Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Conservative said:

There is a difference between supporting private business and getting in the way of private business with excessive taxation. It is the government's role to support the private sector, not put it out of business. Allowing businesses to keep more of what they earn is what the American economy is all about and something Obama doesn't understand nor do all liberals. It is jealousy that drives liberalism and Obama. The disdain liberals have for business is quite telling.

Click to expand...

Taxes are at near historic lows. Even if they go up a few % they are still lower than almost any time in out history.

Conservative said:

It isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to take taxpayer money and fund healthcare for individuals. That is your responsibility at worse or at best the state and local government along with charities. Why is it your responsibility to provide my insurance and vice versa? If hospitals pay for ER service that cost is passed on to the local community, not the Federal Taxpayer. Let the states solve their own healthcare problems.

Click to expand...

Wat about the second part. How can you say "the financial crisis had been averted." when businesses are scared to hire anyone?

ender1 said:

Taxes are at near historic lows. Even if they go up a few % they are still lower than almost any time in out history.

Click to expand...

Taxes are at a historic low thanks to President Bush, what are you going to pay in taxes under Obama when the Bush tax cuts expire and when healthcare costs hit your business. What other taxes does Obama have in store for you?

Conservative said:

There is a difference between supporting private business and getting in the way of private business with excessive taxation. It is the government's role to support the private sector, not put it out of business. Allowing businesses to keep more of what they earn is what the American economy is all about and something Obama doesn't understand nor do all liberals. It is jealousy that drives liberalism and Obama. The disdain liberals have for business is quite telling.

Click to expand...

At a procedural level, jealousy is not a factor.

ender1 said:

Wat about the second part. How can you say "the financial crisis had been averted." when businesses are scared to hire anyone?

Click to expand...

It isn't the financial crisis that is scaring business, it is Obama policies that are scaring business. You ought to know that. I am still waiting for what policies Bush implemented that hurt your business or your family?

Morality Games said:

At a procedural level, jealousy is not a factor.

Click to expand...

Then why do you care what someone else or some other business makes in profits or income?

Conservative said:

It isn't the financial crisis that is scaring business, it is Obama policies that are scaring business. You ought to know that. I am still waiting for what policies Bush implemented that hurt your business or your family?

Click to expand...

I dont mind getting to that but first. No, I work with small businesses. They are shell shocked. Those that did not close down are scared. Scared about what happened in 2008. Small and med size businesses are starting to grow again, slowly, but it will take another year or two before we see much change. We also have about a 1/3 chance of a double dip, not my work but I saw the data and I agree with it.

ender1 said:

I dont mind getting to that but first. No, I work with small businesses. They are shell shocked. Those that did not close down are scared. Scared about what happened in 2008. Small and med size businesses are starting to grow again, slowly, but it will take another year or two before we see much change. We also have about a 1/3 chance of a double dip, not my work but I saw the data and I agree with it.

Click to expand...

What happened in 2008 wasn't due to anything that Bush did even though he gets the blame. If you think it was Bush's fault then tell me what Bush did? I know of no small business that doesn't have access to funds for borrowing but what they lack now are customers. 16 million unemployed Americans, 4 million more than when Obama took office and he is doing nothing to promote private business hiring and in fact is going to make it more expensive.

Conservative said:

What happened in 2008 wasn't due to anything that Bush did even though he gets the blame.

Click to expand...

I had to pinch myself a few times to make sure I read that right. So President Bush had nothing to do with the economic disaster of 2008 but you blame President Obama for it when he was not even in office. Or at least that he has not fixed all of the economic issues after one year.

Can I have some of what your smoke'n.

Conservative said:

Then why do you care what someone else or some other business makes in profits or income?

Click to expand...

In Pre-Industrial Revolution societies, economic units are mostly small and local. There is a small, shipping based global economy driven by novelty items, managed by small businesses and, in the case of a major seafaring power/economic giant like Great Britain, the East India Trading Company. The East India Trading Company is a fist of the British Empire, and although ostensibly a private business, was created and maintained by the government in order to secure economic dominance in the sea trade -- no string of businesses in, say, France can compete with the administrative power of a corporation. Such a large business would not be able to exist otherwise; there are no banks in the private sector that are willing to foot its loans or bail it out in its bad seasons. Only the government's revenue can do it. Also, no other institution can open its trade outlets the same way the government can (say, by subduing the nations of Asia). Naturally, the British government is entitled to a share of the Trading Company's wealth, which it obtains directly and indirectly.

In post-Industrial, modern economies, pretty much all corporations and small businesses -- the entire economy, really -- are in the position of the East India Trading Company. Businesses are only so large and successful as they become because the government is promoting infrastructure, order, and trade that enables a high level of growth. That takes money (in the U.S.'s case, the military is an important part of our economic growth), and most of the money belongs to the wealthy and to large businesses -- they have exponentially higher incomes and profits.

So, they get taxed a lot. And the money they are taxed goes to support the economic environment that makes their success possible.

ender1 said:

I had to pinch myself a few times to make sure I read that right. So President Bush had nothing to do with the economic disaster of 2008 but you blame President Obama for it when he was not even in office. Or at least that he has not fixed all of the economic issues after one year.

Can I have some of what your smoke'n.

Click to expand...

Sure, you can have what I am smoking when you tell me what policy Bush implemented that caused the problem?

Morality Games said:

In Pre-Industrial Revolution societies, economic units are mostly small and local. There is a small, shipping based global economy driven by novelty items, managed by small businesses and, in the case of a major seafaring power/economic giant like Great Britain, the East India Trading Company. The East India Trading Company is one of the left fist of the British Empire, and although ostensibly a private business, was created and maintained by the government in order to secure economic dominance over foreign ventures. Such a large business would not be able to exist otherwise; there are no banks in the private sector that are willing to foot its loans or bad seasons. Only the government's revenue can do it. Also, no other institution can open its trade outlets the same way the government can (say, by subduing the nations of Asia). Naturally, the British government is entitled to a share of the Trading Company's wealth, which it obtains directly and indirectly.

In post-Industrial, modern economies, pretty much all corporations and small businesses -- the entire economy, really -- are in the position of the East India Trading Company. Businesses are only so large and successful as they become because the government is promoting infrastructure, order, and trade that enables a high level of growth. That takes money (in the U.S.'s case, the military is an important part of our economic growth), and most of the money belongs to the wealthy and to businesses.

So, they get taxed a lot.

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question. Why do YOU care how much someone else or some business makes in income or profits? What do those people do with the money?

Conservative said:

That doesn't answer the question. Why do YOU care how much someone else or some business makes in income or profits? What do those people do with the money?

Click to expand...

you won't get an honest answer in most times you ask a question like this. so many claim they push for massive tax hikes for some greater good yet its envy that motivates it/ America became the greatest nation in the world before we had all these idiotic taxes that were needed (and I use "needed" rather "liberally") only after the unconstitutional new deal welfare programs were created

Conservative said:

Sure, you can have what I am smoking when you tell me what policy Bush implemented that caused the problem?

Click to expand...

One of MANY; not stopping Freddie Mac from allowing Lier Loans. It is true that they COULD do them earlier but it was not to the degree that it was done in 2000 - 2006. In that time it went from something that could happen to exagerated rate. It cascaded into the secondary secure market where the owners of those securities had no idea what they had. President Bush frequently pointed to the Housing market as a reason why the economy was strong. As those lier loans built to an unsustainable point the bubble popped. President Bush was in charge during that time. Had he acted to limit those loans when they were being given out in increasingly higher volumes we could have avoided the housing crisis that will hurt this economy for another decade.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do YOU care how much someone else or some business makes in income or profits? What do those people do with the money?

Click to expand...

They invest it. As economically as they can.

Problem is, what is personally economical is not always in the best interest of overall economic growth. Venture capitalism forms only a small part of our economy, because its gain is uncertain. Housing, on the other hand, forms a large part of the economy because we are a telecommuting culture and people 'require' habitation. Given a choice between the two, an investor would pick housing. As capitalism would have it, they enjoy that choice. One of the principles behind wealth accumulation is that the economy is predictable enough you can consistently calculate and depend on profitable developments. When something's gain is uncertain, nobody wants to touch it.

That's also why, even if an industry is important to the overall operation of the economy, like trains and airlines, nobody wants to spend any of their income on its shares.

Still, we need trains and the airlines. The wealthy do too, to move their goods, products, and information; they just can't reconcile spending large portions of their capital on a losing deal. The government does stuff like that.

Which it needs 'their' money for.

Instead of government, we could have the wealthy come together and agree how much of their incomes will be apportioned to bail outs, military, welfare, etc, but it would be a generally ineffective system.

you won't get an honest answer in most times you ask a question like this. so many claim they push for massive tax hikes for some greater good yet its envy that motivates it/ America became the greatest nation in the world before we had all these idiotic taxes that were needed (and I use "needed" rather "liberally") only after the unconstitutional new deal welfare programs were created

Click to expand...

The New Deal was one of a series of developments in the formation of the modern economy, events that stretched back centuries.

ender1 said:

One of MANY; not stopping Freddie Mac from allowing Lier Loans. It is true that they COULD do them earlier but it was not to the degree that it was done in 2000 - 2006. In that time it went from something that could happen to exagerated rate. It cascaded into the secondary secure market where the owners of those securities had no idea what they had. President Bush frequently pointed to the Housing market as a reason why the economy was strong. As those lier loans built to an unsustainable point the bubble popped. President Bush was in charge during that time. Had he acted to limit those loans when they were being given out in increasingly higher volumes we could have avoided the housing crisis that will hurt this economy for another decade.

Click to expand...

Ok, if it was true they were done earlier then exactly what did Bush do to generate more of them? President Bush did not create the CRA, that was done by Carter and strengthened by Clinton. President Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie back in 2005-2006 but was stopped by Congress. Read what Barney Franks and Chris Dodd said about the request. I agree that Bush was President but again what did he do to promote the sub prime loans that already existed. It would have been illegal to limit loans without Congressional support. You seem interesting in blaming Bush for some reason. I am still waiting for what Bush did to hurt you or your family?

Morality Games said:

They invest it. As economically as they can.

Problem is, what is personally economical is not always in the best interest of overall economic growth. Venture capitalism forms only a small part of our economy, because its gain is uncertain. Housing, on the other hand, forms a large part of the economy because we are a telecommuting culture and people 'require' habitation. Given a choice between the two, an investor would pick housing. As capitalism would have it, they enjoy that choice. One of the principles behind wealth accumulation is that the economy is predictable enough you can consistently calculate and depend on profitable developments. When something's gain is uncertain, nobody wants to touch it. That means even if an industry is important to the overall operation of the economy, like trains and airlines, nobody wants to spend any of their income on its shares.

Still, we need trains and the airlines. The wealthy do too, to move their goods, products, and information; they just can't reconcile spending large portions of their capital on a losing deal. The government does stuff like that.

Which it needs 'their' money for.



The New Deal was one of a series of developments in the formation of the modern economy, events that stretched back centuries.

Click to expand...

There is more than enough money to operate the Federal Govt. just not to do the social engineering that liberals want done. People keeping more of their money need less social engineering. The Federal Govt. is involved in areas that are state responsibilities not Federal responsibilities and you are allowing that to happen.

Morality Games said:

They invest it. As economically as they can.

Problem is, what is personally economical is not always in the best interest of overall economic growth. Venture capitalism forms only a small part of our economy, because its gain is uncertain. Housing, on the other hand, forms a large part of the economy because we are a telecommuting culture and people 'require' habitation. Given a choice between the two, an investor would pick housing. As capitalism would have it, they enjoy that choice. One of the principles behind wealth accumulation is that the economy is predictable enough you can consistently calculate and depend on profitable developments. When something's gain is uncertain, nobody wants to touch it. That means even if an industry is important to the overall operation of the economy, like trains and airlines, nobody wants to spend any of their income on its shares.

Still, we need trains and the airlines. The wealthy do too, to move their goods, products, and information; they just can't reconcile spending large portions of their capital on a losing deal. The government does stuff like that.

Which it needs 'their' money for.

Instead of government, we could have the wealthy come together and agree how much of their incomes will be apportioned to bail outs, military, welfare, etc, but it would be a generally ineffective system.



The New Deal was one of a series of developments in the formation of the modern economy, events that stretched back centuries.

Click to expand...

The New Deal was a complete break with both the jurisprudence up to that time and the limits on the federal government

most of our problems today come from the framework established by the ND

Conservative said:

There is more than enough money to operate the Federal Govt. just not to do the social engineering that liberals want done. People keeping more of their money need less social engineering. The Federal Govt. is involved in areas that are state responsibilities not Federal responsibilities and you are allowing that to happen.

Click to expand...

One of the things that makes our economy so vigorous is its ability to exploit resources over a wide geographic distribution. States enjoy authority over a very limited geographic distribution, and consequently, support much more limited economic development. People don't want limited economic development, so the federal government is shouldered with the burden. It has the military, interstate authority, and the ability to make treaties with foreign powers. Exactly what an ambitious businessman wants in the 20-21st centuries.

It has little to do with social engineering or liberals, which is why governments have been large and expensive under every post-WWII conservative Congress and presidential Administration.

The New Deal was a complete break with both the jurisprudence up to that time and the limits on the federal government

most of our problems today come from the framework established by the ND

Click to expand...

The New Deal was mostly an aid, in the short and especially the long term.

In American political and economic history, it was part of a trend that 'started' with the 14th Amendment. In world history, both these were parts of a larger trend toward centralized governments and mixed economies.

The New Deal violated the constitution in numerous ways. We'd been much better off if it had been stricken as violating the tenth amendment

Morality Games said:

One of the things that makes our economy so vigorous is its ability to exploit resources over a wide geographic distribution. States enjoy authority over a very limited geographic distribution, and consequently, support much more limited economic development. People don't want limited economic development, so the federal government is shouldered with the burden. It has the military, interstate authority, and the ability to make treaties with foreign powers. Exactly what an ambitious businessman wants in the 20-21st centuries.

It has little to do with social engineering or liberals, which is why governments have been large and expensive under every post-WWII conservative Congress and presidential Administration.



The New Deal was mostly an aid, in the short and especially the long term.

In American political and economic history, it was part of a trend that 'started' with the 14th Amendment. In world history, both these were parts of a larger trend toward centralized governments and mixed economies.

Click to expand...

Obviously you have never looked at the budget of the United States to see where the money is allocated. Suggest you go to the U.S. Treasury Site and see just how much goes to social spending and entitlements vs. economic activity. You are going to be shocked.

Conservative said:

Obviously you have never looked at the budget of the United States to see where the money is allocated. Suggest you go to the U.S. Treasury Site and see just how much goes to social spending and entitlements vs. economic activity. You are going to be shocked.

Click to expand...

Social spending and entitlements are economic activity. Empowering poverty-stricken consumers is necessary to prolong economic growth.

The New Deal violated the constitution in numerous ways. We'd been much better off if it had been stricken as violating the tenth amendment

Click to expand...

Constitutionality is determined not just by text, but by the nuances of the situations the text refers to. I don't believe there is one statement in the U.S. Constitution that is exercised as an absolute.

Morality Games said:

Social spending and entitlements are economic activity. Empowering poverty-stricken consumers is necessary to prolong economic growth.



Constitutionality is determined not just by text, but by the nuances of the situations the text refers to.

Click to expand...

empowering?

giving them other peoples' money only addicts them to handouts and prevents them from improving their lot

TurtleDude said:

empowering?

giving them other peoples' money only addicts them to handouts and prevents them from improving their lot

Click to expand...

If consumers are no longer able to purchase goods, then production slackens and the wealthy's income shrinks. Both poverty and wealth aggregate exponentially, by which I mean, the rate of acceleration increases the lower or higher you go on the income bracket. Once a consumer is at the threshold of poverty, their chances of bounding back shrink dramatically. Similarly, once a capitalist obtains a large sum of wealth, his chances of becoming poor shrink dramatically.

Of course, the wealthy can just hammer the poor, have no taxes, and then live off of what they've gained once their businesses start declining, but that's when we get a situation like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. It's better just to have high-income taxes for the wealthy and social spending.

Morality Games said:

Social spending and entitlements are economic activity. Empowering poverty-stricken consumers is necessary to prolong economic growth.



Constitutionality is determined not just by text, but by the nuances of the situations the text refers to. I don't believe there is one statement in the U.S. Constitution that is exercised as an absolute.

Click to expand...

That certainly is the liberal interpretation although promoting the General Welfare vs. Providing the General welfare seems to have a different meaning for me. I don't think it was ever intended by our Founders to PROVIDE welfare for all those social spending and entitlements. That should be left to the states, not the Federal govt.

Last post of the night. Have a good one, enjoyed the discussion tonight.