What jobs does it create? They will eat and need shelter either way. Explain how poor people create jobs.
Please don't dodge. We know that countries with more generous welfare systems than the US twin greater social mobility and lower poverty. Care to explain that fact and its inconsistency with your argument?
The article I posted explained it. I have explained it already before this, you're ignoring the explanation.
The article is crap. the food is produced whether or not they buy it. if they are in breadlines they still eat the food. Unemployment benefits do more harm than good http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/10/28/study-says-unemployment-benefits-hurting-job-growth/
Again, your 1-sentence address; no on here thinks you really understand much beyond the 2nd grade. Kennedy/Johnson (Dem) administration (1961-1965) -- up 41.9% Johnson (Dem) administration (1965-1969) -- up 8.1% Nixon (Rep) administration (1969 to 1973) -- up 7.9% Nixon/Ford (Rep) administration (1973-1977) -- down 0.1% Carter (Dem) administration (1977-1981) -- down 4.1% Reagan (Rep) administration (1981-1985) -- up 25.6% Reagan (Rep) administration (1985-1989) -- up 79.0% Bush Sr. (Rep) administration (1989-1993 -- up 52.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1993-1997) -- up 95.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1997-2001) -- up 67.3% Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2001-2005) -- unchanged Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2005-2009) -- down 18.6% Obama (Dem) administration (2009 through Oct. 30, 2011) -- up 36.3% The only time it was down for Dems was under Carter, so what's your point? See, in the adult world we look at averages, not microcosms, which is what you do to make an abstraxct point. We could also look at debt accrual, what the deficit was under each party as the inherited it and what they left it at, we could look at gross DJIA gain, job growth and any other aspect of economics by party and I really can't think of one where the Republinazis would prevail. Now, if we look at any microcosm, we can see anything we want to, which is why data is reliable at all or most reliable when looking at large samples, preferably all data which is what my source does. Even look at under Clinton where the market grew the most, you could argue that under Reagan it grew 2/3's as much, not bad market growth numbers, then factor in that all the while, Reagan took a stable debt picture and blew it up while Clinton took a mess and left a gem deficit/debt wise. So give me only one sentence of your usual worthless garbage, rememebr, just 1 sentence (this is obvious sarcasm to all but you).
I don't know why the educated people bother talking to idiots, I guess the somewhat educated conservatives just **** knowing there is no defense to their madness. I'm sure you will get 1 sentence asking you why you like Pelosi.
Agreed .. it is not going to be pretty but there are ways to get through this that minimize the damage. Maintaining the status quo is not one of them.
Unemployment benefits are not paid for by the state. They are an insurance policy paid for by the employee. If the state had not stolen those dollars, putting them in to general revenue instead of investing them at interest in a separate account, the insurance would be in the black. The idea that folks should not be able to buy and insurance policy against unemployment is absurd. What is absurd is that the state takes these monies and throws them into general revenue.
The only other time it was down was during the Bush administration when the democrats took back over the majority in the congress
I've given well known empirical facts: the US has a less generous welfare system (see, for example, the extensive poverty analysis enabled by LIS data), higher poverty and lower social mobility than their European counterparts. You can't respond to those facts as they, by definition, show that your original argument is nonsensical. I of course don't mind providing further detail (in the unlikely case that you will adopt an evidence-based approach: The US is a harvester of poverty. We know that because of the abundance of cross-country analysis, made possible following the development of data sources such as the Luxembourg Income Study. The researcher now has available to him/her rich micro-data that is harmonised and standardised to enable international comparison of income and wealth variable. As an example of this literature, try Smeeding (2006, Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20 Issue 1). This notes that: "n most rich countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less; in the U.S., it is 21.9 percent. The only country that can compete is the UK, which has a higher rate but has made a substantial push toward reducing child poverty". The typical head in the sand merchant will employ a two fold method to ignore this evidence. First, they will mutter that relative poverty is a Marxist concept and it really only has a practical application to the developing world. For example, folk will crow about how the so-called poor have a car, a computer, an annual holiday and an air conditioning unit. Poverty, according to this view, should be defined as insufficient funds to eat. A distinction between poverty and a goody-2-shoes general whine about income inequality should be made. Second, they will splutter that the American Dream operates whereby class is irrelevant and the hard worker will succeed. Both arguments therefore stress the importance of referring to mobility, rather than a static account of poverty/income inequality. So does the US do well in the mobility stakes? Can we support the jolliness of the American Dream or is it another myth to add to the ranks of the right wing abuse of economics? The literature on mobility can be broken down into two aspects: social mobility and intergenerational mobility. Social mobility suggests that individuals face a steeper age-income profile, where over time they are able to escape temporary poverty via rapid income growth. Intergenerational mobility, on the other hand, suggests that there are opportunities available such that sons, grandsons and great-grandsons face increasingly lower risk of suffering daddys woeful position in the income distribution. However, once we look at these issues, the available cross-country empirical research remains glum and suggests that the US is actually an underperformer. A pertinent example is Gangl (2005, Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States, Work and Occupations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 140-162). This makes the following remark: n most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States. A bad start methinks! Another offering, to add to this misery, is provided by Corak (2004, Do poor children become poor adults?, Lessons for public policy from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility). The assessment is again depressing reading: "The United Kingdom, the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent France, are the least mobile countries with 40 to 50% of the earnings advantage high income young adults have over their low income counterparts being associated with the fact that they were the children of higher earning parents." Next try the article provided by Blanden et al (Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America). This makes the following unfortunate comment: "the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries" Perhaps we should look at something more specific to the US, given the charge that somehow the US experiences economic problems that fortunate Old Europe escapes from? How do a specific immigration population progress in the good ole USA? The American Dream, given problems such as incompatible human capital and weaknesses such as low English proficiency, would predict that second generation Mexican-Americans will flower. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. Livingston and Kahn (2002, An American Dream Unfulfilled: The Limited Mobility of Mexican Americans, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, pp. 1003-1012), for example, finds that "the wage pattern becomes one of steady decline across generations for men, and stagnation or marginal decline across generations for women" The American Dream, in terms of the ability to progress according to work effort and ability, can therefore be condemned as a myth. The US, if anything, apes the uselessness of their class ridden Limey cousins. But am I indulging in a snitch of ignorant and a snatch of naïve in my use of the concept? Could the American Dream reflect something much more specific to the US economy? Why yes! And heres why The origins of the welfare state, in general, can be traced back to two aspects. First, we have failures generated by the evolution of capitalism (i.e. severe inequality, with the extreme example being too little resources going to the low income such that the physical efficiency, and therefore the productivity, of these workers cannot be maintained). Second, we have the pesky rebellious nature of the working classes (i.e. we should give them peanuts in order to eliminate the threat of Bolshevik revolution). Modern labour markets then open up an additional gain. Full employment would ensure the existence of uppity workers that demand a redistribution of available economic rents. Capitalism will therefore naturally find an equilibrium where unemployment continues and worker discipline is maintained. The welfare state supports that process. It is ironically conservative in nature as it supports the status quo and the general income inequalities generated by jolly capitalism. Despite this rationale for the welfare state, the US is notorious in its relatively stingy provision. This, on the face of it, looks irrational. Perhaps the rampant right wingers that inflict this great nation have ensured an under provision of welfare benefits? I suggest not! The answer is in the exact nature of the American Dream. It is neither about social mobility nor intergenerational mobility. The US is characterised by a long tail of low skilled labour such that the majority of the population are condemned to a relatively poor standard of living. The important aspect is then actually the extreme inequalities that exist. Hope, in terms of achieving one of those few high income yielding occupations, keeps the herd in their chewing the cud place. The American Dream may be a myth, but it is a myth that ensures compliancy. Whilst high income inequality will normally ensure labour militancy, encouraging the consumerist American Dream ensures that the individual follows a it could be me attitude. We do something similar in Britain. We call it the lottery.
Look, you already said that a couple posts back: The only place it was really down was under Bush when the democrats took back over the majority in congress 1) Do you have anything new? 2) Even if we subtract that time, the Dems still blow the R's away. 3) I realize you're character is too sad to ever admit a thing, but I can't see 1 aspect of Republican economics that supports their policies. 4) This is a statement as to what the market does under different party White House policies, not congressional policies. 5) The market grew a lot for 4 years under GHWB and a 4-year Dem congress, so do subtract that growth if we subtract GWB growth? No, this is a measure of of R vs D market growth. 6) As I've said and your sad 1-liners have avoided, congress, from 2007-09, the senate had a 49-49-2 tie with Cheney as the tie breaker, so the Dems didn't have a majority and there was genrally gridlock in congress that 2-year period. For example, when your sociopath in the WH killled the Children's HC Bill, Senate Dems tried to override, Sociopath in Chief won due to the enough sociopaths in congess not letting it pass; blocking the override. 7) Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows the seeds were laid for the Great Republican Recession under the first 6 years of GWB, who inherited the most robust economy in history and left the 2nd biggest mess. Again, this is a very general overall survey of R vs D White House policies, if you want to construct one with R vs D congress majorities, be my guest, but when your posts are so lame that they appear to be written by a 7th grader, or have the same intellectual content, I won't expect more than 1 sentence. Your contribution to this forum is worthless, you don't research anything, just drop in a 1-liner and repeat. Kennedy/Johnson (Dem) administration (1961-1965) -- up 41.9% Johnson (Dem) administration (1965-1969) -- up 8.1% Nixon (Rep) administration (1969 to 1973) -- up 7.9% Nixon/Ford (Rep) administration (1973-1977) -- down 0.1% Carter (Dem) administration (1977-1981) -- down 4.1% Reagan (Rep) administration (1981-1985) -- up 25.6% Reagan (Rep) administration (1985-1989) -- up 79.0% Bush Sr. (Rep) administration (1989-1993 -- up 52.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1993-1997) -- up 95.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1997-2001) -- up 67.3% Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2001-2005) -- unchanged Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2005-2009) -- down 18.6% Obama (Dem) administration (2009 through Oct. 30, 2011) -- up 36.3%
These statistics are interesting. But they don't prove that the various administrations made a positive tangible difference to their economies unless you can prove that the administrations of other major western countries that had different economical philosophies then the corresponding American administration AND had radically different economic results during the respective time frames. And I bet you from (at least) Carter on that the economies of most major western economies performed roughly similarly to America's during the corresponding time frame. My point is that I think a POTUS's positive impact on an economy is usually INCREDIBLY over rated - be he Republican or Democrat. They can screw things up (as I believe Bush Jr. helped to do and Obama is helping to do)...but they usually cannot (imo) make things tangibly better for substantial periods. I believe it is best for POTUS's, when it comes to running the economy (outside of during a major declared war); to sit down, shut up and do nothing.
I don't think there is a need to declare them staistically siginificant only after I prove they vary from other countries. If I had a smaller data set, maybe, but 110 years of all data, not cherry-picked, is quite a huge sample size. I can see how you want to deviate and make me compare this set to the world, after all, what else can be your defense of the Gross Old Party? That's probably true since his lack of success and general horrible economy was largely due to OPEC squeezing the rest of the world. Of course that could be said of any timeframe of any president and any party. With 110 years of data, the deviations of bad timing get minimized to a very small factor, your point is most relevant if I chose a 10-year span. Uh, huh, people who defend the losing side generally think that and make that claim rather than to actually admit their polices are horrible. Are we just at another of the oh-so-many coincidences? How long can you honestly carry that argument of futility? The CIC is the ultimate legislator, his votes for 2/3 of the House and >1/2 of the senate's. He sets the tone for all legislation and writes the annual budget that gets proposed to the House. Riiiight, keep teh delusion going, the President is just figure head, has no control over budgets or the economy. NO? Did Reagan, with help of the House, drive the debt to triple what they inherited it at? Tax cuts my friends. We know GWB cut taxes and gave corporations every advantage, ignored the looming house/mortage mess, but what has Obama done? He inherited a debt increase of FY 2008 of >$1T and the debt added another >$600B between Oct 08 and inauguration, he had to pay for GWB's 700B TARP bailout and unemp grew 3% in the single year between Jan 08 and Jan 09 when Obama took office. So really, what has he done so poorly? Taxes are the bigest part of the economy he runs and he can't do nothing. In fact, doing nothing means leaving it where it's at, which is doing something as Carter did. IOW's, innaction is an action; get it? So that ludicrous to say the pres has ne effect on the economy and should sit in his hands. If teh powers that be do nothing, the rich run over the poor, a concept I think you admire.
ME: I can see how you want to deviate and make me compare this set to the world, after all, what else can be your defense of the Gross Old Party? Obvious inferences, unless you’re so stupid as to think Libertarians and **********s are more than just disgruntled Republicans, still Republicans. Look at your probable hero Ron Paul, he can’t decide if he’s Libertarian or Republican. There really isn’t a lot of difference other than on the social end, Libertarians don’t care about smoking dope or gay marriage, etc. You’re some flavor of conservative, that’s quite obvious, so why be so dishonest as to pretend you’re not? I see no explanation as to having to compare both parties top external countries, a retarded idea. Simply comparing one to the other in a 110 year running set of data is reliable and statistically significant. Me: Uh, huh, people who defend the losing side generally think that and make that claim rather than to actually admit their polices are horrible. Why bother with this and ignore far more substantive points? Misdirection? Why you’re defending the Repugnicans or either offshoot of them, Libertarians or **********s. How about going back and addressing all other points, cut-n-run60.
Yep ... If they would have left the money in SS accumulate since 1983 they would be trying to figure out what to do with all the excess rather than trying to figure out how on earth the next generation is going to pay it. In the 90's the return was so high that pension actuaries were basing their calculations on 9%. Instead the money was used to fund military expansionist foreign policy that generated very little return on investment. Granted hindsight is 20/20 .. but the lesson of history is that such expansionism leads to the downfall of the expanding empire.
If the ideals of Republicanism is adherence to the Constitution and limited Government then Ron Paul is the most Republican (regardless of what we lable his political affiliation), and the vast majority of so called Republicans (especially the religious right) are anti-Republican.
100%. I'm going from labels, but you couldn't be more right. So-called Republicans are spending hoes with the military, (which is against the Constitutional constraints to which they claim) and select social programs and whatever else they deem fit. Not to celebrtate sociopath Paul, he is nutso, I would vote Romney a million times before Paul. Not that Romney would get my vote either.
"Economists across the board? " The Cato Institute is not what I consider across the board. Regardless, we'll take a look at the claim: Assuming it does disincentivize workers (which hasn't been empirically demonstrated by objective sources), it still stimulates economic growth and job creation for those willing to work. And eventually, if the economy is growing at a strong enough rate they WILL take a job that pays phenomenally better than welfare. You can barely make it off of unemployment checks. Trust me, I know people struggling on it.
It is sad that Paul has such extreme views because he is bang on the money in other areas. One thing I will say for Romney is that he seems to be able to distinguish the difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others. I am not sure there is another, other than Paul, in the race that gets this concept. If someone does not understand that as an elected leader one should not use that pulpit to force your religious beliefs on others then they are too stupid to get my vote.
