $10? $15? $30?

If you give the entry level worker $15/hour, then the entire economy changes for the rest of us and spending power for the economy at large grows smaller. Because all of us are paying a little bit more for the same goods and services and we didn't get a pay raise -- the entry level guy did. And if the entry level guy affects the rest of us, it could actually require us to take pay cuts. Most small business owners don't have a backroom full of cash with which to pay entry level workers. And if you worked your ass off for your business, you don't want to give some portion of your salary.

When I worked independent retail, if my owner had to pay all of his technicians $3/hour more (they don't make minimum wage, this is just for argument's sake), him being the cheap skate that he already was -- I would have no chance at an additional raise. And if the entire entry level workforce is getting a pay raise, wouldn't I end up paying more for the same things that I was already paying less for pre-minimum wage hike? Again, not all businesses are like Google and Apple with a 800 billion dollars in a backroom that can be used for paying employees more without increases in product prices.

 

[PharmacistReb]

If a minimum wage increase in our country is the answer to stimulating our economy, then that means the average American worker makes minimum wage -- which is is not true.

I can understand your argument from a moral imperative. There are people out there that actually DO live on minimum wage. And it would be beneficial for them to make more because that is the only form of income they are able to earn. From that perspective, I understand what you are saying and I agree.

Looking at this issue through the prism of economics exclusively, then I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't believe a minimum wage increase is going to spur the economy. By and large, minimum wage exists solely as an entry level wage and most people make above this wage. If you were to make the minimum wage a living wage like $20/hour, then the rest of us that make one penny over that already will begin to see prices of goods and services spike and our own spending power diminishes.

 

[PharmacistReb]

If person X works at CVS as a cashier making $8.00 per hour. If you increase his/her pay to $10.00 per hour that $2.00 per hour will all be spent in the economy. If that $2.00 per hour goes to share holders it does not. Our economy for better or worse is based on consumer spending (Demand). If the consumer is not spending you get the kind of recovery we have. It will not increase the demand for workers. You misunderstand demand. It's not demand for jobs. It's demands for goods and services. That's why despite all of the stimulation there is no inflation. There is no demand.

Listen to what Mikey is telling you. Uber is the largest taxi service in the world and they don't own a car and they have no employees. They don't create jobs in the traditional sense. In a sense all of the drivers are independent contractors. They have off loaded their costs to their employees. Is this good? I don't know. Maybe we are in a time of massive economic change and the uncertainty around that is affecting the economy. You are replacing human beings at the low end by off loading costs to them and reducing the number of people needed to do a job. CVS has less techs than they used to. Is that good? For whom?

This exact same argument a conservative could make in favor for across the board tax cuts. Real middle-class tax cuts. Don't even make it about the 1% or those making greater than $250k per year. For all of us in the middle class -- give them a substantial tax cut. And make the rate the same for everyone below $250k. Then we all, collectively as a middle class, have a lot more money to spend. Wouldn't that serve as more spending power and create greater demand than just increasing minimum wage? Wouldn't you agree?

 

[PharmacistReb]

And we don't worry about deficits for the time being. Liberal economist Paul Krugman has said that deficit spending in an economic downturn doesn't matter. So we take Krugman's advice, cut taxes for the middle class exclusively, and create a greater spending power in Middle America. Wouldn't this be ideal? Would you be on board?

 

[Old Timer]

This exact same argument a conservative could make in favor for across the board tax cuts. Real middle-class tax cuts. Don't even make it about the 1% or those making greater than $250k per year. For all of us in the middle class -- give them a substantial tax cut. And make the rate the same for everyone below $250k. Then we all, collectively as a middle class, have a lot more money to spend. Wouldn't that serve as more spending power and create greater demand than just increasing minimum wage? Wouldn't you agree?

Except it's not. The conservative agenda favors the rich. In every way shape or form. Every tax advantage, except maybe the earned income tax credit, favor the rich. You define Middle Class as family income of 250K per year? What do you define poor? Rich starts at 250,000.01? The hedge fund deal is just something that pisses me off no end. You run a hedge fund and your salary gets treated as capital gains and taxed at 15%? Lets get real. The Golden Rule is in effect. He who has the gold rules. The only difference is the rich now are so greedy they leave nothing for the rest of us.

That being said, we are in agreement. We would both favor tax cuts for middle and low income workers. I would also favor letting people under 100K deduct all state and local taxes, all sales taxes and real estate taxes whether they itemize or not. It would harm nobody to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. The burger joint is bad example as restaurant workers get a minimum wage of around $2.00 and get the rest in tips. Also, the estate tax needs to be kept. Another give away to the rich. Remember it's only on estates over 5 million and only on the overage. I also favor rebuilding all of the roads and bridges in this country. It will put people back to work and keep them working for a long time.

We need to do whatever is required to put money in the hands of consumers. I have no trouble with tax cuts, tax deductions, rebates or transfer payments. I say use every tool available. In fact the stimulus had huge tax credits for college. When I was putting my kids through school I got about 15K back in tax credits. Obama's tax cuts were better for me personally than the Bush tax cuts and they were pretty good too. That's money I spent that would have gone to my kid's schools. But also remember, the tax cuts should gradually expire once the economy is back on track or we will continue to run deficits. It's just nobody likes to give them back.....

 

[PharmacistReb]

You define Middle Class as family income of 250K per year? What do you define poor? Rich starts at 250,000.01?

Exactly.

This is the same argument that conservatives had when Obama planned to increase marginal tax rates for those making more than $250K. $300K in Manhattan or LA or anywhere along the coasts isn't exactly rich. Even if it's $50k being taxed, it's substantial.

I was sort of just presenting the inverse to his once-proposed tax hike of $250k+ with my own tax cuts below $250k plan.

It would harm nobody to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. The burger joint is bad example as restaurant workers get a minimum wage of around $2.00 and get the rest in tips

Nonsense. Maybe at Red Robin is this true. How many McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King employees get tips? Zero. Fast-food workers are not being paid like waiters and waitresses at chain restaurants where tipping is allowed.

You'll likely balk on reading this and deem it conservative hogwash but this is a study of fast-food prices when you increase minimum wage for entry level workers - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/higher-fast-food-wages-higher-fast-food-prices

The same kid you just handed a wage increase to now has to pay more for the same meal he used to order on break with a lower hourly wage. It doesn't take a Nobel Prize in Economics to understand that if you pay the workforce more, then you in turn have to charge more for the products/food. The corporation or business isn't going to take a cut in its bottom line for the welfare of the entry level workers.

Again, if we're talking about moral imperative, then I understand your point. There are people working for minimum wage and that's all they can earn. I don't disagree with that. But if you raise the minimum wage to $10/hour, then the guy who is making $13/hour certainly has less spending power and he worked his ass off to get from $7.50 to $13. Now his spending power has slightly decreased and that $13/hour isn't spreading too far as it is.

A wage increase absolutely affects the prices of goods. Again, not all businesses are going to just accept the wage increase as good moral sense and not do anything to adjust their lack of revenue. Then the guy barely making above the federal minimum is worse off than before. Then we get into a discussion about making it $20/hour and the guy making $22/hour who went to college has almost identical spending power to the 17 year-old Taco Bell worker.

Elizabeth Warren suggested making the minimum wage $20/hour. Imagine having a degree in art history and being an assistant manager at a Kinko's or something. And you have a decent living making $21/hour. Then a progressive idea is adopted to change the bare minimum to $20/hour. The guy with a wife, child, and dog is now making only a dollar more per hour than Suzy down the road who is 16 and a sophomore in high school.


Do you see how this isn't so black and white?