- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,183
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, with every post of yours I see I realize how fortunate I was to get a degree and actually get out in the real world dealing with real people, hiring, firing, and yes promoting good hard working people rather than having my nose buried in a textbook. I guess getting beat is all in the definition. I will put my resume and results up against yours any day
What should be done about it is get rid of liberal feel good policies that create dependence not successful growth. Tough love is going to be needed and not sure that the public is ready for that. Return ALL social programs except the ones already forced on the American people(SS and Medicare) to the states where they belong. Return the Federal Govt. to its original intent, to defend and protect this country. Social programs should all be at the state and local level.
The microeconomics of middle and lower class Americans feeding their family are the worst they've been in nearly 75 years.
and that will raise wages for people making minimum or slightly better, how again?
Moving social welfare programs from the federal to the state governments would just move the problem from one government to another.
Instead, how about:
Making policy that people who work should be better off than people who don't?
Providing training for people who want to take on better paying jobs at a cost they can afford to pay?
Getting the cost of health care off of the backs of the employers?
Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens?
Seems to me that would do more to help the lower socioeconomic people move up the ladder than simply moving their government benefits from the federal to the state level.
It also seems to me that, absent the stronger economy that exists today as opposed to six years ago, no programs are going to help anyone.
Changes occur with far less difficulty at the state/local level; one big driving factor is that they cannot simply print or endlessly borrow money required to fund them. Many states simply view these federal funds as "free money" being pumped into their state's economy. State/local elected officials don't tend to win (or lose) elections based on federal tax, spending and borrowing policy - congress critters enjoy a 90%+ re-election rate so they just don't really care about making changes to that which is clearly working to keep most of them in office.
There is no need to get personal. That you lose your cool and resort to uncivil responses shows you are here strictly to partisan foot stomp!
Sorry, but I am totally cool, no malice at all, just logic, common sense, and facts.
I am a partisan American who understands the foundation upon which this country was built and it wasn't the liberal foundation nor what today's Democrat Party stands for. I grew up a JFK Democrat so please tell me what Democrat today represents JFK's economic values?
and that will raise wages for people making minimum or slightly better, how again?
Moving social welfare programs from the federal to the state governments would just move the problem from one government to another.
Instead, how about:
Making policy that people who work should be better off than people who don't?
Providing training for people who want to take on better paying jobs at a cost they can afford to pay?
Getting the cost of health care off of the backs of the employers?
Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens?
Seems to me that would do more to help the lower socioeconomic people move up the ladder than simply moving their government benefits from the federal to the state level.
It also seems to me that, absent the stronger economy that exists today as opposed to six years ago, no programs are going to help anyone.
Your post history contradicts this self-description.
Wrong thread!
:lol:
Do explain in greater detail!
Wrong interpretation by you and symbolic of your mindset.
Logic and common sense from a street smart person will always trump your book smart beliefs.
Facts show the failures of liberalism as does the current 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with most of that in entitlement spending.
That philosophy was tried the last time we had an economic collapse. It is referred to as the great depression. There was no safety net then, no government pumping money into the economy, no one being "coddled", just neighbor helping neighbor. Oh, yes, and people were hungry and more than willing to work.Pretty simple, hungry people work and those who work for minimum wage for a long period of time need to stop being coddled and forced to realize there are consequences for poor performance and no economic growth. The way to help lower socioeconomic people is to not provide them with a safety net for life but rather let neighbor help neighbor with that neighbor not being the Federal Taxpayers.
The economic ignorance today is staggering as far too many people think with their hearts and not their brain. Moving the problem to the state and local government is exactly what our Founders wanted, govt. closer to the people. You think a Federal Bureaucrat in D.C. gives a damn about a problem in Boise, Idaho? Better believe that Representative from Boise, Idaho does
A strong economy depends on people having more spendable income not the govt. pumping billions into it. It requires giving people incentive to grow and become entrepreneurs, take risk, and be rewarded for that risk taking, not channeling their hard work and efforts to others.
Wages and median incomes are falling.
Job creation is a sick joke.
Welfare claims are at an all-time high.
Home values are getting back to where they were pre-recession, which is good if you're a baby boomer who owns a home but a catastrophe if you're a millennial whose going to need to buy one soon.
Inflation is out of control (if you look at REAL all-item inflation rather than the slight-of-hand CPI prices are rising at closer to 10% per year than the CPI's 1% to 2%).
The offshoring of manufacturing jobs is continuing at a steady rate and the offshoring of service jobs continues to increase.
You don't know me, and yet in a thread about GDP you made multiple remarks regarding your superiority.
Just because i understand the terminology and employ actual analysis of varies data releases in no way renders my position inferior. That you embrace anti-intellectualism only serves as fault in your credibility.
Your opposition is entirely partisan. I get it, you don't do economics. That surely not a valid reason to ridicule those that do!
Textbook economics measure results only and never measure human behavior nor put results into context with human behavior. GDP has four major components with the largest being consumer spending and that is totally ignored by the leftwing but the reality today is we do have more people dependent on that Federal Govt. than ever before and that is a prescription for disaster. The solution certainly isn't to make it bigger.
Categorizing on the basis of textbook vs real is red herring. You are attempting to shift the discussion from the topic to a venue for ideological mud-slinging. Not interested in such futile engagements.
You don't do economics. You bitch, moan, and rant. Calling it "real economics" doesn't change anything.
No, what I am doing is humanizing is, something I fear you do not understand. Have you ever run a business? Ever had to hire or fire people? Any idea what it is like to interview someone to represent you that shows up looking the way many of the kids today look? How much should those people be paid? Long hair, holes in the jeans, earrings, an I don't give a damn attitude? Ever invest your own money in a business and have those kind of people representing you
Do you ever think of the consequences for your actions when it comes to earning a paycheck? Does the entitlement mentality really benefit the employer and the individual?
You focus on numbers and not the people behind the numbers. You claim that unemployment is dropping whereas the official rate is indeed dropping but that is due to a large growth in part time workers.
You claim expenses should be adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes but ignore that revenue grows as well but will never keep up with the liberal spending appetite.
You are right, I don't DO economics, I live them every day
But why?
Unit labor costs are increasing!
Normative rant and nothing else.
Even if we concede this point, we should expect welfare claims to increase as the country ages and the population grows.
Another normative rant!
This is nonsense.
Maybe you should study up on basic microeconomic trade theory before spouting off at the mouth. It would save quite a bit of time for everyone you engage, along with yourself!
You know that's what you're arguing, right?
Have a nice day dude.
Hilarious...since most of the "left" who know a little about macro argue from the Keynes POV....which is all about demand.....and you are a suppy-sider!...GDP has four major components with the largest being consumer spending and that is totally ignored by the leftwing...
Yes. Excuses. Partisans will be partisan.Excuses?
So then you never blamed Obama for a bad or struggling economy? You never criticize for deficit spending or any of his economic policies?I love correlation vs. causation fallacy's from apologists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?