Replace Trickle Down with Middle Class up

[JEDI]

Documentary 'Inequality for all" by former Labor secretary Robert Reich

Full film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdV1Z_nD1sA&feature=share

explains how the current HUGE gap between the top 1% and the 99% happened.
and how to fix it.

the US econ is 70% spending and the top 1% don't spend enuf relative to their income.
they can only wear so much clothing, eat so many meals in fancy restaurants, sleep in so many beds per nite, get so many haircuts, etc.

either make the middle class stronger or change the US econ.


edit:
new link: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rpkZe2OEo
(thx Fanatical)

 

[feralkid]

You stinking lefty.

 

[alcoholbob]

If your economy is 70% spending then it's only so long before other countries stop propping up your currency and you can't buy anything. =D

 

[trenchfoot]

I find it fascinating that middle class and poor Repubs have to defend the American Royalty and their agenda of forcing these middle class and poor Repubs into subjugation and servitude solely on the basis of their party loyalty and the influence their minority of zealots have over them.

It's sad that the middle class and poor who aren't Repubs have to be dragged down the trail to poverty with them.

 

[Hugo Drax]

All the middle class needs to do is stop spending.

No more perpetual auto leases or 100 dollar monthly iPhone bills,etc..

The problem is the middle class load themselves up with debt trying to one up each other in the totempole. Instead of investing.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

All the middle class needs to do is stop spending.

No more perpetual auto leases or 100 dollar monthly iPhone bills,etc..

The problem is the middle class load themselves up with debt trying to one up each other in the totempole. Instead of investing.

Yeah, you should watch the video...

 

[trenchfoot]

All the middle class needs to do is stop spending.

No more perpetual auto leases or 100 dollar monthly iPhone bills,etc..

The problem is the middle class load themselves up with debt trying to one up each other in the totempole. Instead of investing.

Lots of truth in what you've posted, of which I've somehow managed to turn a blind eye to. Thanks for reminding me of that. :thumbsup:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The middle class stops spending and the economy crashes and they're just as fucked, only with less stuff.

 

[JSt0rm]

you are a communist if you dont think rich mofos arent what create the middle class. Who will make a job when non is needed? Rich people thats right. Then after the rich people have sacrificed enough and created enough jobs that arent needed we will have a good middleclass because then there will be need for jobs to keep up with demand from all the rich people making jobs when there is no demand.

 

[nickqt]

Documentary 'Inequality for all" by former Labor secretary Robert Reich

Full film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdV1Z_nD1sA&feature=share

explains how the current HUGE gap between the top 1% and the 99% happened.
and how to fix it.

the US econ is 70% spending and the top 1% don't spend enuf relative to their income.
they can only wear so much clothing, eat so many meals in fancy restaurants, sleep in so many beds per nite, get so many haircuts, etc.

either make the middle class stronger or change the US econ.

You don't have to watch the video to understand what happened and how it can be fixed.

We had a very functioning economic system from the 30s till the late 70s.

Then it got hijacked by Voodoo Economics, which did exactly what they were supposed to do: dump money on the richest while relying on the middle class to keep the actual, real economy going. Meanwhile, the rich, with increasing amounts of liquid wealth, sought out the best Wall St. criminals they could to push their money around for the best interest rates they could find, which of course, as always, created a massive bubble built upon bullshit stacked on top of lies.

The oligarch shills can blame the middle class and pretend like the middle class is to blame for their wages stagnating the last 40 years, but it doesn't matter, the oligarch shills are hopeless because as Moonbeam might say, they so hate themselves that they have to project it onto anyone and everyone they can, otherwise they'd be sucking on their tailpipe.

 

[Jaskalas]

We had a very functioning economic system from the 30s till the late 70s.

1930s? That's great depression era, try again.

America became the premier economic and industrial power in the globe during the post-war era. WW2 decimated all the other industry across the globe. We became a juggernaut by being the last one standing.

Such golden eras are temporary and fleeting. They are not permanent and such economic conditions should not be idealized as it is not possible to maintain them. You are chasing a dream.

A 90% American tax rate won't bring back the global economy of the 1950s.

 

[nickqt]

1930s? That's great depression era, try again.

America became the premier economic and industrial power in the globe during the post-war era. WW2 decimated all the other industry across the globe. We became a juggernaut by being the last one standing.

Such golden eras are temporary and fleeting. They are not permanent and such economic conditions should not be idealized as it is not possible to maintain them. You are chasing a dream.

A 90% American tax rate won't bring back the global economy of the 1950s.

The great depression kicked of in 1929, and by 1933, FDR was putting people to work so that they weren't starving.

US trade wasn't the reason why the US was a juggernaut from the 1930s on. You can easily find how much trade the US took part in, compared with domestic consumption.

The US became a juggernaut because the people were all working and making great wages. The richest people in the country had to re-invest some of their money in order to get tax breaks, instead of the government just dumping money on top of them, and economic inequality was drastically reduced because of the income tax rate.

Try again, indeed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ryan says a 100 percent tax on millionaires would only fund government for four months

I guess you could cover the deficit.
What did you think you were doing with that money?

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion
You're going to run a wee bit short there.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ryan says a 100 percent tax on millionaires would only fund government for four months

I guess you could cover the deficit.
What did you think you were doing with that money?

Start with the largest area of spending in the budget and cut it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Ryan says a 100 percent tax on millionaires would only fund government for four months

I guess you could cover the deficit.
What did you think you were doing with that money?

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion
Your going to run a wee bit short there.

Who is calling for a 100% tax on millionaires?

Make it 90% on anything earned over 5 million or so and watch how much money goes back into the economy via investment. Thats the point of taxing that much. It certainly isnt so you can fund the gov off of it. Its to keep a small group of people from hoarding all of the money like they do in 3rd world countries.

 

[nickqt]

Ryan says a 100 percent tax on millionaires would only fund government for four months

I guess you could cover the deficit.
What did you think you were doing with that money?

Jesus Christ Almighty.

No one wants to tax anyone at 100%. You can keep flouting that red herring all you want. It just makes you and Paul Ryan, the scam artist, look like idiots trying to argue against something that no one is even talking about implementing.

There's a logical fallacy for that, I believe.

Having a higher tax rate that requires your dear JobCreators™ to pay a little more can be offset by, perhaps, not sending jobs overseas. By reinvesting a little of their or their company's profits back into the business. Etc.

Higher tax rates didn't stop people from becoming rich before. And no millionaire ever decided that because taxes are just too high, that they wouldn't go out and try anyway. Funny that.

This isn't just about taxes. It's about using money to invest in your country, instead of just letting it accrue to the top where it gets dumped into the casinos on Wall St. to be pushed around in anyway possible to earn a high interest rate.

But, keep talking about a 100% tax rate. I mean, why not 150%? Yeah, that's it. Libruls want a 150% tax rate, and they want to punch you in the balls while they're stealing all your money.

There you go. Cheney/Ryan '16. Go get 'em.

 

[soundforbjt]

Who is calling for a 100% tax on millionaires?

Make it 90% on anything earned over 5 million or so and watch how much money goes back into the economy via investment. Thats the point of taxing that much. It certainly isnt so you can fund the gov off of it. Its to keep a small group of people from hoarding all of the money like they do in 3rd world countries.

and actually earn the title of "job creators".

 

[nickqt]

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion
You're going to run a wee bit short there.

Oh, hey, the Sanders 18 trillion price tag article that is utter bullshit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-wsj-18-trillion

It "costs" 18 Trillion. Over 10 years.

It saves 5 Trillion of what would have been spent otherwise.

You must be a Paul Ryan acolyte.

 

[JSt0rm]

and actually earn the title of "job creators".

It shows how stupid we are that a few people could even make people think that somehow if a guy has enough money hoarded away he will want to make a job with no demand and then the demand would happen. Its like the dumbest thing in the world. And shows me most people deserve what they have because if you are smart enough to fleece idiots by telling them something like that then good for you. If you are dumb enough to believe some shit like that then you deserve to push paper for less then 100k a year if you are lucky.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Nick Hanauer, job creator, featured in Reich's film, giving a TED talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hana...tocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en

 

[IGBT]

how about funding Social Security to the same level that Welfare is funded?? We are always hearing that Social Security is running out..but not a word about Welfare funding problems.

 

[nickqt]

how about funding Social Security to the same level that Welfare is funded?? We are always hearing that Social Security is running out..but not a word about Welfare funding problems.

"Welfare" funding?

What do you think "Welfare" is? Do you think there is a program called "Welfare" that the Federal government funds?

You also might want to look into how Social Security is funded since you seem to think that Social Security isn't fully funded and running a surplus.

Buy a clue if you have to, hoss.

 

[IGBT]

"Welfare" funding?

What do you think "Welfare" is? Do you think there is a program called "Welfare" that the Federal government funds?

You also might want to look into how Social Security is funded since you seem to think that Social Security isn't fully funded and running a surplus.

Buy a clue if you have to, hoss.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...to-168-per-day-for-every-household-in-poverty


Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.

 

[nickqt]

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...to-168-per-day-for-every-household-in-poverty


Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.

Republicans, who hate welfare when it goes to the poors, but no so much when it goes to the haves, made a misleading chart. Awesome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html

In testimony before the House Budget Committee in 2012, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said that simply dividing the means-tested spending by the number of the poor “can be misleading because many persons with incomes above the official poverty levels also receive means-tested aid.” He recommended dividing the figure by the bottom third of the income distribution, which yielded a figure of $36,000 for a family of four.

The Congressional Budget Office, in a report this month, had an even more nuanced approach, estimating the average federal spending per household in 2006 for the 10 largest means-tested programs (worth about 75 percent of Sessions’s total) by different income quintiles (See Box 1.) For the lowest quintile, the figure is nearly $9,000, after adjusting to 2012 dollars.

In both cases, when a more nuanced approach was taken, the headline number shrinks.

“This calculation was not intended to trick people into thinking that poor households receive $60,000 in benefits. It was also not intended to suggest that these programs are available only to those in poverty,” the Sessions aide explained. “It was intended to start a discussion about how much we spend on programs that most people believe are intended to support poor people, what the benefits include (e.g., we’ve talked about showing how small an amount relative to the total is directed at jobs programs), and who the benefits are for…. We intended this statistic to open up a dialogue about how we (as a society) define the welfare state and who should be covered by that welfare state.”

 

[bozack]

Umm the one family that had less than $110 in their checking as their only savings yet spent $70/month on the YMCA and then another $16/month on a charity was interesting, heck I have a bit more than that in checking and would have a hard time spending $70/month on essentially a gym membership...and for the argument its for the kid well we had our daughter take classes there and they are considerably less, granted this is picking nits.