3 Big Conservative Lies about Poverty

[dad2three2001]

Well, for one thing, I'd try to make it possible to lure those who have moved their manufacturing overseas to come back here. Unfortunately, with automation and robotics becoming the trend, it probably wouldn't help much, but it would be a start. Look at North Dakota. They're doing great because of all the side businesses, which employ lots of people, that come when a large company moves into an area. If we have to begin to rebuild this country again, we can do it. We did it once. The standards on what is now permitted have become higher, but clean air and water are important, too. We do not need the pollution that China is suffering, but if we switch to natural gas, it could work. I wish I had all the answers, but I don't, but I hope someone does, because lots of people are going to become more angry and disgusted than they are now, if things don't change!

Honest starts when you explain ND's 'boom' is based on energy, like Texas's...


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CONservatives and their 'free trade' has hosed US...

 

[dad2three2001]

Woops?

Got it, You don't want to use your brain and instead lump in Medicare and SS on a graph from AEI OR HERITAGE? lol

Doesn't refute my posit one bit

 

[ttwtt78640]

Stop by presenting a lie off the bat. ,22 cents an hour (your math) from the increase goes to taxes from the employees check, though economists credit both sides to the employee...

Costs for Biz increase ALL the time, Good Biz's deal with it, we've increased min wage MANY times and the stuff CONservatives claim will happen, never does, only real thing is more economic activity from those at the bottom that increases the GDP. CBO estimated it would increase economic activity by over $22 billion a year.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

Once again I see the Ayn Rand cultists came to defend their self-serving, sociopathic ideology that demands that the most vulnerable in our society be trampled under the foot of commerce all in the name of sacred capitalism.

Nothing raises a conservatives blood pressure more than talk of raising the minimum wage

These MW raises (federal, state and local) tend to be "phased in" allowing instant political credit for those that pass them into law and allowing the consequences to occur later. The CBO also said that MW increase would cost about .5 million jobs. Those folks would likely opt for that $7.25/hr job rather than ZERO.

 

[What if...?]

Labor IS a resource.

A human being is not a 2x4. 2x4s don't have to eat, pay rent, etc. People do.

Business has taken to treating labor like 2x4s because it can. Pre-outsourcing there were strong unions. Outsourcing gutted the union base and put most of the power back in the hands of the business.

So our people are just rentable commodities again, in direct competition with the desperate, who don't have our cost of living.

How could that ever be a problem...

 

[What if...?]

Free trade, i.e. relaxation of import duties, and stricter environmental laws also happened.

And don't forget the thirty or forty semiskilled workers for 14-16 hours a day for what one minimum wage worker gets here for 8.

Never have seen anybody demonstrate how regulatory burden offsets that.

Regs need to be addressed.

But dirt cheap labor and little or no additional labor burden has been and will remain the draw.

(Until American workers get with the program and start working 14hrs/day for $5/day out the door).

 

[Thrilla]

Let's go recent, GOP cut SNAP as they increased subsidy's that benefited Corp farmers....Weird 'math' the GOP has...

the GOP called for 40 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years.... we ended up with 8 billion over 10 years....
so instead of spending 820.5 billion over 10 years, we'll be spending 812.5 billion..... or to put it like the federal government does ... it will cost a family of 4 ...36 bucks in benefits.

what you forgot to mention is that SNAP spending doubled under Bush... and doubled again under Obama
since Bush's first day in office, we have gone from spending 17 billion a year on SNAP.. to spending 82.5 billion a year.
and yet, here you are arguing that this very small cut is somehow disastrous ?... seriously?

this is why liberals shouldn't go anywhere near the topic of spending....you guys simply have no limits to the amount of money you will spend, even if spending on a particualr program had quadrupled in a relatively short time period, you still want more and more....and more.

additionally, how did quadrupling the spending on this program fight poverty?... it sure as hell didn't make a dent in our poverty rate, that's for sure.
4X the spending on an anti-poverty program, and we get the same poverty rate...liberal math at work.

and no, they did not increase subsidies... they cut those as well.

 

[BmanMcfly]

A human being is not a 2x4. 2x4s don't have to eat, pay rent, etc. People do.

Business has taken to treating labor like 2x4s because it can. Pre-outsourcing there were strong unions. Outsourcing gutted the union base and put most of the power back in the hands of the business.

So our people are just rentable commodities again, in direct competition with the desperate, who don't have our cost of living.

How could that ever be a problem...

It's called "human resources" for a reason.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

that programs have been underfunded or cut?

Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2006 Dollars

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Appendix A. Program Data

 

[cpwill]

Got it, You don't want to use your brain and instead lump in Medicare and SS on a graph from AEI OR HERITAGE? lol

Doesn't refute my posit one bit

On the contrary, your continued inability to demonstrate your claim - which is almost the opposite of what actually fiscally happened - continues. Military spending over the last few decades has pretty much declined, while social spending has dramatically expanded. It is because, not in spite of, many of those programs that the poverty rate is largely unchanged.

 

[What if...?]

Weird, you adjust for inflation on growth but not for min wage? lol

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


CONservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

We need to change "job creator" to "consumption facilitator".

The "best" business model.would require zero workers.

"Job creation" is a byproduct of wealth accumulation through consumption facilitation.

As they do not go into business to create jobs, they should not be called "job creators".

The obvious fact that someone got paid for coming up with "job creators" and all the ancillary persuasion elements is an indication of a deeper issue: persuasion pollution.

Every single issue at the heart of this country's deep ideological divide has at its core the application of persuasion science. From both sides. Emotions trump reason. And positive/negative emotions can be attached to words/ideas through dependable, repeatable, predictable efficacy. It wouldn't be a ten billion dollar a year industry (not including those in direct employ) if it wasn't.

I wonder what the world would look like if we could see the receipts for terms like "job creator"? Or the design for its dissemination?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Picture tells the story

Here we see how growth, hard work and ambition still lead to no gains for those doing all the work.

And I believe that this graph is due to the low demand for American labor. Higher worker productivity, cheap foreign labor, and automation all work against labor, driving down demand. The pie continues to grow, but labor has no leverage to demand much of a slice.

I don't understand how people can still blame the poor for the lack of jobs.

 

[What if...?]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but what you said is correct. Automation benefits most companies anyway, and even the smallest labor cost is still the largest cost most companies have. There are many benefits to automate processes which were once human-filled.

When i was a child we were promised that machines would free man from labor.

Turns out its just freeing management from labor costs.

 

[polgara]

Honest starts when you explain ND's 'boom' is based on energy, like Texas's...


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CONservatives and their 'free trade' has hosed US...

So why is the current administration dragging their feet on replacing or upgrading our decaying infrastructure, some of which is 100 years old, and costing a lot of money to repair? That could provide thousands of jobs!

And I believe Clinton signed NAFTA into law, not conservatives. However, I have come to the conclusion that neither party cares much about what the people think, so they take turns "hosing us," to use your words, because that's where their big money comes from - lobbyists! :2mad:

Greetings, dad2three2001. :2wave:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So why is the current administration dragging their feet on replacing or upgrading our decaying infrastructure, some of which is 100 years old, and costing a lot of money to repair? That could provide thousands of jobs!

Show where congress has authorized funding. You know who holds the purse strings.

And I believe Clinton signed NAFTA into law, not conservatives.

To his utter shame....BUT...conservatives/corps wrote the legislation. Own up to your brethren's actions.

However, I have come to the conclusion that neither party cares much about what the people think, so they take turns "hosing us," to use your words, because that's where their big money comes from - lobbyists!

Which is why it is important to understand who truly is not creating good policy, to know what is good policy and to tell your rep.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lol. Thanks for the morning laugh.

yeah its hilarious. the biggest laugh of course is that rich liberals actually care about the poor or that poor liberals really care about the common good

 

[TurtleDude]

False. Poverty rates were falling until the war against the worker and labor unions commenced. Lowered tax rates on the rich also correlate perfectly with increase in poverty.

how do the rich having less of their wealth confiscated make other people less productive or ambitious?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

On the contrary, your continued inability to demonstrate your claim - which is almost the opposite of what actually fiscally happened - continues. Military spending over the last few decades has pretty much declined,

...cough...BS...cough.....not including vet care......cough..



Defense spending since World War II. Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

while social spending has dramatically expanded. It is because, not in spite of, many of those programs that the poverty rate is largely unchanged.

Social spending increased primarily because of the Bush Recession. And lets be clear, SS/Medicare are self funded through FICA, the "War on Poverty", the context of the original comment is discretionary.

Besides, you and I have gone over this many times, if you want less poverty spending then argue for higher wages for low-mid earners.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

how do the rich having less of their wealth confiscated make other people less productive or ambitious?

I told you that long ago, less taxation leads to less education spending, less education spending leads to fewer opportunities.....remember?

 

[TurtleDude]

I told you that long ago, less taxation leads to less education spending, less education spending leads to fewer opportunities.....remember?

yeah you told me that and I rejected it as being bogus. we spend far more money on inner city schools which turn out morons compared to many suburban schools.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You know CONservative economic policies are a failure when you have to compare the US to 3rd world nations *shaking head*

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


That is the problem, conservatives very seldom tell you their intentions. They talk nuances "job creation" "deficit reduction", "Austerity", They just can not say it loud and proud: I WILL GIVE YOUR GOVERNMENT TO THE RICH AND POWERFUL, (because is unfair that The Middle Class make any money at all and corporations do not get to keep all of it) SO I CAN GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY FROM BUYING CONGRESSMEN AND DEREGULATING INDUSTRY.

Umm, No.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

yeah you told me that and I rejected it as being bogus. we spend far more money on inner city schools which turn out morons compared to many suburban schools.

You mean areas that have high COL/property costs, with lots of low income/high need students?

Since the costs are higher, that is an excuse to not fund them?

Deep thinking there!

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean areas that have high COL/property costs, with lots of low income/high need students?

Since the costs are higher, that is an excuse to not fund them?

Deep thinking there!

that contradicts your own prior silliness. IN the City of Cincinnati, there are extremely wealthy areas like Hyde Park where million dollar homes are common, and poor areas like over the Rhine. the Cincinnati Public Scohols are funded by tax dollars from both the poor areas and the rich areas. Suburban schools just outside the area like Norwood (which is no richer overall than Cincinnati) spend far less per pupil and yet have far better results.

I realize the socialist mantra is to justify more and more taxes on the rich for the greater good but it just doesn't lead to all the utopian results you all want to claim

 

[What if...?]

i'm good with that to a point. i don't want management treating labor as something disposable, and i think it's a poor idea for labor to ask for things which are not sustainable.

this really is something we can improve if everybody checks their tempers and hyperpartisan views at the door.

One of the major benefits of the cooperative model is flexibility. Its easier to take a haircut when times are lean when everyone knows whats up and everybody is taking that haircut. And knows that everyone will.share in the boom times.

Now every penny has to be fought for and is therefore zealously defended.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

that contradicts your own prior silliness. IN the City of Cincinnati, there are extremely wealthy areas like Hyde Park where million dollar homes are common, and poor areas like over the Rhine. the Cincinnati Public Scohols are funded by tax dollars from both the poor areas and the rich areas. Suburban schools just outside the area like Norwood (which is no richer overall than Cincinnati) spend far less per pupil and yet have far better results.

Wow.....you can't even see.....that you....confirmed what I said.

I realize the socialist mantra is to justify more and more taxes on the rich for the greater good but it just doesn't lead to all the utopian results you all want to claim

The only one mentioning "utopias" is...you.

Wanting lower taxes....and defunding inner city schools... leads to dystopia.

 

[What if...?]

On the contrary, your continued inability to demonstrate your claim - which is almost the opposite of what actually fiscally happened - continues. Military spending over the last few decades has pretty much declined, while social spending has dramatically expanded. It is because, not in spite of, many of those programs that the poverty rate is largely unchanged.

Fewer credible enemies and more retiring baby boomers.

Or are you saying people.working making unneeded armaments were propping up the economy?,