Speaking of the Depression, what brought us out of the Depression? WWII, of course. And how did WWII bring us out of the Depression? I mean, if socialism is always bad, then WWII should have driven us further into the Depression instead of pulling us out of it, since WWII was - in economic terms - the biggest government-funded economic stimulus in American history, complete with millions of government jobs that were not there before, and millions more of government-funded jobs building ships and tanks and whatnot.Sadly, data prior to 1959 is lacking and would take some determined digging to find. Poverty rates prior to the "New Deal" are of course going to be high considering the affects of the depression and the dust bowl.
Problem is, according to conservative economic dogma, what we did to build our military for WWII SHOULD have driven us further into the Depression.
"Cost of living", sir, does not matter much at all. How do we know this? Pick a rich city - ANY rich city - and see what the cost of living is there. Singapore? Monte Carlo? London? Tokyo? Sydney? Hong Kong? Go ahead, pick one! Are the people living there in grinding poverty? No. What matters more, sir, is cost of living compared to median wage. What matters is the overall STANDARD of living, not the cost of living. Otherwise, if this were not the case, then Mississippi would be the most prosperous state in the nation...but it's not. Instead, Mississippi's standard of living is - like its cost of living - at the very bottom.List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feel free to look up the socio-economic structure of the ones you want to. Of course, you probably won't like the fact that data is based upon income vs cost of living, something that the US does not do, as reported by those local governments.
Take a look at standards of living. Quality of Life Index by Country 2014 Mid Year
Look at all those socialist countries and closed market countries at the bottom.
Now take a look at cost of living Cost of Living Index by Country 2014 Mid Year
Wow, look at all those "first-world socialized democracies" at the top.
Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're pretending that those "socialist countries and closed market countries at the bottom" are what I'm talking about...but I am NOT talking about them, am I? I am referring to first-world socialized democracies...which includes most of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan...and America. NONE of these are "closed-market" economies...and ALL of them are socialized democracies. FYI, the fact that a nation is a socialized democracy does not guarantee first-world status...but it makes it a heck of a lot more likely. Conversely, the fact that a nation has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation may not absolutely guarantee third-world status...but it sure as heck looks like it.
America's more socialized than you seem to realize. Most of our federal budget is taken up with socialistic programs - welfare, HUD, social security, HHS, you name it. Sooo...yes, America IS a socialized democracy and has been one probably since before you were born. Get used to it.The US, the least socialized of those nations is second highest in standard of living but way down the list of cost of living and near the bottom of people living in abject poverty (other than homeless people, we don't actually have a population living in abject poverty.)
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump
Common defense, law enforcement and other are not "socialist", they are why governments exist.
I never said that the US was not a social democracy, only that it was the least socialistic of them. Perhaps part of your problems is that you seem to have an extreme lack of ability concerning reading comprehension.
Last edited by DVSentinel; 08-15-14 at 05:54 PM.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
First world, far from it. Burdened with mountains of debt and high unemployment. They were using the Keynesian theory of borrow and spend for so many years and where it get them. A mountain of debt and 25% unemployment. And you stand by the Keynesian theory.=Glen Contrarian;1063644517But what you're doing is confusing a snapshot with overall trend. It takes TIME to recover - economic recoveries don't happen overnight, and can take several years if it's bad enough. And you know what? All three are STILL first-world nations, unlike ANY nation that has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.
They have been trying to recover for years and went broke trying to do it. And you say the 25% of the people are getting aid and allowances are doing great, I call that living in poverty. You liberals want to eyewash everything and deny the facts. Socialism in Spain and in Greece is a picture perfect failure of Socialism. And you say pour more money on the problem and all will go away, problem is no one will give them any money. Does naive mean anything to you?Thanks to the fact that the people live in a first-world socialized nation, they are mostly NOT homeless, but are receiving aids and allowances that allow them to recover. If you think this is stupid, ask yourself this: how can you get hired on (much less maintain) a job if you're homeless, meaning you can't take baths, can't keep your clothes clean, can't shave, etc.? But I guess you yourself think it's better for people to be homeless than it is for you to pay a cup of coffee's worth more in taxes.
Now you want to compare Spain with the most impoverished countries such that are prevalent in Africa. I have been to many of them. That is not the point, the point is socialism such as in Greece and in Spain does no work. France is no better, they are all self destructing. Many of those countries in Africa had no economy to begin. Spain, Greece and France did and now because of their socialistic views they are self-destructing. And you use them as a model that the US should follow. I have said over and over, liberals never care about jobs, never have never will.You have no real experience in third-world nations, do you? Or if you went to such places you didn't pay attention. Because if you knew what life is like there - as I do - you'd know that while Spain, Greece, and (to a MUCH lesser extent) France are going through relatively tough times...these 'tough times' they're going through are still FAR better than that in ANY nation that has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.
All you seem to be able to think of is "Socialized first-world democracies bad"...but you're NOT thinking, "compared to what?"
Last edited by Born Free; 08-15-14 at 07:52 PM.
Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
Obama's legacy - National Debt / Credit Downgrade / Obamacare Failure / Economic Failure / Foreign Policy Failure / Liar of the Year Award / The Rise of ISIS
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
Working and a paycheck is a good start at ending poverty. But then again it is much easier to blame others for any misfortunes or bad choices made by someone.
okay . I went back and re-figured. The data still says that you are incorrect.
That is incorrect. Europe's middle class make less money, and pay higher taxes than America's.Still, it's true, in a way, that our tax system remains technically progressive simply because nobody above a certain percentile of income makes enough money to possess a share in the trading pool that isn't undermined by excessive debt. You can only seriously tax rich people because rich people are the only people that seriously have any money.
That is false - Apple's social benefits astronomically outweigh its social costs. That, after all, is why it has the profits it does. Furthermore, revenues are at an all time high. The reason we are dependent upon lenders is because we have a spending problem.Still, the contributions of a company like Apple are vastly lower than the benefits it received from American infrastructure and security, which is why we rely on foreign money lenders to make ends meet.
no thanks. I long ago gave up the cheap intellectual cheapness of the fundamental assumption error. people who disagree with you are not evil for doing so.Indeed. If you could realize that, you would be a step closer to realizing the true nature of power and ambition in the United States and what exactly the goals and priorities of our leadership are.
Yup. That's how smart companies buy off congresscritters. I'm missing the part where the conservative movement - who argues that we need to reduce the incentives for companies to do so by reducing the return on investment - are somehow responsible for Lockheed Martins' corporatist decision-making, which if anything is more ideologically aligned with the left side of the aisle.Consider two expensive bloated military projects from Lockheed Martin which happen to be spread out over 40+ states with the lobbying support of hundreds of congressmen. Is the highest priority to ensure we have the best and most efficient war-making ability for the 21st century, or making sure that Lockheed Martin doesn't suffer the consequences of its own incompetence and inability to supply the capabilities that they promised and time frames that were specified? For which reason they rewarded with the contract?
I'm also still not sure how that ties directly into the tax code, since that is simply local politics rather than tax law.
That is incorrect. Poverty in America is measured in income. That's why we have a federal poverty line. As an example, I have an uncle who is probably about some ~3-4 millionish in debt. He would be utterly impoverished under your scenario, despite the fact that his net worth is probably in the $~8-10 million range.Poverty in America is measured in private debt and reliance on welfare.
Our poor people have commodities they can't afford and houses they can't pay off, and because they have those things they can't afford to contribute to the tax pool. Part of how the Scandinavian countries keep their welfare systems manageable is by ensuring balanced participation in the trading pool from all level of society, sufficient so that nearly every citizen is capable of contributing to the public welfare.
Our poverty is vastly excessive compared to other developed nations by any metric.
From The Economist:
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Branching posts. Nice. Guess there was literally no way to keep this manageable.
The data you quoted says I'm wrong. From a source that is wearing its agenda on its sleeve and announcing it to the reader. The effective corporate tax rate at 12.1%, with something like 26% in the communications industry bringing it up and something like Apple bringing it down.okay . I went back and re-figured. The data still says that you are incorrect.
Keep staring at your numbers, though. Maybe someday they will be true.
... which is a pointless distinction when the middle class in America is shrinking and poverty is rising. You seem to have this implicit assumption that I'm arguing Europe represents some kind of economic golden age. I've been there and I know they don't. However, their welfare system is designed to crush poverty at a grassroots level.That is incorrect. Europe's middle class make less money, and pay higher taxes than America's.
1/5 of Americans can't make enough money to buy their way into the trading pool, so we spend money to enable to participation at an entry, minimum level. We also have to shoulder global security. When the Athenians and Romans did that, they exacted tribute/taxes, but Americans have to finance it ourselves.That is false - Apple's social benefits astronomically outweigh its social costs. That, after all, is why it has the profits it does. Furthermore, revenues are at an all time high. The reason we are dependent upon lenders is because we have a spending problem.
... that would depend on how you define "evil."no thanks. I long ago gave up the cheap intellectual cheapness of the fundamental assumption error. people who disagree with you are not evil for doing so.
... because the Northwest liberals have such deep roots in the historically Republican-aligned defense industry that tangibly and obviously has political connections to Republicans and centrist Democrats.Yup. That's how smart companies buy off congresscritters. I'm missing the part where the conservative movement - who argues that we need to reduce the incentives for companies to do so by reducing the return on investment - are somehow responsible for Lockheed Martins' corporatist decision-making, which if anything is more ideologically aligned with the left side of the aisle.
You seem to have worked it out in your head that whenever a corporation does something you are forced to acknowledge is bad, it must somehow have something to do with the left side of the aisle.
... the point is that the right-wing is indifferent to something you think they would care about it. You would think they care about (a), but it turns out what really concerns them is (b).I'm also still not sure how that ties directly into the tax code, since that is simply local politics rather than tax law.
... what? You had to branch the argument to say this?That is incorrect. Poverty in America is measured in income. That's why we have a federal poverty line. As an example, I have an uncle who is probably about some ~3-4 millionish in debt. He would be utterly impoverished under your scenario, despite the fact that his net worth is probably in the $~8-10 million range.
Crippling debt is what is pushing people out of the middle class. Obviously the national government metric does look at it that way but I'm not sure why you think a system that carries water for the status quo would have any bearing or meaningfulness on this discussion.
Last edited by Morality Games; 08-15-14 at 09:52 PM.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
They scared the industrial, manufacturing, tech, and defense industries out-the largest number went to texas but now ex-californians are trying to turn that in to ca. Like parasites. Did you hear about nancy pelosi's personal financial benefit from policies she voted for? Just briefly heard about it on levin.
The polling thing is great fun, and actually pays ok. Most things you never hear about again but some end up in the news in 6 months or a year.