Wanting the GOP to work for the average American person is a conflict of interest if there ever was one.What we need...and we need it quickly...is for the GOP Congress to quit their opposition to Trump and start working for the American people...but it's looking like they care more about hurting Trump than helping their voters.
Wanting the GOP to work for the average American person is a conflict of interest if there ever was one.
We went over this before didn't we Mach?They DO want to cut taxes for the wealthy to worsen wage stagnation. They wanted specifically to reduce government spending on low/middle class and the sick via the healthcare reform cuts, to then justify their tax cuts for the wealthy. That's not a partisan knock, that's what they tried. And if Trump's bungling helped derail that...
Probably disagreed then too!We went over this before didn't we Mach?
I mean what I wrote: "They wanted specifically to reduce government spending on low/middle class"1. Government spending even pegged to inflation is at an all time high. So how is that cuts for the middle? If you mean a changed priority maybe.
I usually write "ultra-wealthy", because I agree it is important that I'm not talking about $400K as the bracket to hit hardest. It's convenient for people earning millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, to be lumped in with professionals who work hard and went to school for 10 years and earn $400K+ in a dual income household. People earning $400K, $600K, etc., likely pay out the nose in taxes. Gives them a better chance of opposing tax cuts on themselves. Clearly targeting them with higher earnings brackets and specifically taxes that hit them including everything that Republicans want cut for the ultra-wealthy...capital gains, high finance on wall street claiming their incomes as LT cap gains, estate tax over a certain amount, etc.2. High bracket Income taxes do not affect "the wealthy" but rather high paid workers and small businesses
I should have use the caveat "anyone reasonable", I get a bit lazy with the qualifiers sometimes.
Here are two low hanging fruit describing wage stagnation:
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute
This one is interesting in that it's from a liberal think-tank, and suggests wage stagnation is not
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/.../2000331-Beyond-the-Wage-Stagnation-Story.pdf
They basically argue that standards of living have grown faster than wages, and wages have grown 1.1% (low but not stagnant), combining the two is not so tragic as some would make it seem.
Of course, Trump hasn't done much of anything other than run his mouth, and reluctantly sign what he claimed was an unconstitutional bill, that put sanctions on his beloved Mother Russia.
He DID try to cut health insurance for a lot of low/middle income folks, but even that stab at the little-guy was so far, a failure.
If he stays in office, he's got another 3+ years to do something. But let's be honest, based on his track record so far, I don't think most people still entertain that as likely or even possible.
We went over this before didn't we Mach?
1. Government spending even pegged to inflation is at an all time high. So how is that cuts for the middle? If you mean a changed priority maybe. It's however way over budget some 30-40% to begin with without flatten increased in spending economic growth can't balance the books so you'd be steering us to more drastic cuts later. You know it cost more to debt finance right?
2. High bracket Income taxes do not affect "the wealthy" but rather high paid workers and small businesses this is because low interest rates means most of the investment/capital gain income of the wealthy is debt factored and as such those returns are supplemented in ways direct employment can't, alternatively most established money is stowed in trust. So they are attacking limits on income mobility not the wealthy as you claim.
3. Reducing promised expansion when we are already over budget and greater than inflation rate are not cuts especially when we know currently obligations are set to increase for the next 15 years due to demographics not the mention higher rates of disability.
For starters, 9/11 was used as an excuse to double (more than double) DoD spending. We also got 2 shiny, new government agencies to make us "feel" safe - TSA and DHS. Then there's that shiny, unfunded liability called Medicare-D.
On top of those things, the GOP (they were in charge the whole time) cut taxes twice with now spending cut offsets.
Either all of that was necessary, and we shouldn't complain about spending/debt, or we should unwind all of them?
And after 9/11 you wanted to decrease spending on defense?
Wage stagnation is caused by lack of wage competition. Why should I pay an engineer $80K a year, when I can get an H2b visa employee for $50K? Architects routinely send plan revisions to India at 5 o' clock and have them in their in box when they return to work in the morning.
Also, retail is under great pressure from Amazon, so the cash flow is not there for raises. Then there is more automation. Why should I tell Miss Muffet at Mc Donalds what keys to push when I order a Big Mac Meal Deal. They can turn the machine around and I can do it myself, and she can be laid off and the store saves $15.00 and hour making me push my Big Mac Meal Deal button.
And if you have line around the block for a job opening, don't expect competition for wages when workers are begging for work. It should be the other way around.
That is called productivity.
There really are a lot of hidden or hard to see "benefits" aren't there? I agree, our ability to enjoy what we want, when we want it, is at an astounding high. It's so high, that I think in some areas it's literally at capacity, overflowing such that the more we add to it, we actually LOSE rather than gain. Think of the number of shows on the combined streaming media we have access to right now...more than any normal person can consume in a lifetime. Same with PC games. Online books. A liberal view would may be that if you could channel some of that excess into industries that really matter, like health care, via (taxes, incentives, whatever), we'd actually be *better off* in the long run, than just letting things run amok.That is interesting because that has largely been the conservative argument.
It is something I have been thinking about recently as well. While automation and immigration contribute to fewer jobs available and wage suppression the silver lining is that the cost of living goes down. Poor in America is substantially better than at any time in history and by current world standards American poor would largely be considered middle class. While there needs to be more balance between the wages and cost of living, the issue gets compounded because both sides have drastically different positions on how to fix it that usually conflict and make matters worse.
So far as I know less than 10% of the so-called journalists admit to be righties, so journalism getting this wrong generally cant be blamed on Right Thinking.
But they will join in the quest to divide rather than have a conversation.
Well let's see inflation adjusted 2000 -> 2016For starters, 9/11 was used as an excuse to double (more than double) DoD spending. We also got 2 shiny, new government agencies to make us "feel" Either all of that was necessary, and we shouldn't complain about spending/debt, or we should unwind all of them?
Here are two low hanging fruit describing wage stagnation:
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute
This one is interesting in that it's from a liberal think-tank, and suggests wage stagnation is not
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/.../2000331-Beyond-the-Wage-Stagnation-Story.pdf
They basically argue that standards of living have grown faster than wages, and wages have grown 1.1% (low but not stagnant), combining the two is not so tragic as some would make it seem.
Of course, Trump hasn't done much of anything other than run his mouth, and reluctantly sign what he claimed was an unconstitutional bill, that put sanctions on his beloved Mother Russia.
He DID try to cut health insurance for a lot of low/middle income folks, but even that stab at the little-guy was so far, a failure.
If he stays in office, he's got another 3+ years to do something. But let's be honest, based on his track record so far, I don't think most people still entertain that as likely or even possible.
Well let's see inflation adjusted 2000 -> 2016
2.03 trillion (today's $: 2.8) -> 3.26 Trillion or 16% more revenues for new spending
1.7 trillion (today's $: 2.4) -> 3.99 Trillion or 66% increase in new spending
So we don't need to unwind them completely but yes it's very clear there's room to grow if we let the current growth make up for the shortfall. We need a pause in growing government so we can be ready for the coming decades demographic shifts.
<br>And your post was an example of a thorough critique of something? Or was it simple-minded and lacking of any detail whatsoever? <br><br>And which article? The one that agreed wage stagnation was an issue, or the one that suggests wages aren't actually stagnant? Seems like your deep analysis is in your own mind.If you torture the data long enough, it will confess. That article has simple minded comparisons.
You're right, the so called journalists on the right don't even think wage stagnation is a problem, so there won't be any honesty about it.
There really are a lot of hidden or hard to see "benefits" aren't there? I agree, our ability to enjoy what we want, when we want it, is at an astounding high. It's so high, that I think in some areas it's literally at capacity, overflowing such that the more we add to it, we actually LOSE rather than gain. Think of the number of shows on the combined streaming media we have access to right now...more than any normal person can consume in a lifetime. Same with PC games. Online books. A liberal view would may be that if you could channel some of that excess into industries that really matter, like health care, via (taxes, incentives, whatever), we'd actually be *better off* in the long run, than just letting things run amok.
But another one along those lines that I would like to mention, this one's a bit out there but I think all economists say it all the time...globalization helps everyone.
We have been literally outsourcing jobs for decades, and investing money and training, year compounded after year, in a whole host of foreign countries. They have seen *incredible* growth in part, as a result of our investment in them. Fast forward to day, and while the average rural person doesn't necessarily put a high value on this...they do today have:
- access to higher skilled, lower cost labor abroad, than ever before
- if they visit or rely on any of these other nations for trade, security cooperation, etc., these nations are now better developed and more able to help the U.S., or even host us for foreign travel, etc.
- these other nations immigrants, since the have seen enormous education and job growth (industry expertise, not necessarily # of jobs), the immigrants we get from those nations are much more competitive and better educated (in theory).
- reduced costs for those products/services (or better bang for the buck)
In other words, even in the area of spending our jobs and and money overseas, we do see some benefits at home.
I see it more as Repulicans and Dems and libertarians push free trade.
Trump oddly doesn't..what demographic is that supported by...xenophobes? I mean, economists generally all agree that everyone wins...non partisan.
In any case, I think we can strike a balance between disputing our nation and our citizens too much with 100% free trade/outsourincg, and protectionism/unions. I have worked with Germans not too long ago and they were quite clear that their government forbids them using foreign contractors for more than very short term needs. Good for some German workers, bad for everyone a little...where is that balance? I think in the U.S. since we have almost no private unions and very loose labor laws...we should compensate some with mild protections on supporting U.S. business.
Trump loved to criticize the new job numbers under Obama by calling them "bad jobs" because they were primarily low wage, service sector positions. The new numbers under Trump are not much different. Wages continue to stagnate and he cannot fulfill any real economic promise to his middle class supporters without real solutions to this problem.
We have been working on that problem for over 40 years, and yet the geniuses still dont understand the problem....dont make the mistake of holding your breath for a solution.
Nor waiting for the so-called journalists to be honest about it....there is an impeachment to get done.
I am with you a few huge messes were made now. I would add Obamacare although a nice sentiment to a real problem (verse the political trend to chase phantoms) has made things a little worse throwing fuel on a fire (not that these "republican" replacements are looking even a degree better albeit perhaps more realistic)... There is no doubt though the neo-con social engineering pet projects of "war on drugs" and "war on terror" costs both societal and the budgetary many factors higher than social spending issues.On the surface, this all sounds reasonable.
I think we actually need to reconsider our priorities as a country. Do we want/need to try to remake the world in our image? In other words - neoconservatism? I don't want that. A little 'policing the world' by a superpower like the U.S. is unavoidable, but we don't need to do it all ourselves, or allow our own citizens to suffer as we spend blood and treasure on that exercise.
The neocons took the reins after 9/11 and made a mess. There isn't a thing they did that worked out well.
Obama pulled back to an extent, but there are obvious places he pulled back too much. We need sane leadership, and Trump? We are in for rough ride.
It is rather interesting the switch on free trade. That has been a long held principle of those on the Right yet now the Left and Democrats are picking it up as Trump seems to be leading the Republican party away from it.
The message I heard from the left was, 'the jobs aren't coming back, get used to it. Either go back to school and earn a tech degree, or shut up'. Then the illegal H1B flood of people dramatically lowered those wages too. Republicans aren't much better on the issue, in fact, they're probably worse.
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?