Who Has the Courage to Get Our Budget in Order?

[imagep]

Well and there you go.

So you say percentages matter... well you just proved my point... today's poor and middle class are getting a smaller percentage of the wealth.. you know your Zero sum distribution..

they are getting a smaller percentage than they did 100 years ago.

SO.. .would you rather have a better percentage of the pie 100 years ago.. and have a lower standard of living

Or would you rather have a lower percentage of the pie.. but more actual money and a higher standard of living.

That's why your Zero sum distribution is meaningless.

You totally missed my explanation of why increasing income disparity results in a smaller pie.


As income pools in the hands of the 1%, then less is available for the 99%. The 99% necessarally spend less, thus demand isn't as high as it could be, and businesses don't expand and hire as many employees as they could, if there was less income disparity.

When we have people who desire to work but can't work because we aren't creating enough jobs, then our pie can't grow as fast as it otherwise could. Unemployment represents economic ineffieciency.

 

[Ockham]

No, not really. It's just what you are looking at during a particular time and set of events. The government giving more money to the poor was the most stimulative thing it could do in the short run for our economy during the Great Bush Recession.

Yet that was now years ago and the recession has been over for quite a while. Why then is the number receiving government assistance continuing to rise?

The poor have the highest propensity to spend, so they spent ever penny and every penny the government spent on the poor resulted in demand. If the government had given more tax breaks to the rich instead, it wouldn't have resulted in any additional spending or even business expansion.

Which keeps the poor, poor. So the government USED the poor ... nice.

Maybe. However both parties are essentially the same in action, although they pretend to be different in rhetoric. Republicans have had plenty of chances to eliminate means tested welfare spending, and they didn't do it. There's a reason they didn't do it, and that's because they desire to keep the poor poor, just as much as democrats do. In this country it's not as much about one party vs another as it is the 1% vs everyone else. The 1% are winning.

Hard to disagree.

 

[imagep]

Yet that was now years ago and the recession has been over for quite a while. Why then is the number receiving government assistance continuing to rise?

Why do you think it is continuing to rise? I thought I had read that it is shrinking. Anyhow, I don't support means tested benefits. I support job creation instead.

Edit, I just looked up food stamp usage, and it's dropping. Don't know about other forms of welfare. What's really disturbing is that even during the good years of the bush administration, food stamp usage was up.

Which keeps the poor, poor. So the government USED the poor ... nice.

That would be correct. The government used to poor to help our economy of of the recession. I guess that sounds evil, but would it be better if we were still in the recession? I think I could have found a better way to get our country out of the recession, but whatever.

Hard to disagree.

Your darned right!

 

[mmi]

Why then is the number receiving government assistance continuing to rise?

Why are you saying it is when it's not? Oh, that's right …

The number of SNAP recipients has dropped to 45.7 million, down from 47.8 million two years ago, a 4.4% decline. It's dropped in eight of the last nine months, and fifteen of the last nineteen, in eight by more than 200K.

The program's cost as a percentage of GDP is expected to decline for several years.



The number of TANF recipients has been falling for nearly twenty years.



When unemployment doubled due to the GOP SSE Great Recession, the program expanded only modestly, and fell below the pre-recession figure eighteen months ago.



The number of Americans receiving unemployment compensation benefits has dropped sharply, matching the steep and steady decline in unemployment, to around two million, approaching a forty-plus year low despite a large increase in the labor force from about 90 million to nearly 160 million.



>>Which keeps the poor, poor. So the government USED the poor ... nice.

Laughably absurd. These programs help families stay out of poverty, or at least survive it. SNAP benefits put healthy food on the table. UC benefits help pay the bills while working families endure another round of layoffs engineered by politicians who cash big campaign contribution checks from crooked bankers and corporate fat cats who lecture the public about personal responsibility and the need to further deregulate business. GOP voters cheer them on and rail against the socialist Kenyan who won't stand up to our enemies.

Why do you think it is continuing to rise? I thought I had read that it is shrinking.

Yer right about the numbers, but wrong about the policy. I hold out hope for yer reformation.

 

[imagep]

...
Yer right about the numbers, but wrong about the policy. ...

What am I wrong about?

 

[mmi]

What am I wrong about?

You say you want jobs programs. I want them too. They could go a long way toward diminishing the need for means-tested income support programs.

But some people are disabled and unable to work.

Some families can't afford the cost of child care and transportation associated with work. I think they should be given an opportunity to work while they continue to receive the benefits they need to be able to go to work.

Some people require education and job-training. Again, I'd like to see them receive benefits while they go through that process.

More than anything, I think it's unrealistic to think that means-tested income support programs can simply be ended. An effective set of economic and social policies would certainly diminish the need for them and thereby the cost. But it's kinda like saying we shouldn't have the ACA subsidies because a single-payer system would be better. We should improve our policy/program mix, but it's not going to happen quickly. As you know, it would be a long and bitter battle.

 

[imagep]

You say you want jobs programs. I want them too. They could go a long way toward diminishing the need for means-tested income support programs.

But some people are disabled and unable to work.

'

Those people should qualify for benefits based upon their disability, and not their means. Remember my complaint isn't about disability or providing for the profoundly handicapped, it's about means tested benefits.

Some families can't afford the cost of child care and transportation associated with work. I think they should be given an opportunity to work while they continue to receive the benefits they need to be able to go to work.

That's the result of low wages and high taxation. A higher min wage, lower taxation, or better yet, more competition for workers between employers, would fix that better than government freebies.

Some people require education and job-training. Again, I'd like to see them receive benefits while they go through that process.

I don't have an issue with that, but such benefits don't need to be means tested.

More than anything, I think it's unrealistic to think that means-tested income support programs can simply be ended. An effective set of economic and social policies would certainly diminish the need for them and thereby the cost. But it's kinda like saying we shouldn't have the ACA subsidies because a single-payer system would be better. We should improve our policy/program mix, but it's not going to happen quickly. As you know, it would be a long and bitter battle.

Anything can be ended, but I do think they will have to be phased out over several years to allow people to adjust.

My issue isn't with government benefits, it's with the means testing of such benefits. It locks people into poverty. Maybe not everyone, but there is a segment of our population which intentionally does not strive for self dependence, because if they achieved that, they would have to work harder for the same net standard of living (because they would have lost their means tested benefits).

And to any extent that "fair" may be part of our economic/government process, if one person receives a particular benefit, then everyone should recieve that exact same benefit. Does it even make a lick of sense that someone who pays a pretty darned good bit in taxes should be denied any of the government benefits that his taxes pay for?

When I first read about the BIG concept, I flat out rejected it. But discussions like these, even if they aren't about the BIG, tend to make be believe that some form of BIG is probably the best solution.

 

[dpcal]

Really, it's simple math.

So lets say that an economy with 51 workers in it produces 100 units of wealth, and one person gets 50 units of that wealth, then there are only 50 units of wealth to be divided between the other 50 workers, so the average income of the bottom 98% is only 1 unit. But now the economy changes for some reason, and that one guy who was getting 50 units of wealth only gets 10 units of wealth, what happens to the remaining 40 units? Obviously, they get distributed between the other 50 workers, so the average wage of the 98% can nearly double, even though production hasn't changed.

Now what would happen if the 98% had nearly double the income that they did before? Don't you think that they would spend more? Wouldn't businesses attempt to satisfy that increase in demand by hiring more workers and producing more? So now we have more production in this economy, more workers, and fewer people standing in line for their welfare and unemployment checks, and the economy grows and produces more wealth.

Although I agree the simpler the example of how things work the better, I had difficulty visualizing an “economy” with the parameters you gave. All that came to mind was coal mining towns and the “general stores” of the frontier eras. So here’s my construct. Alaskan gold rush “town” with 50 miners and one “super general store” (food, clothes, mining equipment, booze and hooker) owned by one person. All the miners live in similar, shacks, and have about the same amount of clothes,gold mining equipment, food, and sluicing equipment, and none manage to find enough gold to do anything other than get by. This gold camp is very isolated, so bringing in new supplies (food, booze, etc) is prohibitively expensive except for really big orders. The owner of the general store experiences a brief period of insanity and decides to give each minor a month of supplies, a couple fifths, and a coupon for a “quickie”. One of those miners, had a little extra gold, and swaps his booze, quickie coupon and all his extra supplies for the extra corn from as many miners as he can. He sets up a still, and starts selling moonshine. With the extra supplies, another miner gets on his mule and makes the arduous journey to a place he knows that has extra hookers and brings one back. A third uses his extra “wealth” to spend a month finish designing a slightly more effective sluice. After 2-3 months, most of the miners are back to where they started, although their standard of living is slightly improved as the cost of booze and hookers has declined due to the competition. However, if the inventor sells his improved sluices, all the miners can be more productive, and to the extent that new competitors arise to the supercenter, the miners may move from consuming all they produce to accumulating wealth.

This “story” embodies my belief about the very poor return on money taken from the rich to distribute to those with less. There may be some lasting improvement for some, but for the most part money given to those with unmet “wants” for consumable goods, will simply increase consumption until the supplementary income stops. If the goods purchased during this increased consumption are produced within the community, rather than imported, then there will be increased employment somewhat multiplying the effect, and possibly creating some additional wealth from profits. But if these goods are imported into the community from the outside, nothing more than a temporary increase in consumption occurs.

 

[mmi]

Those people should qualify for benefits based upon their disability, and not their means.

Should someone unable to work but with considerable resources be eligible for benefits?

>>A higher min wage, lower taxation, or better yet, more competition for workers between employers, would fix that better than government freebies.

I'm not sure how the last of those three would work, but I would welcome the first two.

>>I don't have an issue with that, but such benefits [education and job-training] don't need to be means tested.

Again, wouldn't that just drive up the cost of the program?

>>Anything can be ended

Well, not anything. For example, sometimes we're told that "Windows Cannot End This Program."

>>I do think they will have to be phased out over several years to allow people to adjust.

Well, assuming that alternative methods of dealing with these issues would be phased in.

>>My issue isn't with government benefits, it's with the means testing of such benefits. It locks people into poverty. Maybe not everyone, but there is a segment of our population which intentionally does not strive for self dependence, because if they achieved that, they would have to work harder for the same net standard of living (because they would have lost their means tested benefits).

I think the number in that "segment" must be very small. This sounds like a mental health issue to me. I would seek to address it that way.

>>if one person receives a particular benefit, then everyone should recieve that exact same benefit.

I've heard you say this a number of times. I see fairness as one of a collection of goals that includes things like efficiency and effectiveness.

Some people get a tax benefit on mortgage interest payments. But some don't, and that drives up their housing costs. Is that fair?

You can deduct health insurance premiums that exceed ten percent of your adjusted income. If those premiums are higher because of choices you make about, say, smoking, which can drive them up by around 20% (I've heard 50% under the ACA), is it fair that you can perhaps have Uncle Sam subsidize yer unhealthy habit?

Is it fair that my taxes go to help people who build expensive homes in areas that are prone to disasters like floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes?

You can deduct moving expenses (packing, storage, insurance, transportation, lodging) if you take a job more than fifty miles from yer home. There’s no limit to the deduction. Is that fair to those who stay at their job?

People can get special treatment on paying back student loans if they enter certain professions or fulfill certain requirements. Is that fair?

Some people handle their finances very irresponsibly and end up declaring bankruptcy (a "benefit" in a way), but you can't do that with student loans. Is that fair?

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

>>Does it even make a lick of sense that someone who pays a pretty darned good bit in taxes should be denied any of the government benefits that his taxes pay for?

Yeah, sure, depending on the circumstances. Why should wealthy people get SNAP benefits, subsidized healthcare, energy assistance, etc?

>>BIG is probably the best solution.

A lot of times we can't achieve the BIG, at least not in the short or even medium term. I absolutely want progress, but in many situations incrementalism can be unavoidable. Like when yer building Rome.

 

[imagep]

Should someone unable to work but with considerable resources be eligible for benefits?

Absolutely, it's only fair. Do we bar rich people have to pay a special rich toll to drive on our roads? Does the fire department not respond to fires at mansions without extra fees? Does the library provide books to the rich at a higher cost than the poor?

>>A higher min wage, lower taxation, or better yet, more competition for workers between employers, would fix that better than government freebies.

I'm not sure how the last of those three would work, but I would welcome the first two.

Lower unemployment would create more competition for workers, and employers would have to offer better compensation or working conditions to attract employees.

>>I don't have an issue with that, but such benefits [education and job-training] don't need to be means tested.

Again, wouldn't that just drive up the cost of the program?

No, it would just provide the same government benefit to people who actually pay a lot of taxes, as those who don't pay much in taxes get. I dunnno why we would want to charge middle class or rich people more for their education when they already pay most of the taxes.

>>I do think they will have to be phased out over several years to allow people to adjust.

Well, assuming that alternative methods of dealing with these issues would be phased in.

Absolutely!

A lot of times we can't achieve the BIG, at least not in the short or even medium term. I absolutely want progress, but in many situations incrementalism can be unavoidable. Like when yer building Rome.

Sure, I agree. Baby steps.

 

[mmi]

Do we bar rich people have to pay a special rich toll to drive on our roads? Does the fire department not respond to fires at mansions without extra fees? Does the library provide books to the rich at a higher cost than the poor?

In effect, yes we do. They are taxed at a greater rate (not high enough). The mansion owner pays more in property taxes whether he has a fire or not. In my town, you get a break on yer taxes when you turn 65 if yer low-income or disabled (fifteen years of ownership). Is that "fair"? I'm not sure, but I'd say it's "proper."

This leads me to ask if you support the so-called "flat tax"? Is income tax progressivity "unfair"? Some on the Right sure think it is. Why do you support "punishing success"?

>>Lower unemployment would create more competition for workers, and employers would have to offer better compensation or working conditions to attract employees.

OK.

>>No, it would just provide the same government benefit to people who actually pay a lot of taxes, as those who don't pay much in taxes get.

I think you must be wrong there. If more benefits are distributed, how can higher costs be avoided?

>>I dunnno why we would want to charge middle class or rich people more for their education when they already pay most of the taxes.

Why not give them SNAP benefits and energy assistance?

If I can point to a bottom line: means-testing has inherent problems. And there are more clumsy and less clumsy ways of doing it. But it seems to me that it's simply unavoidable.

You can get a low-interest loan from HUD to help you fix a hole in yer roof — if you income-qualify. Why not make everyone eligible? Because it would cost too much.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

See my answer above. We're in a unique situation right now where we probably would want to start thinking about contracting our monetary supply via interest rate hikes in order to restore more normalcy to our fiscal policy, but because we're the tallest midget in the room (Europe sucks, Asia sucks) the dollar is stronger than it really ought to be when looking at the fundamentals, and increasing interest rates would just exasperate the problem of the strong dollar by making it stronger.

It'll be interesting to see what the fed does.

No offense, Grimm, but your reasoning is terrible. You sound so confident when you declare that the money supply is directly related to inflation, but when somebody asks you to expand on that, you can't. And none of what you just wrote makes any sense at all.

It really is time to question your own beliefs. If they don't fit the data, throw them out.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No I don't. Sorry but you do hear a lot of crying by liberals about income disparity and taxes. and why is that? Because you don't like the rich. The liberal attitude is that if you are rich its because of low taxes and "not paying your fair share"...
and that's why you liberals always cry about reducing the inequity by "taxing the rich more"...

I'm not real crazy about the rich when they try to tell me what I am thinking, as if they would know better than I.

Again... how does taxing ME more help my employees? Can't answer that can you? But its the mantra of the liberal. Because you don't really care about people moving up the ladder.. you'd rather see that the rich get cut down.

Taxing you more and redistributing those funds to people with a higher propensity to spend it would help aggregate demand. So would taxing you more and spending it on infrastructure. So would taxing you more and spending it on bombs.

But when I talk about income disparity, I'm not talking about taxing you more, no matter how much you would prefer the debate to end up there. I am talking about labor having more leverage so they can demand higher wages. So when ownership makes $100,000 less, most or all of that would go to paying higher wages. Don't worry, ownership still gets it all back in the end. But in the meantime, higher wages means more demand and more economic activity, as well as a better standard of living for labor.

See you got it wrong..

No, I don't.

Okay.. tell me... next year I make 100,000 less in profit. Now the income disparity between me and my workers is less. Great... now tell me why they will now have more success stories because the inequity between them and me is reduced...

go.

See above. If ten of your employees make an extra $10,000/year each, don't you think that would make a positive difference in their lives? That money sends their kids to college, or buys a dependable car, or buys their wife a boob job. What are you doing with your last $100,000?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I've never understood why decreasing the wealth or income of those at the top, would improve the economic situation of those below. I'm not suggesting it isn't the case, but the only thing I can think of is that if those on the top pay more in taxes, you could decrease the taxes on those below. However, I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I don't think those in the lower 1/3 or possibly 1/2 pay any significant amount of federal income taxes.

I wasn't talking about decreasing anybody's income. I was talking about a more equitable distribution of income. Maybe that would mean less income for some, and maybe it wouldn't - aggregate demand would increase, after all, and most money ends up in ownership's hands no matter what. If some worker on the low end went from making $20,000 to making $30,000, do you really think that would lead to any significant savings? I think it would lead to approximately $10,000 more in spending, myself. And when dollars don't stick in the pockets of the lower end, where do they go?

On the tax issue - don't forget about FICA taxes, plus Medicare/Medicaid taxes. The lower end pays plenty of tax.

 

[iguanaman]

Well and there you go.

So you say percentages matter... well you just proved my point... today's poor and middle class are getting a smaller percentage of the wealth.. you know your Zero sum distribution..

they are getting a smaller percentage than they did 100 years ago.

SO.. .would you rather have a better percentage of the pie 100 years ago.. and have a lower standard of living

Or would you rather have a lower percentage of the pie.. but more actual money and a higher standard of living.

That's why your Zero sum distribution is meaningless.

But the average standard of living is actually declining and has been for a long time. That's the problem, wages have not kept up with inflation. Why do you think that is?
Could it be because the slice of the pie is declining too fast? There is an eerie similarity in the income share of the top earners today and those of the period just before the Great Depression. I don't think anybody wants a similar situation to develop again. I believe a new income tax bracket must be created along with a capital gains rate much closer to regular income rates. The chart below illustrates quite clearly who really benefited the most from Tax cuts and supply side "reform". After meandering around 10% for 30 years after WWII, it jumps quickly to 15% and more after 1983 reaching a peak over 23% in 25 years.

 

[dpcal]

I wasn't talking about decreasing anybody's income. I was talking about a more equitable distribution of income. Maybe that would mean less income for some, and maybe it wouldn't - aggregate demand would increase, after all, and most money ends up in ownership's hands no matter what. If some worker on the low end went from making $20,000 to making $30,000, do you really think that would lead to any significant savings? I think it would lead to approximately $10,000 more in spending, myself. And when dollars don't stick in the pockets of the lower end, where do they go?

On the tax issue - don't forget about FICA taxes, plus Medicare/Medicaid taxes. The lower end pays plenty of tax.

At the moment I don't have a clear idea how to accomplish increasing the income of all, unless its through a government income supplement. For those companies/corporations with large profit margins relative to the number of employees, there might be enough to achieve a meaningful increase in employee salaries. However, the earnings would fall, followed by a fall in the value of the company's stock. If most of the stock of these companies was in the hands of the wealthy, it would decrease the wealth the gap. An alternative would be raise prices of the product and shift that money to increasing the salaries of employees. If the company's product had a foreign competitor that might result the company losing sales and a net loss of employment, and increase in trade deficit. If their competitors were domestic and didn't match the increased wages to employees, barring an increase in employee productivity, the company would lose market share and have to lay off employees, but for the economy as a whole no loss of jobs. I suppose the government could pass a mandated salary increase for all companies whose products and services weren't competing against foreign options. If the market for the products and services of the companies subject to mandated increase, was significantly skewed to the wealthy, this would increase the purchasing power of workers. However if the products and services were used equally by all income groups, the workers with the increased salaries would have increased purchasing power at the expense of those who worked for companies not subject to the mandate. This is why I also see increasing the minimum wage as shifting purchasing power between those workers making more than the minimum to those making less. If the mandate also included companies with products subject to foreign competition, than where would be a net loss of jobs. As you might recall from some posts on the other thread, my understanding of economics is from four courses taken decades ago, and definitely "old school". So I'm wide open to new insights.

I have never understood including FICA when comparing the tax burdens of income groups. While the Federal Insurance Contributions Act did place a tax on payrolls, this tax funds the workers participation in Medicare and Social Security, and functions in the same manner as the premiums people pay for any insurance product other than skewing the insurance benefits in favor of those with lower incomes. I don't have time to continue this and won't likely have time for another couple days. I'm not opposed to abandoning the concept of these programs as insurance, and changing FICA into a progressive tax(deductible) designated to funding Medicare and Social Security. (Medicaid is not funded by FICA taxes) Until then I'm not buying the inclusion of FICA in comparing tax burdens.

 

[Ockham]

Why do you think it is continuing to rise? I thought I had read that it is shrinking. Anyhow, I don't support means tested benefits. I support job creation instead.

I also support job creation but I support full time job creation, not part time job creation and an artificial government mandate. Job creation has to be organic, not government mandated. To answer your question directly, the reason it is increasing is because it is easier to keep people dependent than independent economically.

Edit, I just looked up food stamp usage, and it's dropping. Don't know about other forms of welfare. What's really disturbing is that even during the good years of the bush administration, food stamp usage was up.

As of 2014 yes the foodstamp use was down for that one year. Since 2010 however it has been steadily increasing.... http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/15SNAPpartPP.pdf

However an interesting side note: The amount of dollars per houshold has increased for food stamps. So while the number of participants dropped in 2014 only, the amount of money has increased a fairly significant amount. Reason given: Cost of living. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/SNAP_ FY_2015_Cost_of_Living_Adjustments.pdf

That would be correct. The government used to poor to help our economy of of the recession. I guess that sounds evil, but would it be better if we were still in the recession? I think I could have found a better way to get our country out of the recession, but whatever.

So what's to prevent the government from keeping the poor poor and uneducated as their continued pawn to offset the economy for the rest of us non-poor? Not only is it evil, it's manipulative, immoral and probably illegal.

 

[Ockham]

Why are you saying it is when it's not? Oh, that's right …

Because since 2010 it has risen. 2014 did not. One year does not a trend line make.

Why am I saying it's still rising because a trend line that is not a lie itself, would still show it to rise and because 2015 numbers will not be released until after the new year. A little education and logic you see goes a long way. And sorry, I don't buy others "expectations". I'll take facts over bull**** thanks.


Just as an aside... I thought you were going to put me on ignore. Did you forget? Please do so as your posts cause a malodorous cloud to hover above my laptop. Thanks!

 

[mmi]

I had difficulty visualizing an “economy” with the parameters you gave. All that came to mind was coal mining towns and the “general stores” of the frontier eras.

I find this yarn interesting but a bit difficult to follow. I have similar ideas but have a hard time expressing them. Maybe we can work on that.

The thought I have is that not all spending is the same. If I go to the store and buy $100 worth of lobster, I can have a good time with my friends. But there isn't much long-term benefit. Otoh, if I use the money to invest in my small business, I may be able to generate a bunch of revenue down the road as a result. Stuff like that. I'm thinking we should encourage "productive" spending and maybe add some tax to more self-indulgent expenditures.

It really is time to question your own beliefs. If they don't fit the data, throw them out.

How does our side account for something like this?

At the moment I don't have a clear idea how to accomplish increasing the income of all

Fwiw, I'm focused on the bottom quintile and especially the bottom decile. They have very little. I don't like that. I welcome policies that can help other income groups, but that just doesn't seem as urgent to me.

>>my understanding of economics is from four courses taken decades ago, and definitely "old school". So I'm wide open to new insights.

I don't think anyone around here is much ahead of you at understanding this stuff. I know I'm not.

>>I have never understood including FICA when comparing the tax burdens of income groups. … functions in the same manner as the premiums people pay for any insurance product

I'd say taxes are taxes. I can see that there's a more direct connection between someone and the FICA tax he/she pays, but I can't see how that makes any difference. My taxes pay for police/fire. You could call that "insurance." They pay for roads. I use those and benefit from others using them. They pay for income support programs that I benefit from because without them I figure I'd need more police protection and public health programs. Without the Marines, I might have ISIL in my front yard.

 

[mmi]

I also support job creation but I support full time job creation, not part time job creation and an artificial government mandate.

Full-time employment

Dec 2009 — 110.5 million
June 2015 — 121 million

Part-time employment

Dec 2009 — 27.5 million
June 2015 — 27.7 million

>>Job creation has to be organic, not government mandated.

Why? And what employment is "government-mandated"?

>>To answer your question directly, the reason it is increasing is because it is easier to keep people dependent than independent economically.

To once again refute yer false claim directly, it is NOT increasing.

>>As of 2014 yes the foodstamp use was down for that one year. Since 2010 however it has been steadily increasing....

Dec 2012 — 47,791,996
Dec 2103 — 46,782,084
Dec 2014 — 46,252,064
Mar 2015 — 45,641,762

Source: SNAP Participation Data

Here are the monthly figures beginning in Dec 2010.



Here are the month-to-month changes since Jan 2009.



The rate of growth began declining steadily when the economy picked up.



>>The amount of dollars per houshold has increased for food stamps.



>>So while the number of participants dropped in 2014 only, the amount of money has increased a fairly significant amount.

What a surprise that you don't back that up with any evidence. Expenditures began levelling off three years ago, have declined recently, and are expected to be flat despite population growth, which you fail to account for in any of yer analysis.

 

[mmi]

Because since 2010 it has risen. 2014 did not. One year does not a trend line make.

You had asked, "Why then is the number receiving government assistance continuing to rise?" I guess yer definition of "continuing" is rather unique.

>>it's still rising

No, it's not, and it has not been rising for nearly three years.

>>a trend line that is not a lie itself, would still show it to rise

It would be a very strange trend line, imo.

>>2015 numbers will not be released until after the new year.

Figures are available through March — 45,641,76.

>>A little education and logic you see goes a long way.

And something more than a little goes even further.

>>I don't buy others "expectations".

That's a CBO projection. I don't think anyone cares if yer buying it or not.

>>I'll take facts over bull**** thanks.

You seem to be content with fantasy.

>>I thought you were going to put me on ignore. Did you forget?

No. I don't use that forum mechanism. I generally just scroll past the garbage. Sometimes I don't, e.g., when the lies are easily refuted. Eventually I get tired of dealing with the same lies over and over, like ya see from Conservative and Fenton.

>>your posts cause a malodorous cloud to hover above my laptop.

Try showering. The odour is coming from something other than yer machine.

 

[Ockham]

You had asked, "Why then is the number receiving government assistance continuing to rise?" I guess yer definition of "continuing" is rather unique.

>>it's still rising

No, it's not, and it has not been rising for nearly three years.

You can make up whatever you think fits your views but food stamps for example have risen 2010-2013. I've already linked it - from the US government source.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/15SNAPpartPP.pdf

:lamo

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

How does our side account for something like this?

View attachment 67186671

We don't. Frankly, I don't see a correlation. (The slopes don't match.)

Any growing economy is going to have an increase in the money supply, and any healthy economy is going to have a bit of inflation. I would be worried if the graph looked different than this.

 

[mmi]

You can make up whatever you think fits your views but food stamps for example have risen 2010-2013.

You aren't making up numbers, but you don't know how to interpret them. The figures in that table are for the various fiscal years. Can you tell me how they're calculated? Are they monthly averages? And fiscal years end Sept 30. So FY2013 ended in Oct of that year.

In any event, I posted a link to a source that provides monthly figures. (SNAP Participation Data). And I posted a set of charts. All the data comes from USDA.

>>:lamo

Don't laugh too hard or there'll be nothing left.

We don't. Frankly, I don't see a correlation.

Well, OK. But it sure looks like "believers" see a strong relationship. Fwiw, I agree with you, but that shouldn't offer you any comfort.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

At the moment I don't have a clear idea how to accomplish increasing the income of all, unless its through a government income supplement.

All you need is an increase in economic activity. The same dollars moving around faster could increase everybody's income. A higher demand for American labor increases the income for labor, and the increased demand makes the rich richer.

For those companies/corporations with large profit margins relative to the number of employees, there might be enough to achieve a meaningful increase in employee salaries.

Well, the recent trend is that companies have record profits and huge profit margins, most likely due to the low cost of labor. So companies (as a whole) definitely have enough money to pay their labor more. It's just that the labor market is such that they don't have to.

However, the earnings would fall, followed by a fall in the value of the company's stock. If most of the stock of these companies was in the hands of the wealthy, it would decrease the wealth the gap. An alternative would be raise prices of the product and shift that money to increasing the salaries of employees. If the company's product had a foreign competitor that might result the company losing sales and a net loss of employment, and increase in trade deficit. If their competitors were domestic and didn't match the increased wages to employees, barring an increase in employee productivity, the company would lose market share and have to lay off employees, but for the economy as a whole no loss of jobs.

That's quite the doomsday scenario. How about this: earnings would not fall (why would they?) - if anything, earnings would rise, because American labor now has more money to spend. You could expect profit margins to fall, and possibly net profits, but both are at record levels now - there is no reason to think that they would drop down to unhealthy levels.

Why would a company raise the price of a product? That's not how prices are determined - prices are determined in the marketplace. Manufacturers don't lower their price because the price of labor went down, they adjust the price to whatever the market demands. If their labor costs are too high, they lower them, or they go out of business. But if higher labor costs just mean a lower profit margin, they are going to stay in business and reap those lower profits.

I have never understood including FICA when comparing the tax burdens of income groups. While the Federal Insurance Contributions Act did place a tax on payrolls, this tax funds the workers participation in Medicare and Social Security, and functions in the same manner as the premiums people pay for any insurance product other than skewing the insurance benefits in favor of those with lower incomes. I don't have time to continue this and won't likely have time for another couple days. I'm not opposed to abandoning the concept of these programs as insurance, and changing FICA into a progressive tax(deductible) designated to funding Medicare and Social Security. (Medicaid is not funded by FICA taxes) Until then I'm not buying the inclusion of FICA in comparing tax burdens.

If you have ever filed taxes as self-employed, you are all too aware that FICA is a tax. 15.4% right off the top of your very first net dollar earned, and it's just another page or ten attached to your standard 1040. If you open up a lemonade stand and net $1000, you owe $154 in self-employment taxes. (That's on top of your normal income tax.) And you only write one check.