• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

figured you were not up to comprehending the point i was making
here's a clue. i am typing it slowly, so keep up:
many who benefit from government assistance do so thru no fault of their own. they may be too young, too feeble, too sick, too mentally challenged, too whatever to pay their own way. yet you ignore them and their plight when you fashion the most simplistic solution to allow them to feed/clothe/house themselves ... by building a new stretch of I-85 between spartanburg and greenville. as if that would be something the very young, the very old, and the very infirm would be able to do. your "solution" could only be found workable by simple minds

In all fairness, I don't think that anyone, of any political leaning or any party affiliation, objects to providing benefits and income to the profoundly handicapped. Of course there might be a few exceptions, but I ignore those people as they are basically wackos.

My perception of human nature is that most people are capable of doing valuable work, even most people on welfare, and we should focus on having enough jobs which pay well enough for them to survive, rather than focusing on handouts for the capable.

It would be interesting to poll welfare slackers, asking them if they would prefer a job making a decent income over continuing to get free money from the government. I bet that most of them would take the job.
 
And you use a narrow example,
i used the road building example you offered
now it seems you finally agree it was a stupid suggestion

... and extremes of the system to give all of the others in the majority a pass for grafting every single one of us....And all to lock them into the plantation of poverty for their vote...You should be ashamed...
ashamed for not wanting to eliminate government assistance for those who need it thru no fault of their own. never
 
i used the road building example you offered
now it seems you finally agree it was a stupid suggestion

Road building was but one thing able bodied people collecting welfare could do to earn their benefits, but you know that. Instead you have to use the extreme to make a point as if that was the ONLY thing people could do, or as if that wouldn't include working hand in hand with training programs to train people up to self sustaining jobs that they could take.

ashamed for not wanting to eliminate government assistance for those who need it thru no fault of their own. never

Who said anything about eliminating anything for those who need it through no fault of their own? Not me. I said transform it into a work for benefit program.

The problem with you liberal progressives is that you only see the extremes. You should work on that.
 
Road building was but one thing able bodied people collecting welfare could do to earn their benefits
I don't mean to interject myself, but I believe justabubba's point was that so many who are on government assistance are NOT able bodied.

"many who benefit from government assistance do so thru no fault of their own. they may be too young, too feeble, too sick, too mentally challenged, too whatever to pay their own way."

I think he's trying to say that providing jobs to able bodied people to make them work for their benefits (an idea I've always liked too) is impractical for so many on government assistance because the reason they are on government assistance is because they are not able bodied.


Justabubba can correct me if I misunderstood him, but that's the way I took what he was saying. Thought it might clear up some confusion.
 
Of course, California also leads the country in millionaires.

Which States Have the Most Millionaires?*|*Reboot Illinois

Given that fact, perhaps I can interpret your post as a concern about income inequality?

Gosh, that's odd. The highest income inequality in the deepest blue state?

Huh. That's odd. The left tells us their policy approach reduces income inequality...

Well, surely other deep-blue areas like New York and Seattle don't have high income inequality. California must be a random outlier. Hasn't income inequality been sharply reduced since Obama took over?
 
I don't mean to interject myself, but I believe justabubba's point was that so many who are on government assistance are NOT able bodied.

"many who benefit from government assistance do so thru no fault of their own. they may be too young, too feeble, too sick, too mentally challenged, too whatever to pay their own way."

I think he's trying to say that providing jobs to able bodied people to make them work for their benefits (an idea I've always liked too) is impractical for so many on government assistance because the reason they are on government assistance is because they are not able bodied.


Justabubba can correct me if I misunderstood him, but that's the way I took what he was saying. Thought it might clear up some confusion.

That's fine Sly, and I'd agree if it were put that way...But it wasn't...Bubba just wanted to come in and **** all over the discussion where myself and some more liberal than I members might show some kind of agreement, and parade his usual arrogant crap instead of being civil to someone that disagrees with him.

There are quite a lot of people I could imagine that would not qualify to work for their benefits, and shouldn't. This could be determined by medical, or psychological doc's...But, we now have some 47 million people + on some kind of subsidy from the taxpayer, surely you don't believe that they are ALL unqualified to earn their benefit do you?
 
That's fine Sly, and I'd agree if it were put that way...But it wasn't...Bubba just wanted to come in and **** all over the discussion where myself and some more liberal than I members might show some kind of agreement, and parade his usual arrogant crap instead of being civil to someone that disagrees with him.
Umm...I think he said the same thing multiple times. Maybe it wasn't in the nicest way possible, but his point (that there are people who are not able to work for government assistance) was the same in every post.

There are quite a lot of people I could imagine that would not qualify to work for their benefits, and shouldn't. This could be determined by medical, or psychological doc's...But, we now have some 47 million people + on some kind of subsidy from the taxpayer, surely you don't believe that they are ALL unqualified to earn their benefit do you?
No, obviously not. And I don't think he would either. But his point, I believe, is that a large percentage of them simply cannot work, which is why they are on assistance in the first place.

Also I wish to point out that not everyone on government assistance doesn't work. Just as an example:

The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to about 6.9 million in 2012.

...

Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children. (About two-thirds of SNAP recipients are not expected to work, primarily because they are children, elderly, or disabled.)
Policy Basics: Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So it's really not as insulting to working people as some make it sound. Obviously those of us who work do not want to pay for those who can work but choose not to, but it really doesn't happen as often as one might think.
 
Well, we just see things differently. And that’s not a bad thing, it just is.
 
...
Obviously those of us who work do not want to pay for those who can work but choose not to, but it really doesn't happen as often as one might think.

A while back someone posted some figures on the 47%, the number who work, the number that are retired, the number that are disabled, etc. I did some quick napkin math and found that maybe something like 2.5% of our population are close to the "welfare queen" scenario. That's not a lot, but it's still too much.

Most people on welfare do work, they just don't get paid much money. I consider those workers to be bargains for employers and consumers, they are generally producing way more than they get paid for, and to me that's a significant contribution to society as it allows employers to have higher profits and it allows consumers to be able to purchase goods and services very inexpensively.
 
this is not how demand works


you mistake it for supply side economics



Perhaps you could supply a definition for demand.

I'll get you started:



DEFINITION OF 'DEMAND'
An economic principle that describes a consumer's desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Holding all other factors constant, the price of a good or service increases as its demand increases and vice versa.


Demand Definition | Investopedia

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'DEMAND'
Think of demand as your willingness to go out and buy a certain product. For example, market demand is the total of what everybody in the market wants.

Businesses often spend a considerable amount of money in order to determine the amount of demand that the public has for its products and services. Incorrect estimations will either result in money left on the table if it's underestimated or losses if it's overestimated.
 
To an extent, yes. However, there is no lack of companies willing to create things that people want, the profit motive is very powerful, and it exists regardless of anything else, as long as we allow private ownership of the means of production (and last time I checked, we do).

Production is the natural result of demand. it's like almost automatically going to happen, as long as demand is realized. Someone orders something, and it's produced. someone purchases something off the shelf, and a replacement is produced.

However, demand is created when people who want things have the means to actually purchase those things. Regardless of how much the owners of the means of production desire to produce, they will not produce more than their customers can actually afford to purchase. So customers with a buck in their pocket is a prerequisite for production to exist.

If you made widgets, and you were only able to sell 100 widgets a day, would you produce any more than that? Would you desire to fill up warehouses with excess widgets?




You are mixing two different types of demand.

There is the demand for our daily bread so to say as with the food, shelter and clothing required to survive day to day.

People will always buy these things and given the extra money, may buy them in a higher quality or after a shorter wear out time, but they will continue to buy them.

What stimulates the economy is making something available that is so necessary that it forces people to find a way to buy it, but is not something being currently purchased. The PC is the best example because nobody had one and suddenly everybody had to have one.

After the initial flood of sales, the continuing sales are baked in already and now the computer is more of a commodity like Grated Parmesan Cheese. I doubt that there a majority of homes in the USA that don't have both of these in-house and ready for use right now.

How does a country grow jobs absent the societal "killer app" new product? A good first step is to stop actively blocking the efforts of job creators.

After that, paying people to invest by cutting the depreciation schedules is a good move. If that doesn't work, matching dollar grants on a percent of investment in real assets.

When a particular response to a particular policy causes a deficit inducing response from the private sector, change that policy. If companies are being encouraged to leave our country, why not reverse the policy that is providing the encouragement and replace it with a policy that encourages companies to move here? This is not rocket science.

All that is needed is to abandon the get-evenism approach to punitive tax policies and punitive regulation and logically address what is happening in the real world.

What's being tried right now is not working, has not worked and will not work to grow the economy. They are holding tight to the policy, though, so presumably, whatever it is that they are trying to achieve is being achieved.
 
...

What stimulates the economy is making something available the is so necessary that it forces people to find a way to buy it, but is not something being currently purchased. The PC is the best example because nobody had one and suddenly everybody had to have one....

While that may have been true for the PC, generally these innovative new products are replacing other products. What we end up with is a shift in demand, much more so than the creation of additional demand. Yes, there is lot's of demand for smart phones that didn't exist before apple invented the iphone, however because of the smartphone, demand for calculators, computers, home phones, watches, clocks, notepads, stationary, pens, PDAs, pedometers, stand alone GPS systems, sterios, walkmen, flashlights, etc has declined. We simply shifted demand from one set of products to that new inovative product.

The net increase in aggregate demand due to the smartphone is probably zero.

Demand, for everything other than high end luxury products is limited by the worker-consumer class'es ability to purchase more. When incomes aren't increasing, the consumer class can't buy more, regardless of how cool or innovative new products are, they will just shift demand from current products to those new products, and our economy is no better off.

That's the reason that it's important that incomes at every income level increase as fast our our per work hour productivity increases. If incomes don't increase just as fast, then we end up with demand lagging behind productivity, thus we have a weaker job market, more unemployment, even lower wages, lower business profits, more people on welfare, etc.
 
While that may have been true for the PC, generally these innovative new products are replacing other products. What we end up with is a shift in demand, much more so than the creation of additional demand. Yes, there is lot's of demand for smart phones that didn't exist before apple invented the iphone, however because of the smartphone, demand for calculators, computers, home phones, watches, clocks, notepads, stationary, pens, PDAs, pedometers, stand alone GPS systems, sterios, walkmen, flashlights, etc has declined. We simply shifted demand from one set of products to that new inovative product.

The net increase in aggregate demand due to the smartphone is probably zero.

Demand, for everything other than high end luxury products is limited by the worker-consumer class'es ability to purchase more. When incomes aren't increasing, the consumer class can't buy more, regardless of how cool or innovative new products are, they will just shift demand from current products to those new products, and our economy is no better off.

That's the reason that it's important that incomes at every income level increase as fast our our per work hour productivity increases. If incomes don't increase just as fast, then we end up with demand lagging behind productivity, thus we have a weaker job market, more unemployment, even lower wages, lower business profits, more people on welfare, etc.



Your observation about the shift of sales from one product to another is probably very accurate.

Why would people buy something more with the extra money? Why would the shift in sales from one product to a different product not also apply here? It seems likely that the extra money spending would manifest in a better grade of hamburger or steak as opposed to the lower grade of hamburger. Maybe going to Steak house instead of a Pancake house.

If your idea is correct and will produce additional sales and therefore fire up the economy, why not allow projects like the Keystone Pipeline to employ people and thereby drive more money into the economy, increase the tax revenues and do so with no expense to government in any way?
 
Your observation about the shift of sales from one product to another is probably very accurate.

Why would people buy something more with the extra money? Why would the shift in sales from one product to a different product not also apply here? It seems likely that the extra money spending would manifest in a better grade of hamburger or steak as opposed to the lower grade of hamburger. Maybe going to Steak house instead of a Pancake house.

Sure, additional money in the hands of the consumer would result in upgrades of products.

In some cases it would also result in the purchase of additional products. Unless one is uber rich, most of us have to make choices in how we spend our money. So maybe I have to make a choice this week between a new TV or new carpet in my bedroom. If I had more money (bigger paycheck), then maybe I could afford both.

Other than increased demand, the only other thing that the worker-consumer class could do with bigger paychecks is to save and invest and certainly some of us would also do that.

So now imagine an increase in spending combined with an increase in savings and investment. Is that not the perfect recipe for a great economy?

That's why I am constantly advocating for middle class tax cuts. Reducing the rate of the bottom three income tax brackets by 5% could easily create a one or two percent increase in GDP (resulting in a "normal" 3+% growth rate), which would result in a sub 5% unemployment rate.

If your idea is correct and will produce additional sales and therefore fire up the economy, why not allow projects like the Keystone Pipeline to employ people and thereby drive more money into the economy, increase the tax revenues and do so with no expense to government in any way?

I'm all for the Keystone Pipeline, and I suspect that Obama will approve it before he leaves office as surely he doesn't want to go down in history as the POTUS that held up progress. However, I'm not convinced that it's going to create a lot of new jobs long term. Seems to me that it's more about making the transportation of the oil more efficient - meaning not having to rely as much on human labor to transport it.

I'm also not real supportive of the idea that we should start exporting oil. Seems to me that long term, like generations from now, we may be better off if we use up other nations natural resources first, than to export all of ours.
 
Sure, additional money in the hands of the consumer would result in upgrades of products.

In some cases it would also result in the purchase of additional products. Unless one is uber rich, most of us have to make choices in how we spend our money. So maybe I have to make a choice this week between a new TV or new carpet in my bedroom. If I had more money (bigger paycheck), then maybe I could afford both.

Other than increased demand, the only other thing that the worker-consumer class could do with bigger paychecks is to save and invest and certainly some of us would also do that.

So now imagine an increase in spending combined with an increase in savings and investment. Is that not the perfect recipe for a great economy?

That's why I am constantly advocating for middle class tax cuts. Reducing the rate of the bottom three income tax brackets by 5% could easily create a one or two percent increase in GDP (resulting in a "normal" 3+% growth rate), which would result in a sub 5% unemployment rate.



I'm all for the Keystone Pipeline, and I suspect that Obama will approve it before he leaves office as surely he doesn't want to go down in history as the POTUS that held up progress. However, I'm not convinced that it's going to create a lot of new jobs long term. Seems to me that it's more about making the transportation of the oil more efficient - meaning not having to rely as much on human labor to transport it.

I'm also not real supportive of the idea that we should start exporting oil. Seems to me that long term, like generations from now, we may be better off if we use up other nations natural resources first, than to export all of ours.




Regarding saving our oil for a rainy day, I have no idea what the solution will be, but the sunset of the fossil fuel industry is quickly approaching and saving oil for the rainy day will be a labor spent unwisely.

The blurb about the Fusion reactor is opening bell to the end of the fossil fuel age. They had a good run. It's ending. Destroying the economy to make it happen is just short sighted pessimism by backward looking ideologues. Solar will never power the take off of a 747. A fusion reactor the size of a pick up truck certainly could.

Wealth redistribution schemes are all fated to fail. They always have and they always will. The way to bring wealth to the hands of those that need it is to create wealth. The way to create wealth is to create the desire in those that have the capital to use it.

Everyone agrees that taxing something heavily, like cigarettes, will reduce smoking. Taxing the income of people that was created through investment also slows that activity. This is very basic stuff.

Stopping the establishment of jobs, as is the case with Keystone, obviously stops the establishment of jobs. This administration has no desire to step on the toes of those that have bought it. They have every intention of continuing to accept the bribes and are striving to increase the price of their loyalty.

When in the long history of economics has your prescription solved the problem. When has punishing the movers and the shakers produced more movement and more shaking?

When has rewarding indolence produced harder work?
 
Back
Top Bottom