Wealth distribution

[Critter7r]

Anyway, if you go there and stay for a while, you'll start to realize that there's a LOT of single-parent households. Why? Because in the sexually-charged atmosphere of the modern world, there's a lot more pressure on girls to have sex...and it winds up being unprotected sex, and then she becomes pregnant, the guy gets scared and leaves her, and she's stuck raising a child - or another child - by herself. What's worse is, once she's a single mother, it's that much harder to attract a mate, because the men don't want to take care of some other guy's child...so she tries to attract him with sex, and the same cycle starts all over again. Not only that, but a single mother is far less able to make a good living... so she and her children become stuck in the cycle of grinding poverty.

but but but but but .... Einstein was born to a poor, single mother!!

Just to let you know, Einstein wasn't the only one working on relativity at the time - he was just the first to get it published. Again, I'd love to take you overseas to show you - and to rub your nose in - how your goals work out in the REAL world.

I'm agreeing with you. See below ....

That's an odd thing to enter into the discussion. His father died in 1902. What's the point?

The point was a sarcastic remark showing that while what Mr. Contrarian says about the cycle of poverty is true, someone will always bring up a famous outlier to "prove" that the rule is bunk, when really the rule is a rule, and rules have exceptions.

Just FYI, when someone starts an internet post with "but but but but ... ", what follows is sarcasm.

You guys should really get out more.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The government redistributes wealth whether you acknowledge it or not. It generates the metrics by which society derives economic fairness.

Whining about government inefficiency is just posturing. The government is no less inefficient than the private sector. When Comcast gets >97% profit margin on high speed internet, that's inefficient, especially considering their customer satisfaction rates.

The idea that giving Bill Gates another billion dollars does **** for the economy is ****ing stupid. Sprinkling that billion dollars to a million Americans could change their lives forever.

You clearly didn't read for comprehension. You just glanced at it and decided it was an opposition reply and formulated some catch phrases and talking point in an attempt to counter the thesis. But what you actually did is create an incoherent set of thoughts/statements with no connecting logic that supports whatever it was you were trying to say.

 

[ksu_aviator]

It's called promoting the general welfare. It's necessary and proper. Does the government redistribute wealth, say through the SSA? How does it do this if it's unconstitutional?

>>36-52% of taxes collected for wealth redistribution are lost to Okun's bucket.

Care to provide any details on that? Administrative costs for SS are less than one percent, while for Medicare it's about 2%. Okun's theory is focused mainly on problems with incentives. The marginal income tax rate for upper-income households is a lot less than it was forty years ago, and the requirements for participation in public assistance programs have changed as well.

Where in the Constitution is the legislative, executive or judicial branch given the power to promote the general welfare?

Okun's bucket is the theory that taking money from one person and giving it to another is analogous to using a leaky bucket to move water from one storage area to another.

Here is the article that I quoted:

The Cost of Redistributing Wealth - Bloomberg View

Modern empirical techniques have allowed economists to get a better idea of how big the leaks are in the bucket. For example, a recent paper by Nathaniel Hendren looks at the earned income tax credit, food stamps and housing vouchers. He finds that for every dollar redistributed from rich to poor with those programs, anywhere from 34 cents to 56 cents leaks out and is lost.

 

[Critter7r]

And your point?

In a thread about wealth redistribution, I thought it prudent to point out that very very few people would be affected - either positively or negatively - by your "$600,000 profit in a year" scenario.

 

[jet57]

Well .. actually what you describe other than the population thing.. is what is prevalent in most industrialized countries. We certainly have been heading that way... but we are still less socialized , and less regulated and boast more economic power and more freedom.

the Irony here is that you want to run to a system that has more regulation, less freedom..and more inequality.

I don't see that at all and I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. I very detailed what the problems of our markets are and why they cause so many problems. Our justice system is based on an egalitarian standard wherein each person enjoys due process with regard to social station. Our entire system under the constitution is geared on that very concept. Thus the markets should work exactly under that ideal in order to maintain a balanced and equitable market system that serves rather than builds a cast system. THAT however is NOT the case due exactly to weaknesses and prejudices that I've already explained, and which by the way are very recorded as fact in every market crash that our country has experienced: it's gambling, and when the games seem to be loosing, people take their money and run from the house and the markets crash. MANY times, the games lose because of outright theft. So, it's not less freedom by any stretch of the imagination and I reject that assertion outright. It's trying to clean up a crooked market system - full stop.

 

[jet57]

I'm agreeing with you. See below ....



The point was a sarcastic remark showing that while what Mr. Contrarian says about the cycle of poverty is true, someone will always bring up a famous outlier to "prove" that the rule is bunk, when really the rule is a rule, and rules have exceptions.

Just FYI, when someone starts an internet post with "but but but but ... ", what follows is sarcasm.

You guys should really get out more.

Your sarcasm lacked a cohesive point.

 

[jaeger19]

In a thread about wealth redistribution, I thought it prudent to point out that very very few people would be affected - either positively or negatively - by your "$600,000 profit in a year" scenario.

Actually no.. a lot of people are effected. That's what many here don;t get.

Okay,.. I start a business.. or invest in my business. hire people.. pay all sorts of taxes, pay wages, pay social security.. and end up with a 600,000 dollar profit. That's taxed as earned income.. at a 39%

OR I take that same money..and invest in Boeing and make 600,000 and pay 20% on it.

Which is a better deal for me? Obviously investing in Boeing stock.

BUT whats a better deal for the average guy? Me investing by starting a company that pays people, pays half of their taxes, that increases jobs, increases wage pressure..

OR.. making a call to my broker?

SEE? The unequal tax structure, rewards playing in the stock market which does little for the economy (with a few exceptions like an IPO), while discouraging actually starting running and owning a business that hires people.

 

[jaeger19]

I don't see that at all and I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. I very detailed what the problems of our markets are and why they cause so many problems. Our justice system is based on an egalitarian standard wherein each person enjoys due process with regard to social station. Our entire system under the constitution is geared on that very concept. Thus the markets should work exactly under that ideal in order to maintain a balanced and equitable market system that serves rather than builds a cast system. THAT however is NOT the case due exactly to weaknesses and prejudices that I've already explained, and which by the way are very recorded as fact in every market crash that our country has experienced: it's gambling, and when the games seem to be loosing, people take their money and run from the house and the markets crash. MANY times, the games lose because of outright theft. So, it's not less freedom by any stretch of the imagination and I reject that assertion outright. It's trying to clean up a crooked market system - full stop.

I know you don;t understand. What you don't understand is that the system that you describe is largely the European system. OUR system is NOT like that system.. or system was more egalitarian.. however, its MOVING more toward a European system.. What you see is the RESULT of moving more toward a European system. And the end result will be like a European system where what family you were born into matters more than your abilities.

Where your station is life is determined by your parents station. THATS where we are headed to.. and its what YOU WANT. that's the irony. Our system is becoming more socialized.. more regulated, less free.. and becoming more European. Where you can;t say what you want where you want.. without risking repercussions in many countries.. where you have no right to defend yourself or bear arms, where you don;t have public land but is only in control of the wealthy. Where you can;t own a business unless your family owned one or you are wealthy enough to buy into an existing one.

 

[jet57]

I know you don;t understand. What you don't understand is that the system that you describe is largely the European system. OUR system is NOT like that system.. or system was more egalitarian.. however, its MOVING more toward a European system.. What you see is the RESULT of moving more toward a European system. And the end result will be like a European system where what family you were born into matters more than your abilities.

Where your station is life is determined by your parents station. THATS where we are headed to.. and its what YOU WANT. that's the irony. Our system is becoming more socialized.. more regulated, less free.. and becoming more European. Where you can;t say what you want where you want.. without risking repercussions in many countries.. where you have no right to defend yourself or bear arms, where you don;t have public land but is only in control of the wealthy. Where you can;t own a business unless your family owned one or you are wealthy enough to buy into an existing one.

Nooo, the system that I describe is the crooked American system. The European systems don't suffer from as much if any fraud and theft because they watch their system more closely to prevent the riff-raff from taking it over. How they do it versus how we can do it are two different social and legal issues. For instance, had the hedge fun managers and lending institutions who were running the housing scam had executives doing 10 to 15 in state prisons, there'd be a lot less monkeying around right? It's very simple.

 

[jaeger19]

Nooo, the system that I describe is the crooked American system. The European systems don't suffer from as much if any fraud and theft because they watch their system more closely to prevent the riff-raff from taking it over. How they do it versus how we can do it are two different social and legal issues. For instance, had the hedge fun managers and lending institutions who were running the housing scam had executives doing 10 to 15 in state prisons, there'd be a lot less monkeying around right? It's very simple.

No.. wrong.. what you are describing is the European system where the "riff raff".. to them are folks that are not "lords and ladies".. that are not well established wealthy people. If you are a well established family.. then the government protects you. I saw this first hand doing business in Europe. Most countries governments protect the well established families and their fortunes.

As far as the housing boom and bust.. it was not simply the corrupt US. European countries were in it as well. Heck.. corruption is rampant in the European union.

 

[Absentglare]

No I understand well.. its you that don't understand.

First.. its not like the Sheriff of Nottinham. "collecting taxes from the poor".. Because number one.. the poor aren;t paying federal income tax.. in fact a good portion of the middle class isn't paying federal income taxes. In fact.. a portion of the poor get a net income from federal taxes

No..its not strange that I disagree with you. You are wrong on so many levels when it comes to the mechanism in the economy that are at play here. Is there less social mobility? Yes. Is there as much opportunity for the poor? No.

but you.. and its not just you but other liberals.. do not understand the WHY and mechanisms that are involved.. Your "solutions".. like redistribution through taxes will only make matters worse.. not better. in fact they HAVE. Have taxes increased on the wealthy? Yes. Has government spending increased? Yes. Has there been an increase in spending on the poor? Yes.. expansion of Medicaid and subsidizing healthcare.

Are wages booming? Are jobs easy to get? Is the situation BETTER for most of the poor? no.. in fact in that period.. inequality has INCREASED.

Getting money for owning something that increased in value is not bizarre in any way. That's like saying that buying a house when you are 20 and then selling it when you are 65 for more is "bizarre"

Here's welfare in 2006 $ :



See how it went down ?

Healthcare costs went up much faster than inflation. That's a big reason why we spend more, by the numbers. Another is the aging baby boomer demographic.

Looking at only the FIT is deliberately misleading. Things like payroll taxes are literally federal income taxes but you're ignoring them in your analysis.



And it is like the sheriff of nottingham stealing from the poor to give to the rich. A tax cut is no different than a pay raise issued by the government. And when it happens to the rich, well -




Further, our solutions do work. They're working right now all over Europe.

Lastly, there is nothing bizarre about making money OFF OF A SALE but there is something VERY BIZARRE about making money JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN SOME INANIMATE OBJECT.

 

[Absentglare]

yes you did. the Janitor doesn't deserve ANY profit. He deserves a wage.. and that's it. He gets paid whether the company makes money that month or not. H

And China is not an example of a government "investing in the people in an economy for growth".. China is an example of exploiting the people for growth and concentrating money to their "aristocracy" (the politically connected).

Maybe you think your janitor did not contribute because the quality of his work did not correspond to the success of the business. Fine.

What about an engineer who actually designed the product? Does the CEO who simply happened to employ him deserve every cent of his billion dollar innovation? Does the engineer deserve zero except the salary? Is that your definition of fair? If he doesn't run his own company, **** him.

China does tend to exploit their working class. They also spent money to employ people. Putting people to work increases production, and production is the only way to generate wealth. Other forms of "generation" simply redistribute wealth.

And neither do poor people. Wealthy people create jobs by using the labor of poor people efficiently, and productively. How many poor people have given you a job?

You have to spend money to make money.

Rich people would rather get money from dividend stocks (lower return but safer and lower tax rate) than risk their money in startups (high risk). They tilted the scales in favor of speculative means to wealth, using positive feedback, using wealth to generate wealth, which predominantly favors them, personally, at the expense of redirecting investment toward more stagnant transactions.

Property taxes are a tax on wealth.

No, they are a tax for services provided to property within a given border.

 

[Absentglare]

I don't see that at all and I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. I very detailed what the problems of our markets are and why they cause so many problems. Our justice system is based on an egalitarian standard wherein each person enjoys due process with regard to social station. Our entire system under the constitution is geared on that very concept. Thus the markets should work exactly under that ideal in order to maintain a balanced and equitable market system that serves rather than builds a cast system. THAT however is NOT the case due exactly to weaknesses and prejudices that I've already explained, and which by the way are very recorded as fact in every market crash that our country has experienced: it's gambling, and when the games seem to be loosing, people take their money and run from the house and the markets crash. MANY times, the games lose because of outright theft. So, it's not less freedom by any stretch of the imagination and I reject that assertion outright. It's trying to clean up a crooked market system - full stop.

When the economic actors are on relatively equal standing, capitalism works the best. This is because everyone competes.

Right now, the top doesn't compete. It steamrolls the competition, it raises barriers to entry through things like accreditation and legislation, and it gouges the customer wherever it can.

 

[jet57]

No.. wrong.. what you are describing is the European system where the "riff raff".. to them are folks that are not "lords and ladies".. that are not well established wealthy people. If you are a well established family.. then the government protects you. I saw this first hand doing business in Europe. Most countries governments protect the well established families and their fortunes.

As far as the housing boom and bust.. it was not simply the corrupt US. European countries were in it as well. Heck.. corruption is rampant in the European union.

But the European aristocracy does not engage in theft and manipulation of the markets through fraudulent means and have their stock market proper referring and pushing bets on a fixed game like they do in the US. European markets with respect to housing boom were being sold a bill of goods, so they were not knowingly peddling rotten products.

You're trying to mix the bag here and that is miles from where my argument is.

The European markets do not get away with peddling fraud and theft. Our markets do. THAT is the issue, and that is where my argument has been all along.

 

[jet57]

When the economic actors are on relatively equal standing, capitalism works the best. This is because everyone competes.

Right now, the top doesn't compete. It steamrolls the competition, it raises barriers to entry through things like accreditation and legislation, and it gouges the customer wherever it can.

Very well said. That is exactly what I've been saying here. The 1% comes on like a freight train and is insulated from harm because the rules of our system are being written and controlled by the freight train i.e. money. The contrarian views to our argument keep shifting the goal posts and altering the subject in effort to get around how wrong they really are with this 2+2 equation.

 

[jaeger19]

Here's welfare in 2006 $ :

View attachment 67193487

See how it went down ?

Healthcare costs went up much faster than inflation. That's a big reason why we spend more, by the numbers. Another is the aging baby boomer demographic.

Looking at only the FIT is deliberately misleading. Things like payroll taxes are literally federal income taxes but you're ignoring them in your analysis.

View attachment 67193488

And it is like the sheriff of nottingham stealing from the poor to give to the rich. A tax cut is no different than a pay raise issued by the government. And when it happens to the rich, well -
View attachment 67193489
View attachment 67193490
View attachment 67193491

Further, our solutions do work. They're working right now all over Europe.

Lastly, there is nothing bizarre about making money OFF OF A SALE but there is something VERY BIZARRE about making money JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN SOME INANIMATE OBJECT.

Number one.. BS. Welfare has gone up since 2005 when your graph ends.. and especially with the advent of Obamacare. Which added new Medicaid people And yet inequality has increased. Government spending on welfare went UP as well.. government spending as a whole went up.. and what happened? More inequality..

and no its "not working all over Europe. Hardly. The Euro zone recovery has lagged behind the US for a number of years and their crash was deeper as well.. Ask folks in Greece how wonderful it is.

Things like payroll taxes are literally federal income taxes but you're ignoring them in your analysis.

And you forget that the wealthy pay half of all payroll taxes as well. So not only do I pay payroll taxes for myself.. I also pay half of all the payroll taxes on EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE I HAVE.

Gee.. I don't see that in your analysis do I?

As far as making money off a sale versus an inanimate object? I see so according to you.. its bizarre that the social security trust fund makes money keeping social security solvent? Would you prefer that the trust fund be canceled and we bankrupt social security and end the program?

ooops.. in your tirade you forgot that the medicare trust fund, the social security trust fund makes money by holding bank notes didn;t you. OOOPS.

 

[jaeger19]

Maybe you think your janitor did not contribute because the quality of his work did not correspond to the success of the business. Fine.

What about an engineer who actually designed the product? Does the CEO who simply happened to employ him deserve every cent of his billion dollar innovation? Does the engineer deserve zero except the salary? Is that your definition of fair? If he doesn't run his own company, **** him.

China does tend to exploit their working class. They also spent money to employ people. Putting people to work increases production, and production is the only way to generate wealth. Other forms of "generation" simply redistribute wealth.



You have to spend money to make money.

Rich people would rather get money from dividend stocks (lower return but safer and lower tax rate) than risk their money in startups (high risk). They tilted the scales in favor of speculative means to wealth, using positive feedback, using wealth to generate wealth, which predominantly favors them, personally, at the expense of redirecting investment toward more stagnant transactions.



No, they are a tax for services provided to property within a given border.

1. No the janitor did contribute.. that's why he gets paid a salary. On the other hand.. he takes no financial risk.. since if he did not contribute to the profit.. he does not have to pay the money back now does he?

2. And the engineer still gets paid when he doesn't produce or design the product doesn;t he? And the CEO that employees him deserve ever cent of his billion dollar innovation.. well considering that the CEO (with the caveat that the CEO is also the sole owner of the company).. then yes.. that's the risk the contract that they agreed to. The CEO gets the reward of the innovation.. OR the CEO gets the bill when the innovation tanks or doesn't come to fruition or is beaten by another competitor.. and the engineer gets paid regardless.

3. Yes China dos exploit their working class. They spent money to employ people and their "ruling class" has been reaping the rewards for about two decades. Leading to a high degree of inequality.

4. Wrong. When you start up a company.. you get your money from dividends. You don;t understand how money works. That mom and pop that started an S corp or LLC.. THEY GET DIVIDENDS. The issue stock to themselves and pay a dividend to themselves. You have no idea what you are talking about.

5. Wrong.. they are a tax on wealth. I pay taxes on properties that never use services. I am paying property taxes for schools that my children do not go to.. etc. Property taxes that go for all sorts of services that that are not provided to me.

and those taxes are not based on income.. they are based on wealth (and an arbitrary wealth at that since its based on what a government official THINKS my property is worth.)

 

[jet57]

Number one.. BS. Welfare has gone up since 2005 when your graph ends.. and especially with the advent of Obamacare. Which added new Medicaid people And yet inequality has increased. Government spending on welfare went UP as well.. government spending as a whole went up.. and what happened? More inequality..

and no its "not working all over Europe. Hardly. The Euro zone recovery has lagged behind the US for a number of years and their crash was deeper as well.. Ask folks in Greece how wonderful it is.



And you forget that the wealthy pay half of all payroll taxes as well. So not only do I pay payroll taxes for myself.. I also pay half of all the payroll taxes on EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE I HAVE.

Gee.. I don't see that in your analysis do I?

As far as making money off a sale versus an inanimate object? I see so according to you.. its bizarre that the social security trust fund makes money keeping social security solvent? Would you prefer that the trust fund be canceled and we bankrupt social security and end the program?

ooops.. in your tirade you forgot that the medicare trust fund, the social security trust fund makes money by holding bank notes didn;t you. OOOPS.

I'd like to see you provide proofs for your assertions here. Obama care and poverty have zero to do with one another so I don't know how in the world you can assume such a thing.

The Euro zone recovery is a direct reflection of our crooked market, so how our theft is some how a bad reflection their system is yet another anomaly I'd like to see proven. Greece for example had its markets and assets murdered over the crash of '08. so when they lost everything, as a small country, they were left with nothing to fall back on. This BS that has been running on the rumor mill about socialized government killing Greece is just a snow job to hide the theft. Ask Sweden and Denmark how they're doing. Why are Icelanders considered the happiest people? Why has not the entirety of the UK shifted it healthcare system to a discriminatory for profit bottom line money game like we have here if their system is so terrible?

Why was Obamacare an issue form the beginning? Why has the CEO of the drug manufacturer charging $700 a pill going back on his word to lower prices? why was Obamacare an issue to begin with again? Maybe $700 a pill because the CEO wants it that way? Maybe?

dude

 

[Absentglare]

Number one.. BS. Welfare has gone up since 2005 when your graph ends.. and especially with the advent of Obamacare. Which added new Medicaid people And yet inequality has increased. Government spending on welfare went UP as well.. government spending as a whole went up.. and what happened? More inequality..

and no its "not working all over Europe. Hardly. The Euro zone recovery has lagged behind the US for a number of years and their crash was deeper as well.. Ask folks in Greece how wonderful it is.



And you forget that the wealthy pay half of all payroll taxes as well. So not only do I pay payroll taxes for myself.. I also pay half of all the payroll taxes on EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE I HAVE.

Gee.. I don't see that in your analysis do I?

As far as making money off a sale versus an inanimate object? I see so according to you.. its bizarre that the social security trust fund makes money keeping social security solvent? Would you prefer that the trust fund be canceled and we bankrupt social security and end the program?

ooops.. in your tirade you forgot that the medicare trust fund, the social security trust fund makes money by holding bank notes didn;t you. OOOPS.

Welfare is TANF. Need-based cash benefits. Or do you think the costs of renting space to live and buying food to eat have gotten cut in half since TANF was started ? Do you think giving someone free healthcare magically lowers their food and rent ? Or do you naively believe that these folks had healthcare before, so now they're saving money ?

Inequality has increased because benefits to the poor have stagnated or shrank, necessary costs like education and healthcare have skyrocketed, and federal assistance to the wealthy via FIT cuts have boomed.

Further, social security and medicare cannot be considered welfare. They are often provided to very rich folks, they are not need-based which is necessary to qualify for being called welfare. In fact, if we have to cut entitlements, i support cutting those to rich people. Turn those programs into welfare programs and shrink the overall costs. Conservatives already treat them as such anyway.

Greece is having problems because of conservative policies. They accepted austerity measures during a recession. That's like breaking your ankle, on purpose, before a marathon.

What do you mean the wealthy pay half of all payroll taxes? Do you mean companies pay half? Are you admitting that 100% of a companies revenue is solely the owners in your eyes ?

The trust funds are a bit different. I feel like you should acknowledge that a bond, which trades money now for more money later, is different than a dividend, which just makes it rain on wealthy shareholders at a lower tax rate than other sources of income for no discernible reason.

 

[jaeger19]

But the European aristocracy does not engage in theft and manipulation of the markets through fraudulent means and have their stock market proper referring and pushing bets on a fixed game like they do in the US. European markets with respect to housing boom were being sold a bill of goods, so they were not knowingly peddling rotten products.

You're trying to mix the bag here and that is miles from where my argument is.

The European markets do not get away with peddling fraud and theft. Our markets do. THAT is the issue, and that is where my argument has been all along.

Well that's because what the engage in is perfectly legal in their country. They use the government to prop up their wealth and privilege. Europe is definitely a "fixed game"

Taxpayers are handing businesses £93bn a year – a transfer of more than £3,500 from each household in the UK.
The total emerges from the first comprehensive account of what Britons give away to companies in grants, subsidies and tax breaks, published exclusively in the Guardian.

Many of the companies receiving the largest public grants over the past few years previously paid little or zero corporation tax, the analysis shows. They include some of the best-known names in Britain, such as Amazon, Ford and Nissan. The figures intensify the pressure on George Osborne, the chancellor, just as he puts the finishing touches to his budget. At the heart of Wednesday’s announcement will be his plans to cut £12bn more from the social welfare bill.

Yet that sum is less than the £14.5bn given to companies in direct subsidies and grants alone.

Your position is simply faulty.

 

[jaeger19]

I'd like to see you provide proofs for your assertions here. Obama care and poverty have zero to do with one another so I don't know how in the world you can assume such a thing.

The Euro zone recovery is a direct reflection of our crooked market, so how our theft is some how a bad reflection their system is yet another anomaly I'd like to see proven. Greece for example had its markets and assets murdered over the crash of '08. so when they lost everything, as a small country, they were left with nothing to fall back on. This BS that has been running on the rumor mill about socialized government killing Greece is just a snow job to hide the theft. Ask Sweden and Denmark how they're doing. Why are Icelanders considered the happiest people? Why has not the entirety of the UK shifted it healthcare system to a discriminatory for profit bottom line money game like we have here if their system is so terrible?

Why was Obamacare an issue form the beginning? Why has the CEO of the drug manufacturer charging $700 a pill going back on his word to lower prices? why was Obamacare an issue to begin with again? Maybe $700 a pill because the CEO wants it that way? Maybe?

dude

honestly you are so wrong on so many levels with that diatribe its hard to start. first the Eurozone recovery is a direct reflection of their OWN MARKETS. Greece is problems are due to its housing crash and due to its fiscal mismanagement of its own funds (in part helped by the Eurozone countries that were perfectly willing to loan Greece money and siphon Greece's money off to themselves).

Why is the US the best economy in the world if socialized countries are the best? Why does the United States beat most of European in cancer survival rates with its supposed inefficient and terrible healthcare system. Why are we ranked in the top 10 and in most things top 5 when it comes to quality of care?

Why was Obamacare and issue? Maybe because it causes more problems than it fixes?

DUDE.

 

[jet57]

Well that's because what the engage in is perfectly legal in their country. They use the government to prop up their wealth and privilege. Europe is definitely a "fixed game"



Your position is simply faulty.

The European markets ARE NOT anywhere near as crooked as ours and you now that. Wall Street is a legal and social pariah. History and current facts back up everything I've said and my arguments stand.

 

[jet57]

honestly you are so wrong on so many levels with that diatribe its hard to start. first the Eurozone recovery is a direct reflection of their OWN MARKETS. Greece is problems are due to its housing crash and due to its fiscal mismanagement of its own funds (in part helped by the Eurozone countries that were perfectly willing to loan Greece money and siphon Greece's money off to themselves).

Why is the US the best economy in the world if socialized countries are the best? Why does the United States beat most of European in cancer survival rates with its supposed inefficient and terrible healthcare system. Why are we ranked in the top 10 and in most things top 5 when it comes to quality of care?

Why was Obamacare and issue? Maybe because it causes more problems than it fixes?

DUDE.

If I'm wrong you should have no trouble proving it. Greece's problems did not get started until after they were scalped by Wall Street renegades in THIS country. The Euro Zone recovery is a direct result of the same renegade behavior that affected Greece. Dude: the crash was the fault of our crooked market. EVERYBODY bought dirty housing stocks and the other Bernie Madoff crooks in our country had planned to cut and run right from the beginning. That thing as classic pyramid scheme.

And again, trying to run Obamacare into this is blaming the patch in the hull for the leak.

 

[jaeger19]

Welfare is TANF. Need-based cash benefits. Or do you think the costs of renting space to live and buying food to eat have gotten cut in half since TANF was started ? Do you think giving someone free healthcare magically lowers their food and rent ? Or do you naively believe that these folks had healthcare before, so now they're saving money ?

Yeah.. welfare is not just TANF.. though we increased TANF benefits since the recession... welfare includes other needs based programs of which there is many.. but most recently the expansion of Medicaid which is huge.

Inequality has increased because benefits to the poor have stagnated or shrank, necessary costs like education and healthcare have skyrocketed, and federal assistance to the wealthy via FIT cuts have boomed

No inequality has increased DESPITE benefits to the poor being INCREASED. Despite government spending INCREASED. Despite federal income taxes being INCREASED (we are now paying more in FIT than before since both the bush tax cuts and the ARRA tax cuts have been expiring.)

Further, social security and medicare cannot be considered welfare. They are often provided to very rich folks, they are not need-based which is necessary to qualify for being called welfare. In fact, if we have to cut entitlements, i support cutting those to rich people. Turn those programs into welfare programs and shrink the overall costs. Conservatives already treat them as such anyway

.

I didn't call them welfare. By the way.. making them needs based and you will see the end of these programs as what keeps them afloat is that everyone benefits from it. Pay in and take out.

Greece is having problems because of conservative policies. They accepted austerity measures during a recession. That's like breaking your ankle, on purpose, before a marathon

Wrong.. Greece's problems stemmed from borrowing like anything to give lavish benefits for its people.. and NOW when they need to be borrowing.. they can't because the EURO countries don't want to bail them out without making sure THEY GET PAID.

What do you mean the wealthy pay half of all payroll taxes? Do you mean companies pay half? Are you admitting that 100% of a companies revenue is solely the owners in your eyes ?

Of course.. poor people don't generally own small businesses, and certainly not corporations.. they are owned by wealthy people.. and that means that half the wage taxes are being paid by the owner(s). I.e. wealthy people.

All the revenue.. no of course not.. because obviously some of that revenue is paid to vendors, paid to employees, paid to keep the utilities on, paid to shipping companies etc.

The trust funds are a bit different. I feel like you should acknowledge that a bond, which trades money now for more money later, is different than a dividend, which just makes it rain on wealthy shareholders at a lower tax rate than other sources of income for no discernible reason.

Actually no.. they are not any different. You are only try weaseling out of your "but its an inanimate object" because you didn;t realize what you were talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

If I'm wrong you should have no trouble proving it. Greece's problems did not get started until after they were scalped by Wall Street renegades in THIS country. The Euro Zone recovery is a direct result of the same renegade behavior that affected Greece. Dude: the crash was the fault of our crooked market. EVERYBODY bought dirty housing stocks and the other Bernie Madoff crooks in our country had planned to cut and run right from the beginning. That thing as classic pyramid scheme.

And again, trying to run Obamacare into this is blaming the patch in the hull for the leak.

BS. they overvalued their properties.. heck in many European countries the GOVERNMENT encouraged people to buy more home than they could afford even when the properties were going upside down in mortgages.

I already have proved you wrong and produced evidence to prove it. By the way.. you need to look up a pyramid scheme so you can use it correctly.

And who is "run Obamacare into this"... You claimed that these countries are so awesome because they are so socialized and look how awful our country is. And then I point out factually that we have become more socialized, that we have expanded our safety nets etc (a good example is obamacare).. and whats happened an increase in inequality.

Don't be mad at me because you are realizing that your emotion is not winning over facts and logic.