It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
I started my first business while finishing up college in 1978. Unfortunately, the gas crisis in 1979 eventually ended that, along with too much inexperience, and not enough seed money.
The second attempt ended during the recession of 81-82. I learned people don't buy luxury items (Jacuzzi's, etc.) when the interest rates are through the roof, and home construction is tanking.
My third attempt started in 1985, and turned into a 25 year run with multiple plants in multiple states, before I sold out to an investment firm.
Hard to argue what contributed to that success. Policies enacted during the Reagan Administration had a huge impact on the early success of my company in 1985 and beyond.
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
Who cares about fault? And the point is that if they're not trying to get a job we can't know if they could or not. For Discouraged, we just have their belief, which may or may not be accurate.Okay, it's obviously their fault so they can't be unemployed.
You're saying they're lying about their reasons?Again, depends on your viewpoint. Having worked with both employers and the unemployed I am a little less skeptical about real causes of their "disgust" and "marginality."
And your alternative would be......???Ahh, just as I thought...a statistical survey. Personally never bought into them much, always suspect both their accuracy and how the data can be manipulated in almost any way the gatherer wants.
Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. Each month is 8 panels each in a different month, so every month you have around 7,5000 in their first month, and 7,500 returning after a break. So about 75% of the sample is the same from one month to the next and for the same month in consecutive years, about 50% is the same.Really? So do they sample the same 60,000 people each month? Is this like those Nielsen Ratings?
It's a very complicated survey and really, it couldn't be manipulated. There's too much oversight and too many people who can double check. Sure there will be lazy census workers who curbstone (sit in the car a make things up), but they would have no way of knowing what the effect of that would be and there are spot checks to make sure they're not.True, but I also suggested it was probably some statistical survey, and turns out I was correct. So the figures used could be complete B/S as far as I am concerned.
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
Second off, the recession ended about two or three months after Obama took office. He has lead the worst recovery from a recession on record. The answers are as simple as they can be as why that has happened. Higher taxes, Obamacare, more regulations, lawlessness from government and so on gives business little confidence or reason to invest. But that doesn't sit well with the liberal mindset so Obama supporters tell any lie, ignore anything and everything that makes any sense, and pretend that he has worked wonders when the facts are completely opposite.
Third off, things are still getting worse, overall. Sure, there highlights, here and there. But Presidents are not about here and there. Losing full time jobs each month is a big disaster just waiting on time to happen. Pushing for millions of more of low wage workers competing for few available jobs won't create an economic turn around. Pushing back by a year part of a disaster healthcare law won't cause business investment. Business wondering what crimes or untruthfulness will be committed next at DOJ won't cause them to invest more money. Business wondering what kind of stupidity will come out of the department of energy won't cause them to invest money (unless it has been stolen from taxpayers). And so on and so.
And we still have three years left of this train wreck.
This will show you liberal booksmart individuals that there are actual people out there suffering behind the Obama numbers particularly the people of Ky and W. Va. When you demonize those evil companies you hurt the people who work for them and whose livelihood depends on those businesses. Barack Obama doesn't understand how his policies are affecting individuals and all supporters can do is divert from his record by claiming that it isn't any worse than his predecessor. The Obama record is much worse because actual people are suffering as he throws money down the green energy rat hole and tells you how evil the coal industry is. When you have a weak economy you don't demonize any industry and promote govt. growth that creates dependence. Instead you promote the private sector and put them back to work. Run, liberals, run from reality.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
No, it wasn't. You had foreclosure rates of 1% in 81-82, you had a spike in oil costs sending a temporary inflation shock through the economy and you had Volker INTENTIONALLY spiking interest rates to control inflation. Inflationary spikes lead to short run unemployment.
You still haven't come to terms with how this is a very different, deeper and more severe recession, requiring different responses. One thing that could be duplicated is the massive spending by the govt on direct employment. Reagan spent on defense, we could spend on infrastructure. Reagan got that with a cooperative Dem Congress.....since the Congress was being responsive and responsible to the people they represented. This Congress wants to starve not only "the beast", but the people too.