2024 is only a decade away -- are you a gimme, or a dim?
- Thread starter JirinPanthosa
- Start date
Because rich people paying money is bad, but poor people dying is ok.
Apparently large amounts of never ending borrowing is necessary for this process as well. Borrowing to be payed back in part by people in their twenties, people too young to vote, people yet unborn. Too bad for them huh?
Live for today.
That anyone would think this is a good idea.
You didn't address any of the actual logic.
Sigh, no one understands how money works with a Fiat Currency.
Yes, individuals and States must balance their budgets, too much debt/deficit is bad. However, at the Federal level, with a Fiat Currency, Debt/Deficit is not bad, it is a good thing. Look at President Clinton, who built up a Surplus, and what happened? Many want to accuse George W. Bush o squandering away the surplus, but, the obvious thing happened, Pres. Clinton's Surplus led to a recession, because a surplus in the Federal Government (With a Fiat Currency) means less money flowing through the economy. A Debt/Deficit means moremoney available to the Economy. Taxes are a means regulating the Economy, when the Economy gets hot, you need to raise taxes, to slow it down, when the economy gets too cold you need to lower taxes (to stave off inflation). If only, even the Federal Government understood money at the Federal Level
Of course Debt/deficit hurt Greece, because they don't have a Fiat Currency, so they need to operate as an individual or a State, but, with a Fiat Currency, you control the money, borrowing Debt/Deficit are simply numbers on a spreadsheet, they are absolutely meaningless, because you print all the money you want.
Government does need to provide temporary jobs and support people temporarily when times are tough, to keep times from getting tougher, and get money back into the Economy (But it's also true we have far too many lazy Welfare Queens, to quote a previous post).
I was once laid off from a $40K a year job, and had to take a temp job that was below my experience level for $10.00 an hour, no benefits, (Apartment rent rising for 3 months in a row), for an entire year, eating hotdogs and Top Ramen, while I looked for a permament job worthy of my experience. So, yea, sometimes you do have to do what you have to do. But, neither side of the debate understands Modern Monetary Theory and the correct way to use Government money, The Dems/Progessives want to be Santa Claus and The 'pubs/Conservatives want to be scrooge
When you look at panhandlers, you see us lily White folks, and you another ethnicity quite prominently, but, I have yet ever seen an Hispanic or an Aisian pan handling, they hang out at Home Depot to get day jobs, work multiple Minimum Wage jobs, or live many together or make food and trinkets to sell... They find a way to be selfsufficient until things improve (And again, if there is absolutely nothing, then yes, Government should be a safety net for them, and shold be training them for new careers that are more prevalent)
Yes, individuals and States must balance their budgets, too much debt/deficit is bad. However, at the Federal level, with a Fiat Currency, Debt/Deficit is not bad, it is a good thing. Look at President Clinton, who built up a Surplus, and what happened? Many want to accuse George W. Bush o squandering away the surplus, but, the obvious thing happened, Pres. Clinton's Surplus led to a recession, because a surplus in the Federal Government (With a Fiat Currency) means less money flowing through the economy. A Debt/Deficit means moremoney available to the Economy. Taxes are a means regulating the Economy, when the Economy gets hot, you need to raise taxes, to slow it down, when the economy gets too cold you need to lower taxes (to stave off inflation). If only, even the Federal Government understood money at the Federal Level
Of course Debt/deficit hurt Greece, because they don't have a Fiat Currency, so they need to operate as an individual or a State, but, with a Fiat Currency, you control the money, borrowing Debt/Deficit are simply numbers on a spreadsheet, they are absolutely meaningless, because you print all the money you want.
Government does need to provide temporary jobs and support people temporarily when times are tough, to keep times from getting tougher, and get money back into the Economy (But it's also true we have far too many lazy Welfare Queens, to quote a previous post).
I was once laid off from a $40K a year job, and had to take a temp job that was below my experience level for $10.00 an hour, no benefits, (Apartment rent rising for 3 months in a row), for an entire year, eating hotdogs and Top Ramen, while I looked for a permament job worthy of my experience. So, yea, sometimes you do have to do what you have to do. But, neither side of the debate understands Modern Monetary Theory and the correct way to use Government money, The Dems/Progessives want to be Santa Claus and The 'pubs/Conservatives want to be scrooge
When you look at panhandlers, you see us lily White folks, and you another ethnicity quite prominently, but, I have yet ever seen an Hispanic or an Aisian pan handling, they hang out at Home Depot to get day jobs, work multiple Minimum Wage jobs, or live many together or make food and trinkets to sell... They find a way to be selfsufficient until things improve (And again, if there is absolutely nothing, then yes, Government should be a safety net for them, and shold be training them for new careers that are more prevalent)
Quick, let's tax business owners even more! Then they can hire less people, lay off more people or even close down! That will create new jobs!
Sounds like pretty damned good odds to me, just barely under a 50% chance of getting each job you apply for. I can't imagine that is an "All Time high" or anything. I seem to remember some 4:1 ratios in Mid 2011
They will be taxed to fund the government itself hiring everyone.
I've been on permanent disability for the last 10 years, and there's no known cure for the condition, so I guess I'm a gimme headed for the death camps. But I pay all my expenses (including non-subsidized rent) from a single monthly check, and don't qualify for food stamps.
Do you actually have any argument relating to this discussion that's not a straw-man, rhetorical non-sense, or that wasn't contradicted by economic history (recent and ancient)?
If so, you have yet to post it.
So, I popped my head in out of curiosity.
Saw some privileged folks who have no idea what they are talking about insinuating that anyone who needs help is probably poor by choice, and justifying this nonsense with personal anecdotes instead of actual statistics.
Noted to my amusement that their attitudes towards the poor resemble the ideological justifications for the abuses hurled at the unemployed, homeless, and mentally ill in the Sanctuary Districts in DSN's "Past Tense."
Interesting side-note: The details are of course wrong, but "Past Tense" seems to have gotten a lot of the broad strokes of the early 21st Century right. Unstable economy, increased economic inequality, the criminalization of poverty...
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge
ETA:
Also, iguana_tonante for Prime Minister of United Earth!
Saw some privileged folks who have no idea what they are talking about insinuating that anyone who needs help is probably poor by choice, and justifying this nonsense with personal anecdotes instead of actual statistics.
Noted to my amusement that their attitudes towards the poor resemble the ideological justifications for the abuses hurled at the unemployed, homeless, and mentally ill in the Sanctuary Districts in DSN's "Past Tense."
Interesting side-note: The details are of course wrong, but "Past Tense" seems to have gotten a lot of the broad strokes of the early 21st Century right. Unstable economy, increased economic inequality, the criminalization of poverty...
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge
ETA:
Also, iguana_tonante for Prime Minister of United Earth!
I don't get it the post mentioned that a lot of more people will be looking for and applying for jobs, nothing about taxation.R. Star said:
How do we know they are privileged? Some people making those arguments admit to living in substandard conditions for a time. Another thing that a lot of people fail to realize is that there is just not enough jobs to go around, it's not that people are lazy and refuse to work is that work is just plain unavailable.Sci said:
Working fast food and other jobs that maybe "beneath" certain people is also not a very good option as those places have also hired to capacity and only have enough positions and hours to go around not to mention the lower pay would not be enough to support a family on. But I guess that's just my "entitlement complex" talking.
What people have a hard time wrapping their heads around is that with computerization, automation, and various other factors viewed as “improvements in productivity”, whole classes of jobs have been rendered obsolete. To put it simply, in non-economist terms, we don’t need as many folks to keep the wheels turning as we used to. But the rub is that even though those folk aren’t needed as producers, with the slim margins that many businesses operate at, they’re still needed as consumers. Now some of those folks could eke out a marginal existence as low-level “entrepreneurs”, but how many cleaning ladies and pet-sitters do we need? In olden days, the surplus labor force was simply allowed to starve, but we, as a society, have decided that’s not who we are.
Don’t forget that Milton Friedman, the dean of conservative economist, was once asked: “What do we do with poor people?” His reply: “Give them money”.
Don’t forget that Milton Friedman, the dean of conservative economist, was once asked: “What do we do with poor people?” His reply: “Give them money”.
