• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth distribution


I really don't - it's you who is pointing to votes in Congress by democrats as evidence of what "liberals" believe, but you're insisting that I ignore what GOPers do and listen to your version of what it means to be a conservative. I'm just asking for the same courtesy.

solutions that we all could probably agree to if we stopped the ideology fights... but that's not going to happen as long as liberals continue to hold onto their ideology.
Click to expand...

LOL, so we need to stop the ideology fights, and that means liberals quit believing what they do and adopt adopt conservative views, like yours! Very funny. I'll strike that up as a not well thought out comment and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

That trade deficit you quoted is for one month - annualized it's $580 billion per year. I think the annual is closer to $40 billion per month, or $480 billion per year but I couldn't find the number quickly.
 
JasperL said:
That trade deficit you quoted is for one month - annualized it's $580 billion per year. I think the annual is closer to $40 billion per month, or $480 billion per year but I couldn't find the number quickly.
Click to expand...

Also the trade deficit is not the only mechanism by which demand can leak. Over the past 40 years, we have seen wage stagnation for almost all Americans but wages surging forward for the wealthiest among us. This has increased the rate of demand leakage as a function of the economy from personal savings.
 
It's a cop out to point out no one is making the argument you're attributing to liberals? LOL.
Click to expand...

Yes...and you know it. LOL\


No.. because there are liberal republicans, (in fact that's what we mostly have), moderate republicans and conservative republicans in congress. Democrats on the other hand are either liberal or moderate.. there are not any (at least that I can think of) conservative democrats in congress. Sorry but you would need to claim that Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and Obama are "conservatives" or even moderates.. and there is no way that flies. They are liberals.


Ahhh but yes it is... lets take your example.. Lets say that economic forces increase inequality by 10x per year.. and you contend that transfer payments correct for some of those forces.. lets say 4 x per year..

WELL.. IF I increase transfer payments in that example.. then the amount of inequality should REDUCE and trend down.. as the increase in transfer payments increase.. but they don;t.. we have been increasing transfer payments.. i.e. expanding government programs like Medicaid, Obamacare subsidies, Medicare part D, and increased the earned income credit to the point where people receive a net income from the governmnet and yet inequality INCREASED.

Blows your equation out of the water.


Well the reality would be that probably inequality would probably not stay the same.. it would decrease as a result. And that's because the amount drop in the amount that is received by the poor would be less than the drop received by the wealthy in many of these programs. Thus inequity would be reduced. Of course people would be hurting.. but inequity would be less.


And that's because we are in a discussion of wealth distribution..I have already made many many suggestions.. all of which have been proposed at various times that would improve healthcare access. By the way.. we have great access to healthcare.

single payer would decrease healthcare access for the majority of the population.

I would like someone to explain to me how they can be in principle against free movement of capital across borders but against free movement of people.
Click to expand...

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone except a die hard libertarian that is for truly "FREE" trade.. almost all folks believe in regulated trade. Even trump.. I haven't heard him claim that we need to open our borders to a heroin trade...

By the way.. I am not a believer in free trade either. I believe in fair trade. As are all conservatives.

However, I see no problem with someone believing in free trade and not free immigration. they are two different things with different ramifications.

You are creating a strawman to avoid the debate.

As far as "moving a plant to Mexico or China or allowing 500 immigrants into the US" and you don;t see a difference then you are a fool. If a company can move a plant to Mexico or China.. then they will do it.. because its going to be VASTLY cheaper than keeping a company in the us even with allowing 500 immigrants in.
 

Well do you claim that the democrats in Congress are all conservatives? You have a choice.. conservative, liberal or moderate. And I think you are going to have a hard time labeling Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, etc.. as "conservative" :lamo

I am not asking you to ignore what GOPers do... most of them are liberal as well.

LOL, so we need to stop the ideology fights, and that means liberals quit believing what they do and adopt adopt conservative views, like yours! Very funny. I'll strike that up as a not well thought out comment and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Actually yes. That is a very well thought out comment. Conservatives.. real conservatives have a common sense view. Which is why real conservatism plays well in America.. not the right wing liberal view that is often portrayed as "conservative".. which it is not.
 
JasperL said:
That trade deficit you quoted is for one month - annualized it's $580 billion per year. I think the annual is closer to $40 billion per month, or $480 billion per year but I couldn't find the number quickly.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right. I searched for yearly trade deficit and it gave me that number, in a number of places.. but you are right.. so my point there is wrong.
 

Very true.. but you don;t want to address that wage stagnation.. you want to punish the wealthy without a regard to wage stagnation.

Tell me.. how many liberals are vehemently against illegal immigration? Or are liberals more likely to have haven cities for illegal immigrants.

Now.. tell me.. when you have more people coming in for fewer jobs, and those people are working in many cases in violation of our wage and labor laws.. how can you not believe that illegal immigration contributes to wage stagnation.
 

Things like tying the minimum wage to inflation and securing union rights would help fight against wage stagnation! They don't punish the wealthy, they rebalance the system.

Illegals are given amnesty under both parties presidential candidates. That's not a democrat only issue.
 

OK, your ideological blinders are showing when you basically insist there are no moderate democrats in Congress but most republicans in Congress are liberal republicans. Give me a break.

I'll just say that views you're attributing to "liberals" are views that I've never heard liberals support, and I do happen to listen to and read them on a regular basis. But I do get a kick out of conservatives telling me what liberals believe. "Higher marginal rates will END INEQUALITY!!!" LMAO. Priceless stuff. :roll:

Ahhh but yes it is... lets take your example.. Lets say that economic forces increase inequality by 10x per year.. and you contend that transfer payments correct for some of those forces.. lets say 4 x per year..
Click to expand...

So what? You're ignoring the other forces affecting inequality, making some arbitrary but unstated assumption that these other forces affecting inequality are constant or increasing at a rate less than the impact of transfer payments, and therefore if transfer payments go up and inequality also goes up, then transfer payments have no effect! QED. It's bogus.


I'm sorry but that makes no sense, as in I don't understand at all how that math can possibly work. You'll have to restate it somehow.


"Fair" trade means nothing that I know of - like "fair" taxation. So, we know you're against Mexicans crossing our borders to work in the U.S., so what limits would you favor on goods manufactured in Mexico coming back to the U.S.? Tariffs, quotas, manufacturing conditions imposed on foreign plants that mirror U.S. standards for pollution, workplace safety? Anything?

However, I see no problem with someone believing in free trade and not free immigration. they are two different things with different ramifications.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are differences, obviously. But what has a larger impact on wages in the US?

1) 12 million illegals and millions more legal immigrants, doing a lot of low skill, low value added jobs that will never pay middle class wages?

2) That manufacturers here in the U.S. are "competing" against BILLIONs of workers in China, India, etc. making a fraction of the wages, no environmental rules to speak of, no work place safety rules, etc. so 10s and thousands of plants, millions of jobs, many of them outstanding jobs with good pay, excellent benefits, high value added, at least semi if not highly skilled labor like plumbers, machinists, machine operators, designers, all the directly related white collar jobs - management accountants, VPs, etc.- have been moved overseas.

IMO the bigger impact is #2 and it's not close.

And if you can't move the plants to the developing world, move people from the developing world here - what's the difference in the impact?

You are creating a strawman to avoid the debate.
Click to expand...

I made several arguments, many of them you ignored, twice. I'm not avoiding debate, I am perhaps making points you don't agree with, which is different.


Yeah, I see a difference, and IMO moving the 500 employee plant has a FAR bigger negative impact than allowing 500 workers into the U.S. That was my point. But in both cases, there are 500 people without a job. You're only focusing on immigration. Makes no sense.
 

Well, an example close to my heart is entire accounting departments are now being offshored to India. How can you not believe that offshoring 10s of thousands of good paying white collar jobs contributes to wage stagnation?

How can you not believe that offshoring millions and millions of good paying production jobs to China doesn't contribute to wage stagnation?

How can you not believe that the nearly complete private sector demise of the traditional vehicle for increasing the bargaining power of average workers (unions) does not contribute to wage stagnation, when each worker individually negotiates with behemoths?

Etc.

But I'll answer your question about liberals and illegal immigration. Frankly, if you read liberals, you'd know that there is not in fact unanimous support for more immigration, illegal or legal. But what a lot of liberals understand is a big part of the problem with Mexican immigration (I'll address this but it's just one example) is we signed NAFTA, cheap and heavily government subsidized corn grown in the U.S. flooded into Mexico and destroyed 10s of thousands of family farms in Mexico, leaving entire families without an income. The proper policy response to that is not simple. Should we say, "f em, let em starve!" or allow a relief valve into the country that destroyed all those jobs? It's tough. We don't have to guess that $billions earned in American went back to Mexico to support entire famlies who had no other income.

Furthermore, the illegals are here because 10s of thousands of employers like you OFFERED THEM JOBS, no question asked! We laid out a red carpet for these people, really invited them here, and the people doing it were ones with lots of power. So should I be more against "illegal immigration" or "illegal employers" who jumped at the chance for cheap, hard working and disposable labor, the people with power driving this train in the U.S. or the powerless? I'll pick the employers for $100, Bob!

Same thing with so-called sanctuary cities. These are people we invited here. Should we treat them like vermin because they're 'illegal' or treat them like human beings who deserve respect? I'll pick the latter.

Point is you're reducing complex problems to grade school level talking points. It's not persuasive.
 
jaeger19 said:
No I have not misinterpreted or misunderstood your arguments and others as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have. For one, nobody is calling for "more, more, MORE" deficit spending. Deficit spending, if you truly understood my argument, needs to be big enough to close the demand gap, and not so big that it would swamp the economy's ability to meet demand.


You haven't spent one second on statistical analysis and we both know it. Don't even try that with me. You are a seat-of-the-pants arguer if ever there was one. If you need proof of this, ask yourself how, after debating economics for so long here, were you not aware that the ballpark size of our annual trade deficit was about half a trillion dollars? That is one of those numbers that anybody halfway familiar with our economy has at their fingertips, just like the approximate size of our GDP or our national debt.


Let's say you had an unemployed son that you were sending money to. You send him $1000/month, but his expenses are $1500/month. By your reasoning, your $1000 checks correlate to his going further and further into debt. Which brings you to the conclusion that your spending doesn't help him, and might even be the cause of his debt. Which is, of course, ridiculous. In this case, you just aren't sending him enough. If you sent him $1700/month, he would not be going further into debt; in fact, he would be getting out of any debt that he was in. Of course, when I try to point out that there is a measurable amount of money flowing out of our economy (through leakages), you call the idea bogus. But there is a proper amount we need to be spending.

jaeger19 said:
HOLY CRAP batman.. why our demand leakage is 48.3 billion dollars... that's why we are spending 439 Billion dollars. ALMOST 10X the amount of money in deficit to "demand leakage"..
Click to expand...

Holy crap, indeed. Jasper and Absentglare already caught you on your gigantic error, which makes the rest of your post laughably incorrect, so I won't belabor the point, except to ask, does this change your mind about demand leakages? No? Didn't think so.

And as Absentglare pointed out - our trade deficit isn't the only source of demand leakage. (But it is the easiest to understand, which is why I focus on it.) There is also domestic savings (which includes the savings of banks and corporations) that is not turned around and spent on domestic production.

There is an accounting identity that holds true, every single year; govt. deficit/surplus = net imports/exports + net domestic saving. If the govt. runs a balanced budget, and we run our usual $500 billion trade deficit, then $500 billion must flow out of the domestic sector to our overseas trading partners. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you don't believe in demand leakage, I might as well be trying to convince a Christian that God does not exist.
 

Until we find out that next year, the equation is 11x - 4.1x ... and the following year its 11.8x - 4.3x ... followed by 12.6x - 4.6x ... then 13x - 4.8x ... Dammit!! we keep spending more, but inequality keeps increasing!! Let's just stop all spending.



I'm confused, let's review ... " ... the amount drop in the amount that is received by the poor .. " so, the size of the reduction paid to the poor, " ... would be less than the drop received by the wealthy ... " would be less than the size of the reduction paid to the wealthy. So, .... somehow, the elimination of SNAP, food stamps, TANF and the EITC is going to reduce a wealthy person's income by a larger number than it will reduce a poor person's income. Which will reduce inequality. Except for SS, the wealthy don't receive money from many programs designed to help the poor. And I don't know how you expect that a wealthy person would lose more from the loss of these programs than a poor person.
 

In the past, his argument has been, "all the money ends up with the rich, so all the money that the government gives to the poor just goes to the rich in the end. So we should give less to the poor." Of course, he's not taking into consideration that that money feeds both the poor (literally) and the economy (figuratively) as it trickles up to the rich.

This only makes sense if you believe that all money effectively makes the circuit from ownership to labor and back again, in a neverending cycle with a steady equilibrium that is only disturbed by government intervention. (And immigration.)
 

If he realizes that the money given to the poor ends up back in the hands of the rich, then he should be able to make the leap that if you stop giving money to the poor, they won't have money to give back to the rich, and the rich would stop having income and the economy would tank all around.
 

Minimum wage does not address any fundamental problems. And minimum wage has gone up with inflation since its inception (the last raise 2007) and 29 states have HIGHER minimum wages than the federal minimum.. and yet wage stagnation continues. Tying the minimum wage to inflation will do little if nothing to decrease wage stagnation.

Securing union rights? To some degree this will help in removing some of the laws in right to work states. or in certain industries that fall under onerous union laws.. (like fed ex).

However, yes.. illegals have been given amnesty under both parties. However, currently.. the republican party wants to reduce illegal immigration and control and reduce legal immigration. The democrat party is creating haven cities. So right now.. it IS a democrat only issue.
 

Just FYI, by all indications, FedEx itself is the one lobbying for the laws enabling them to keep the union out of their business. It's not like FedEx is trying to get a union to represent their employees and the big bad gov't won't allow them to do so.
 

You'll forgive me if I don't buy the GOP rhetoric on immigration until I see it in action. Their actions on the immigration issue doesn't match their rhetoric, at least at the national level. And it's only a democrat-only issue because there is a democrat in the WH and he's presided over the least net illegal immigration in decades - flat or perhaps negative, versus the roughly 500,000 per year for the 10-15 years before that. He's not slowed deportations, spending at the border, border agents, etc. If you want to compare the numbers for Obama and Bush II, be my guest.

And the "democrat" [sic] party isn't creating safe haven cities. Some cities are creating safe haven cities, and if you'd like to discuss why they might do that, it's a different discussion.
 
OK, your ideological blinders are showing when you basically insist there are no moderate democrats in Congress but most republicans in Congress are liberal republicans.
Click to expand...
Again.. are you claiming that your "corporate" democrats.. like Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, Boxer.. are "moderates?". sorry but they are certainly not.
And please.. I listen a lot to liberals and liberal media.. and when they talk about reducing AND ending inequality.. usually the first thing out of their mouth is "higher taxes".

From huffington post:

Can We Fix Income Inequality?

Would you like to me to continue with how to fix inequity? From liberal media?

So what? You're ignoring the other forces affecting inequality, making some arbitrary but unstated assumption that these other forces affecting inequality are constant or increasing at a rate less than the impact of transfer payments, .
Click to expand...

no.. I am not ignoring it. You are ignoring the fact that after decades of spending and increases in spending. And increases in government programs.. inequity has increased. and steadily. YOU are making the assumption that the forces affecting inequality are constantly increasing at a rate GREATER than the spending increases. That's your assumption.. whats a bigger assumption.. that the forces that are pushing inequity are changing.. which mean that inequity would be reduced when the forces are less and yet spending is increased? or your assumption that the forces that are driving inequity are constantly increasing and always at a rate that's greater than the increase in spending?
Sorry man but you are making a much greater assumption.. Like a snake oil salesman that when confronted with why his snake oil doesn;t work.. states "well you of course need MORE of it".

I'm sorry but that makes no sense, as in I don't understand at all how that math can possibly work. You'll have to restate it somehow
Click to expand...
.

Okay.. when welfare is given to people.. the amount of benefit in total dollars to the wealthy is greater than the total dollars that the welfare recipient gets. That's because it takes money to administer that money to welfare folks. In addition.. the money that goes to the welfare person ultimately ends up in the hands of a wealthy person since saving is quite limited in the welfare population.

So.. when you eliminate welfare.. you most likely eliminate a larger amount in total dollars to the wealthy than you do the welfare recipient.

Fair" trade means nothing that I know of - like "fair" taxation. So, we know you're against Mexicans crossing our borders to work in the U.S., so what limits would you favor on goods manufactured in Mexico coming back to the U.S.? ?
Click to expand...
Hmm lets see. I would start with a labeling program for agriculture so that any food products or produce that was produced in any country that had a lower standard of food safety than the US its country of origin must be labeled. I mean how is it I know where my shoes were manufactured, my toothbrush manufacture if out of the US.. but I have no idea whether the food that I put in my childrens mouths this morning was from a country as stringent as the US or from a country where pesticides illegal in the US are used routinely?

And if mexico.. or Canada for that matter wish to protest and put further tariffs on US goods.. so be it.. we can retaliate and see who is standing at the end.
 
Sure, there are differences, obviously. But what has a larger impact on wages in the US?
Click to expand...

That's pretty easy.. its :

1) 12 million illegals and millions more legal immigrants, doing a lot of low skill, low value added jobs that will never pay middle class wages?
Click to expand...

That has a bigger impact in real terms than going to china because countries that are able to go to china WILL... the us simply cannot compete as you say with cents on the dollar wages. So companies that are manufacturing overseas are gone.. and probably aren;t coming back to much of a degree. So the real impact and one that can change is the millions of illegal and legal immigrants who are doing low, medium and highly skilled jobs that pay low and middle class wages. A good example is the number of contractors in my area that are illegal. they get paid relatively good wages to do work on houses, concrete work etc.. but those wages are way less than what it costs for a contractor that obeys the laws.

And if you can't move the plants to the developing world, move people from the developing world here - what's the difference in the impact?
Click to expand...

If you can't move plants to the developing world.. why let those countries then pay developing world wages? According to your theory we should then get rid of minimum wage altogether.

Is that what you are proposing? Somehow I think not.

of course it makes sense. Because how are you planning on keeping a company from moving a 500 employee plant to Mexico where they pay pennies on the dollar?
Have little environmental regulations? Those companies are gone.. its the way it is. UNLESS you are willing to remove all minimum wage from US companies, are willing to remove almost all regulatory costs.. like EPA regulations. Are you ready to do that? Is that your answer?

Somehow I doubt that's your solution.. I would bet that you understand that we have basic laws in this nation that make us a better country.. things like minimum wage, things like having environmental regulations that keep the water for my cows safe to drink from the chemical plant up river.
SO WHY.. would you contend that we should allow illegal immigration, and even legal immigration that undermines those laws. WHY would you contend that we need to import MORE workers into fields like engineering or computers when we already have US students waiting for jobs?
 

I'll just note that there are SEVEN proposals in that linked article, and nowhere does anyone claim that higher taxes alone will "end" inequality. So you proved my point. If you want to debate what the meaning of "fix" is I'll pass. The point is there are complex reasons for rising inequality and the answers will be complex. I don't know any serious liberal anywhere who makes the simplistic proposals you mention or pretends that those proposals if enacted will "end" any problem. They are steps in the right direction.


OK, so again, if spending has no effect on inequality, if we end all the social spending (SS, Medicare, EITC, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) that inequality will stay the same or get BETTER? Give me a break, the transfer payments obviously ameliorate some of the problems of rising inequality by lifting the floor for the poor. They're not enough to overcome the massive factors elsewhere. And you can't prove anything by doing simple correlations - you know very well that correlation doesn't prove causation. You have to independently evaluate the spending, and determine the effect of the spending.

For example, EITC raises the wage floor for working Americans - increases their take home pay. That's a good thing and reduces the problems of inequality. If you disagree, make the argument that EITC has no effect. But you can't point to increases in EITC and say it has no effect because the difference between the poor and the CEO class has widened because that total gap is mostly due to changes with CEO pay and wealth and those changes dwarf the meager changes in the income of the working class as a result of EITC.


Well, some of it eventually trickles up to the elites, obviously, but it might go in the hands of a local grocery, a farmer, some little clothes shop, whatever, who pay a bunch of other workers, etc. I guess it's possible what you're saying over the long term but you've come nowhere near even posing the question correctly much less demonstrating that your answer is correct. It would depend on a dozen factors, seems to me, and we know none of them sitting here.

So.. when you eliminate welfare.. you most likely eliminate a larger amount in total dollars to the wealthy than you do the welfare recipient.
Click to expand...

That's an empirical claim that requires empirical proof and it's ultimately beside the point, since as you suggest even if "inequality" is increased, the real living standards of the poor falls terribly and might cause immense suffering.


OK, I agree!
 
Imperium populi said:
I am for wealth distribution,
Click to expand...

Every human being is. The question is whether by capitalism or socialism. Since socialism slowly starved 120 million very human souls to death it seems a poor choice.
 
JasperL said:
You'll forgive me if I don't buy the GOP rhetoric on immigration until I see it in action. .
Click to expand...

Its not coincidence that Trump is a huge Republican( not a Democrat) because he wants to build a wall and stop illegal immigration while Democrats oppose and instead are happy to vote for amnesty and path to citizenship because when the illegals become legal they block vote Democratic. It does not bother Democrats that illegals have taken 20 million of our jobs and are driving down our wages .
 

Question.. where have I ever stated that the offshoring of jobs has not affected wages? Please point to where I have EVER EVER stated that.

Question: where have I stated.. ever ever where the decrease in union power has not decreased wages? Oh wait.. is it those posts where I stated that the decrease in union negotiation has stagnated wages?

Geez Louis.. this is so typical of your arguments. When you realize that you are losing the debate.. you ascribe positions to me that I don;t have.. .. and then later you will adopt my actual positions and claim I disagree with them.

And your answer for liberals and illegal immigration is BS. When we signed nafta.. American jobs went to mexico.. thousands of dollars have been invested from the us into mexico. As far as corn flooding the market ruining family farms.. well you might want to check that since Mexico produces largely white corn while Americans produce largely yellow corn. AND under NAFTA.. the growing of corn in Mexico increased.. as has the export of agricultural products to the US has tripled under NAFTA.
The Economist notes that despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have tripled since NAFTA's implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize
Click to expand...

The problem with Mexican farms is that there were very small and inefficient (corn requires lots of water, land and intensive farming to be efficient) yet they continued to grow corn because of government subsidies.

Meanwhile mexico has benefited from increases in manufacturing jobs and a 68 billion dollar or so trade surplus with the US...

And what conservative republican supported and Signed NAFTA into place? Oh that's right. BILL CLINTON.. the conservative :roll:

Sorry but your.. "we need to undermine US jobs with illegal immigrants because NAFTA is bad for mexico".. is just a bunch of Bunk. Heck if there is a winner in this.. ITS MEXICO.

NAFTA turns 20: Mexico is pact's biggest winner - Canada - CBC News

And yes.. illegals are here because they were offered jobs.. yep. and the only way to solve the immigration problem is to target those employers that break the law. I personally am ALL FOR THAT.. because I compete against employers that are willing and able to break the law and get away with it.

And then you liberals go and decide that we need sanctuary cities where the LAWS GOVERNING EMPLOYERS ARE NOT ENFORCED.


The real point is.. I understand the complex problem and understand the solutions. You sir.. want to ignore the problems and focus on your ideology. So you worry about jobs going overseas hurting wages.. but don;t seem to care that illegal immigrants ALSO hurts wages.. so rather than do something constructive to improve the lot of American citizens.. you would rather do nothing and cry about it.
 

Amazing how you crawfish when you get trapped. But anyway.. deficit spending does not have to close the "demand gap".


Nice try. But I understand statistical analysis way way way.. more than you do. How did I not understand our annual trade deficit was about a half a trillion dollars? Its called typing between patients. Not because I don't understand correlation, regression analysis, P values, etc. (things I doubt you have ever dealt with)... Now John.. you better hang onto my mistake with both hands. In fact.. I encourage you to put it on some post or place so you can pull it up... because it doesn;t happen often.. in fact its an extremely rare event as I am sure you are very very aware.

Point being.. everything I said about correlation statistics was correct and blew your premise to dust. but you got a nice try at a diversion.

Let's say you had an unemployed son that you were sending money to. You send him $1000/month, but his expenses are $1500/month. By your reasoning, your $1000 checks correlate to his going further and further into debt
Click to expand...

Actually statistically it would NOT correlate to going further into debt. That's because the 1000 dollars would remain flat.. so as a variable it would be unchanged.. yet the variable of debt would increase over time.

Which brings you to the conclusion that your spending doesn't help him, and might even be the cause of his debt.
Click to expand...

it would not bring me to that conclusion based on the above. It would say that my spending was NOT IMPROVING his situation.

Now.. if I have more data.. like I started giving him MORE money.. and yet his debt increased.. and more money.. and his debt increased.. and more money and his debt increased.. and mnore money and his debt increased and more money and his debt increased. There would be a positive correlation that the more money spent.. the greater the debt. that may be causal .. that may not be.. but what would be pretty evident is that the more money spent was not IMPROVING HIS SITUATION.

.

John.. yet again.. you don't understand. Yes.. I understand what you are saying.. What I am saying that's its invalid. SO WHAT? SO WHAT?

You realize that our government spending is over 3.8 trillion. with a deficit of 468 billion. Our GDP is roughly 17 trillion. We have 8 trillion in savings roughly. that's not even calculating the amount of new money created each year by banks loaning money.

So I'll tell you what John.. you explain exactly how if we balance the budget next year.. I won't be able to pay my employees. then tell me how if we balance the budget for 20 years I won't be able to pay my employees and my business will die as all other American businesses die. And explain how countries that are pumping goods into our country are going to keep up that trade deficit.. while our businesses and people have less money to buy their products?.

I am all ears.






but holy crap
 

Yep. Of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…