The Poor Are the Engine of Prosperity

[jaeger19]

That is also true. For example, our social safety net is stupidly, destructively structured to create welfare cliffs, where we punish people for earning more by costing them an even greater amount in benefits, and positive individual decisions that are solidly linked to economic and social success (such as marriage) are punished. We additionally build high entry thresholds for very low-skill labor, effectively pricing the most vulnerable among us out of the market. Additionally, our education system traps the poor in poor schools, and we do not make much effort to encourage poorer children to make wiser personal decisions that would have salubrious effects on their socio-economic future.

This is quite true.

 

[Paschendale]

Why not, trillions of dollars later, it hasn't worked, so why not a few trillion more?

It did work. We did it with the GI Bill in the 50s and built the American middle class from scratch. And then in the 80s, economic aristocrats took power and tried to reverse all that, and we're competing right now to continue with the aristocratic approach or go back to what was actually working, and do more of it.

"....give then the money to do it". Key word "give". A tornado hit a part of Houston on May 25 and destroyed a section of an apartment complex. The media went to talk to some of the tenants who lost their apartment. One lady struck me as a long standing problem in America when she said, "where are we going to live? Who is going to take care of us now"? Immediately I thought my first question would be "what do I do now to take care of myself". Therein lies the difference between people that truly believe in a government that takes care of them til death do they part and people who want as little to do with government as allowable as they build their own futures by working hard.

Actually, the difference seems to be between the ego that thinks it has no limits, and the mind that understands reality. She knows that there is nothing she can do. She is homeless. And your whole argument here is the egotistical notion that you could do better in her position, if you were just as desperate as she. It's not a difference in belief. It's a lack of empathy and demonizing people who are struggling a lot harder than you are.

And your OP proposal does noting for long term demand, only a short term fix with long term implications. You take care of the middle class and the economic cycle has a lower amplitude. You take care of the poor by taking from the wealthy and you inflate the amplitude of the economic cycle as there is only so much you can extract.

We're not taking care of the middle class, either. More and more, the lower and middle classes are blurring together. People working 50 hour weeks making $22 thousand a year before taxes are supposedly middle class. We're barely taking care of anyone who doesn't qualify for estate taxes.

True Darwinists and Evolutionists would just let those crippled and dependent pets die off and stop draining society of their resources. The worst thing you can do for a prosperous society is encourage the weak and incapable to breed and pollute society at large.

Conflating "born poor" with "weak" and "inferior" is one of the most disgusting things the right wing does. That was the motivating notion behind fascism.

Yes, we know what you are. Some Americans put their lives on the line for other Americans. You would rather miserly hoard your cash, even if it means other Americans will starve or children go without medical care.

Even worse. He miserly hoards the cash he inherited from misers who inherited it from misers who inherited it from misers. He's a perfect example of the screwed up mentality that Vance is advocating. A person of incredibly average talent born into wealth is the right wing's idea of "exceptional". You are speaking with the George W Bush of DebatePolitics.

THE PROBLEM: the middle class is shrinking. Why is it that the rich get richer and poor poorer? All these giveaways to the poor takes away most of the incentive to better oneself. Why should I study advanced calculus when I can be molly coddled for life although not a rich one?

Because social safety nets don't provide a coddled life. They provide pretty much just enough to not starve or freeze.

 

[MTAtech]

The problem with the poor is that they only consume. They don't generate wealth. Does that mean we should strive to wipe the poor out? No, consuming certainly has a role in this society.

However, too much consumption can be bad.

A strong middle class is always the better way to indicate whether or not a country has a healthy economy. Not a strong poor class

I assume that you are unaware that most of the poor work.

 

[Paschendale]

Pretty much. Many people forget the fact that the 1% outside of morons like trump actually pay over 40% of all federal taxes. Not to mention, if you live in a more liberal state like connecticut the taxes can get even higher. But hey, someone has to pay for those obama phones and welfare hair cuts.

And if it ain't joe in the ghetto or trump with his offshore accounts, then it's us, the engine of the economy...

And it turns out that those taxes don't pull anyone out of being rich or even seriously diminish their lifestyle. Your family might not be as rich as you'd like, but no taxes are ever going to make you not rich anymore. So quit your whining.

The number of jobs available is not a fixed quantity. If you want to create more, make it easier for people here to start a business. Lower the corporate tax rate to entice foreign companies to set up shop here. Make it harder for illegals to stay and work in the US. Lots of options that don't require the government to do more, and to actually do less.

Lower taxes do not and have not ever increased employment. As for the bolded, how exactly do you plan to do that without increasing demand?

I think you missed my point. Instead of companies setting up factories somewhere else, make it easier for them to build them here, and build their products using US labor to ship elsewhere. Just because something is built here doesn't mean it has to be consumed here.

And what exactly will make it easier than paying third world workers fifty cents a day and not having to conform to environmental or labor regulations?

How about you rail against the wealthy companies that are having millions of those TVs, gaming consoles and flash clothes(?) made overseas instead of the poor guy that buys ONE of them with his welfare check? Maybe convince those companies to have those items built here in this country and actually create some jobs here.

It seems like the right won't do anything to stop outsourcing, but will constantly complain that it's the fault of liberals... even though we're the ones who want to stop it from happening. Getting manufacturing back in the US isn't something that the market will ever do on its own. Not without us becoming a third world nation and paying people cents a day. Only government intervention will do that.

The problem with the poor is that they only consume. They don't generate wealth. Does that mean we should strive to wipe the poor out? No, consuming certainly has a role in this society.

Wealth for whom?

However, too much consumption can be bad.

A strong middle class is always the better way to indicate whether or not a country has a healthy economy. Not a strong poor class

And the focus of a lot of economic stimulus and safety nets and social programs is to turn the poor into middle class.

 

[jaeger19]

And the focus of a lot of economic stimulus and safety nets and social programs is to turn the poor into middle class.

Gee, how well has that been working?

Social safety nets, and social programs have not and cannot turn the poor into middle class.

 

[Fruityfact]

I am saying maybe you should probably read any of the several articles I sourced. I am also saying that when taxes reach a point they become burdensome and reduce the profit margin, business owners decide they have had enough. That probably will never matter to you.

We're no where near that threshold, and that is blatantly obvious.

 

[MTAtech]

...
Even worse. He miserly hoards the cash he inherited from misers who inherited it from misers who inherited it from misers. He's a perfect example of the screwed up mentality that Vance is advocating. A person of incredibly average talent born into wealth is the right wing's idea of "exceptional". You are speaking with the George W Bush of DebatePolitics.
...

I get it. It's the born on home plate and thinks he hit a run, crowd.

I see that all the time in my neighborhood -- rich kids who don't have to work for anything, insulting the poor because they get "handouts." I rattle them by asking, "what did you do to earn that BMW? Winning the sperm lottery isn't a personal accomplishment - you are no different than welfare recipients."

 

[MTAtech]

And the focus of a lot of economic stimulus and safety nets and social programs is to turn the poor into middle class.

Gee, how well has that been working?

Social safety nets, and social programs have not and cannot turn the poor into middle class.

It seems to work well in Sweden.

 

[Paschendale]

Gee, how well has that been working?

It's been a great start, but only a start. A lot more is needed.

Social safety nets, and social programs have not and cannot turn the poor into middle class.

Even if this were true (it's not), what does?

It seems to work well in Sweden.

It also worked really well here in the 30s with the creation of social security, and in the 50s with the GI Bill that created the middle class in the first place.

 

[Fenton]

It's been a great start, but only a start. A lot more is needed.



Even if this were true (it's not), what does?

So we need to spend another 8 Trillion dollars on welfare ? Or " stimulus " to increase aggregate demand " ??

Why on earth is this ridiculous notion STILL given any credibility ??

 

[minnie616]

There is no need to try and create artificial demand by doing something useless like that.

Our roads, bridges, railroads, etc. have all gone to hell.

Certainly you can put a good number of people to work for a good amount of time improving the American infrastructure which has largely been neglected for somewhat of a long time.

Agreed and along with roads and bridges our electrical grid needs to be updated and our communications infrastructure needs to updated.

 

[jaeger19]

It's been a great start, but only a start. A lot more is needed.

I see.. so less social mobility.. lower real wages, and more social inequity is "a great start"?

:doh

Even if this were true (it's not), what does?

It is true.. and the proof is in the pudding. We have had increasing welfare, increasing programs and increased safety nets.. and less social mobility, more inequity and stagnant jobs.

Even if this were true (it's not), what does?

Education, investment in infrastructure, investment in technology, and a free and fair markets (including labor)

 

[Reformedfindlay]

It's been a great start, but only a start. A lot more is needed.



Even if this were true (it's not), what does?



It also worked really well here in the 30s with the creation of social security, and in the 50s with the GI Bill that created the middle class in the first place.

Bull-****ing-****.

Our middle class is shrinking and we have a lot in the way of social safety nets, from social security to obamaphones to SNAP to section 8 and more.

We should cut a lot of that and then the only social safety net program we should open up is public works and working on the infrastructure, which creates jobs, as compared to simply throwing money at poor people which does not work as they will only consume more and not generate any more wealth than they were generating before.

 

[VanceMack]

We're no where near that threshold, and that is blatantly obvious.

If you have been following the discussion (and odds are you haven't been) you would have seen where evidence was asked for and provided where taxes WERE in fact burdensome to the point of driving away businesses. You would also see that that is precisely the direction and tone advocated by many.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is no need to try and create artificial demand by doing something useless like that.

Our roads, bridges, railroads, etc. have all gone to hell.

Certainly you can put a good number of people to work for a good amount of time improving the American infrastructure which has largely been neglected for somewhat of a long time.

agreed, sadly so much tax money is wasted on stuff designed to buy votes that coming up with the money is going to be tough

 

[TurtleDude]

Facts...

We continue and have continued to spend billions actually trillions of dollars on social safety net and other programs to "give the poor more money"...

From increasing medicare (medicare part D.. can't have grandma deciding between meds and food), to increasing Medicaid, to cash for clunkers, expanding the earned income credit and stimulus checks...
d
and what HAS happened? The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

And it makes sense.. because the solution of giving the poor more of other peoples money does nothing to change the fundamental problem... which is wages and unemployment. So.. we spend trillions of dollars borrowing money to give to poor people.. that spend the money and it ends up where? In a rich persons bank account.

Who do you think has lobbied for all this spending on the poor? Do you REALLY think its the poor like Turtledude thinks? Do you REALLY think that the reason we spend billions upon billions on social welfare is because some welfare mom has the ear of the senate? You think that lady in walmart.. paying for her groceries with a welfare debit card, is being invited to a senators home to discuss economic policy?

Or is it the CEO of walmart.. that likes having profits go up every month on a certain date due to welfare spending, that's being invited to the Senators house to discuss economic policy? I can assure you that its the CEO.

Parties do what they do to maintain power. why do you think the Dems pander to the poor?

 

[TurtleDude]

It did work. We did it with the GI Bill in the 50s and built the American middle class from scratch. And then in the 80s, economic aristocrats took power and tried to reverse all that, and we're competing right now to continue with the aristocratic approach or go back to what was actually working, and do more of it.



Actually, the difference seems to be between the ego that thinks it has no limits, and the mind that understands reality. She knows that there is nothing she can do. She is homeless. And your whole argument here is the egotistical notion that you could do better in her position, if you were just as desperate as she. It's not a difference in belief. It's a lack of empathy and demonizing people who are struggling a lot harder than you are.



We're not taking care of the middle class, either. More and more, the lower and middle classes are blurring together. People working 50 hour weeks making $22 thousand a year before taxes are supposedly middle class. We're barely taking care of anyone who doesn't qualify for estate taxes.



Conflating "born poor" with "weak" and "inferior" is one of the most disgusting things the right wing does. That was the motivating notion behind fascism.



Even worse. He miserly hoards the cash he inherited from misers who inherited it from misers who inherited it from misers. He's a perfect example of the screwed up mentality that Vance is advocating. A person of incredibly average talent born into wealth is the right wing's idea of "exceptional". You are speaking with the George W Bush of DebatePolitics.



Because social safety nets don't provide a coddled life. They provide pretty much just enough to not starve or freeze.

blaming the successful for the failures of the poor is one of the most disgusting things the left wing does. Even worse is the disgusting fraud rich liberal elites do by pretending that their welfare-socialism is actually designed to help people get out of poverty and dependence. The last thing rich leftwing elites are going to do is to make the poor less dependent on the largesse of these liberal elites

 

[VanceMack]

It's been a great start, but only a start. A lot more is needed.



Even if this were true (it's not), what does?



It also worked really well here in the 30s with the creation of social security, and in the 50s with the GI Bill that created the middle class in the first place.

:lamo

'here' we have an ever increasing number of crippled dependent pets. 98 million people are no longer a part of the work force. They have quit...given up. Rolled over. Thats not decreasing...its increasing. These ideas of ever expanding social safety nets are really 'helping'. :roll:

 

[minnie616]

:lamo

'here' we have an ever increasing number of crippled dependent pets. 98 million people are no longer a part of the work force. They have quit...given up. Rolled over. Thats not decreasing...its increasing. These ideas of ever expanding social safety nets are really 'helping'. :roll:

Poverty in the US has fallen from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012.( latest stat)

 

[VanceMack]

blaming the successful for the failures of the poor is one of the most disgusting things the left wing does. Even worse is the disgusting fraud rich liberal elites do by pretending that their welfare-socialism is actually designed to help people get out of poverty and dependence. The last thing rich leftwing elites are going to do is to make the poor less dependent on the largesse of these liberal elites

Its sadly all too common It was put on display a few posts early with the comment about sperm envy. Thats just sad. Yes...be really 'righteous' that someone elses family was successful and handed that success down to future generations. But DONT own the fact that some people families are outright **** ups and have also handed THAT legacy down. No no...blame 'the rich guy'.

Cant speak for anyone else but I have overcome much and feel like I am just getting started. I have provided my kids opportunity...will CONTINUE to. I will provide my grandkids opportunity. I WANT them starting off on uneven footing with their peers. I WANT them starting off 4 and 5 steps up the ladder. My position...shame on those that dont. But thats on them.

 

[MTAtech]

:lamo

'here' we have an ever increasing number of crippled dependent pets. 98 million people are no longer a part of the work force. They have quit...given up. Rolled over. Thats not decreasing...its increasing. These ideas of ever expanding social safety nets are really 'helping'. :roll:

That "98 million people are no longer a part of the work force," is a zombie lie -- every time it is debunked, someone gets up and repeats it again.

ONCE AGAIN:
That number represents everyone over the age of 16 that isn't in the workforce -- whether they want to be or not. It includes, non-working stay-at-home parents; retirees, students, etc. In other words, most of those people aren't seeking a job and it's only purpose is to fool people into thinking the employment situation is worse than it really is.

Your number includes roughly 10 million high-school-age kids and 17.6 million Americans 75 and up. I didn't include students in college or graduate school; the disabled; the number of stay-at-home moms or playboys on yachts, since I don't have those figures.

 

[TurtleDude]

Its sadly all too common It was put on display a few posts early with the comment about sperm envy. Thats just sad. Yes...be really 'righteous' that someone elses family was successful and handed that success down to future generations. But DONT own the fact that some people families are outright **** ups and have also handed THAT legacy down. No no...blame 'the rich guy'.

Cant speak for anyone else but I have overcome much and feel like I am just getting started. I have provided my kids opportunity...will CONTINUE to. I will provide my grandkids opportunity. I WANT them starting off on uneven footing with their peers. I WANT them starting off 4 and 5 steps up the ladder. My position...shame on those that dont. But thats on them.

I agree. its fun watching people whose parents didn't make much effort for their children whining about those of us who do

 

[VanceMack]

Poverty in the US has fallen from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012.( latest stat)

Debt has continued to spiral out of control. We cant pay for the programs we offer. At some point...your kids or grandkids (assuming you have them) are going to get stuck with the check that they wont be able to pay. And to what end? When 37% of your labor force aged 16 and up have dropped completely out of the workforce, is that enough? When should we pop the cork and really celebrate...at 50%? 82 million are on medicaid. 151 million on government assistance NOT counting programs like EIC. Throw in a flood of illegal immigration, generations of college kids who accumulated a mountain of debt to earn foolish degrees that will ensure they stay nice and unemployable...

Oh yeah...this train is steaming all right...

 

[VanceMack]

I agree. its fun watching people whose parents didn't make much effort for their children whining about those of us who do

My 'parents' werent in my life. No sour grapes...thats life. But that was yesterday. I wont put my kids through that. It isnt easy..its HARD work and you have to work 2 and even 3 jobs sometimes. But thats how you change tomorrow. Hell...we have immigrants...illegal and otherwise that understand that. THEY manage. But not our poor dears. Its not FAIR that they might have to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Its not FAIR they dont get to have cable and internet.

And they think dumping cash on the POOR is the key to prosperity...:roll:

Meh...reap what you sow I reckon....

 

[VanceMack]

That "98 million people are no longer a part of the work force," is a zombie lie -- every time it is debunked, someone gets up and repeats it again.

ONCE AGAIN:
That number represents everyone over the age of 16 that isn't in the workforce -- whether they want to be or not. It includes, non-working stay-at-home parents; retirees, students, etc. In other words, most of those people aren't seeking a job and it's only purpose is to fool people into thinking the employment situation is worse than it really is.

Your number includes roughly 10 million high-school-age kids and 17.6 million Americans 75 and up. I didn't include students in college or graduate school; the disabled; the number of stay-at-home moms or playboys on yachts, since I don't have those figures.

No one is disputing any of that...nor does it CHANGE anything. That means we have THAT MANY PEOPLE dependent on others...whether they want to or not. That number includes kids that kind find minimum wage jobs at fast food restaurants because people have decided thats a viable career option. That doesnt change a thing re the FACTS. Fully 37% of the eligible work force do not work and that is an ever expanding number. Its also true the number of people on government assistance CONTINUES to climb as does the number of people on government health care, disability, etc.