Liberals, I'm Curious. How much money is enough? What's the max?

First world parity for Labor purposes. A first world costs, and higher paid labor pays more in taxes and can afford to create more in demand.

 

I think we both would rather take our lessons in economics from observing and participating in the marketplace.

Only if the money doesn’t have corresponding goods or services (value).

I think that’s an important foundation...that seems to be lacking with many others.

He isn’t ready but you make a solid point.

Sorry can’t buy that one. A tax instituted in 1916 and cut a little pre crash didn’t cause the crash. To believe that you would have to ignore the inverse. When rates were raised the economy still stagnated, saved only by war. And the markets have soared as rates are cut in recent times. Not enough correlation to even pique my interest.

Nope. A market crash usually increases the value of my holdings. The lousy consumer confidence resulting from market drops is about all I feel.

 

this is child's play

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/nyregion/bill-de-blasio-state-of-city.html
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/10/bill-de-blasio-we-will-seize-their-build
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/d...-property-new-yorkers-dont-respect-residents/

To be honest, I'm kind of getting tired of laughing at your responses. Just don't even reply to me anymore, okay?

 

Although I respect the point of your post, the sad reality is that pretty much all left-of moderate Democrats (all the Socialists) are unreasonably ignorant of economics. I'm really trying to hold back here. The most simple aspects of economics are completely lost on these people. They are absolutely devoid of any common sense whatsoever. I mean... it's baffling.

You take the simplest thing to understand, like Amazon moving to NY... and Ocasio-Cortez saying that a 3 billion "tax break" is a bad thing. Of course... not even understanding for a second that the 3 billion tax break was 3 billion off of an otherwise 20 billion dollars of revenue that they were going to receive by having Amazon move there. So not only did NY not get 17 billion of the 20 billion dollars, they actually don't get anything at all now. And as if that wasn't stupid enough... Ocasio-Cortez still thought somehow that they now had 3 billion in additional revenue that they'd be able to spend on something else... I mean, in the most satirical Onion article, you couldn't make this **** up. How on Earth she was able to make it 2-3 weeks into protests and discussions like this and no one bothered to tell her that her math was wrong, is just totally beyond me.

And then you look at people like former President Obama. Completely moronic. The man attempted to use Keynesian economic theory through the use of Quantitative Easing, and by turning the TARP program (which was only supposed to be loans), and LITERALLY giving banks free taxpayer money. Furthermore he LITERALLY gave money from TARP to businesses that had an "in" with whatever liberal politicians were in the various states. It will go down in history as the absolute most desasterous economic policy of any president in history. At least when Franklin D. Roosevelt used Keynesian economic theory... he produced huge public works projects, IE: dams, museums, power plants, bridges, roads, you name. He provided jobs, built industry, etc. Of course... it prolonged what became the Great Depression... but at least we have something to show for it. We have NOTHING to show for the Great Recession except a doubling of the National Debt under Obama... I mean, such a colossal failure of the utmost epic proportions.

I encourage ANYONE... ANY liberal on here to tell me otherwise, without going down into George Bush (who is a tool), or trying to divert to Trump or someone else. PLEASE... ATTEMPT to defend what Obama did or tell me why Socialism is great... PLEASE... I beg you... because I will utterly destroy you in this debate, and will enjoy it.

 

I don't understand this sentence. What should we have to show for a Great Recession?

 

The problem here is that you sneer at a lack of economic knowledge, then go on to litter your post with erroneous economic comment. That's not particularly cunning!

Actually we know there are economic problems at two levels. First, corporate welfare is a 'race to the bottom'. Second, giving in to corporate power is economic irrationality. We saw that, for example, with the documented Walmart Effect, where small business is negatively affected such that local wages and employment deteriorates.

You actually cotton on to right wing economic failure here. QE, at least according to the right wing blubbering created by the false debate over the slope of the Phillips Curve, should generate hyperinflation. Bit of an oops moment there I suppose....

You're also wrong about FDR, who didn't embrace Keynesianism during the New Deal. A couple of quotes: "The New Deal failed to solve the problem of depression, it failed to raise the impoverished, it failed to redistribute income, it failed to extend equality and generally countenanced racial discrimination and segregation. It failed generally to make business more responsible to the social welfare or to threaten business's pre-eminent political power. In this sense, the New Deal, despite the shifts in tone and spirit from the earlier decade, was profoundly, conservative and continuous with the 1920s" (Bernstein); "As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, 'It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes'" (Renshaw)

That you'd imply any common ground between Obama and Socialism demonstrates that you're not arguing with any knowledge of political economy.

 

Did you not read? He literally wasted money, flat-out gave it to the banks. I wouldn't have done either, personally; however... that's what he did, and we have literally nothing to show for it except exceptional debt.

 

Uh, it was Bush that bailed out the banks.
Obama did car companies.

 

I love this... your response is to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you don't even understand what Keynesian economic theory is.

Do you even know what the Kenysian economics are? They were *literally* formed at the beginning and during the Great Depression. It was literally, the economic theory that was enacted during the Great Depression because they believed it would bring about the correction of the Great Depression.

I'm going to end this nonsense-aspect of it right here and reference the Wikipedia entry. You're single quote flies in the face of a plethora of links and articles that directly relate to the Great Depression and Keynesian economics. Generally, I don't like Wikipedia, but this page is well received by liberals because it's something they're proud of. The fact that you actually beleive Keynesian economics wasn't a factor during the Great Depression is, well... ignorant.

You can read at length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics


And... Corporate Welfare... let's get on that, shall we? There is literally nothing you can prove that suggests tax breaks for corporations isn't a net positive. We just cut corporate taxes to the lowest they've ever been in the United States, and do you know what happened?

... record tax income.

You see, this is how it works. When you cut taxes, and reduce regulations... companies have more money. When companies have more money, they can expand, and they can hire more people. When they hire more people, that means that there are more people paying taxes... yes... let me repeat that in case you didn't understand. When you hire more people, you have more people paying taxes. The side benefit is that you also have less people on unemployment, and thus... fewer people taking welfare.

We have had RECORD HIGH tax revenues since the corporate tax cuts.

 

Oooh kay... were you even cognizant then?

TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program, was supposed to be a clandestine loan to banks so they could operate and not fear a "run" on the banks.

TARP continued for several years, and went well into the Obama administration. UNFORTUNATELY... when Obama took over, he said that he no longer required repayment of these TARP loans. In TARP, we laid out $411 billion dollars of taxpayer money in "JUST" bank loans. We only ever recovered $287 billion of that. President Obama waived the remaining debt, and we will never recover that.

But since you bring up GM... let's pull that thread.


Remember when Obama said he didn't want to RUN a car company? ...but then late one Friday night, the Auto Task Force moved the debt to equity in the form of preferred stock... which the US Government took a majority share of? I think it was like 82% or something like that for GM.

Remember when Obama said he didn't want to RUN a car company? ...but then late one Friday night, the Auto Task Force converted all "Preferred" shares to "Common Stock" which gave them voting rights. And then... the very same night, they voted out all members of the board of directors, and then hired in all new directors on the board.

Do you remember who was on the board? They were all big donors. They had one guy who was previously in charge of the School Bus Driver's Union... no idea why he got on the board. There was a donor who had given several hundred thousand in donations to Obama, he made it to the board. Every member on there was a political appointee. Not a single car guy made it to the board.

Then... they gave those shares to the UAW.

But let's talk about Chrysler... remember when the US Government handed over ownership of Chrysler to the UAW? And... then UAW sold it to Fiat, so now it's an Italian company? Do you remember that?

That wasn't a GM or Chrysler bailout... that was a UAW bail out.

 

"Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith)[A] is a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth.[1] Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.[2]

The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be blessed. It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[3] though less so in Christianity. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession.

It was during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 19th century. The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Pentecostal Movement and Charismatic Movement in the United States and has spread throughout the world. Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, Kenneth Copeland, Reverend Ike, and Kenneth Hagin.

Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to scripture. Secular as well as some Christian observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor."

You haven't changed a bit since my last visit here.
And your hair gets Orangeeeer by the minute.

 

"Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith)[A] is a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth.[1] Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.[2]

The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be blessed. It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[3] though less so in Christianity. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession.

It was during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 19th century. The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Pentecostal Movement and Charismatic Movement in the United States and has spread throughout the world. Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, Kenneth Copeland, Reverend Ike, and Kenneth Hagin.

Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to scripture. Secular as well as some Christian observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor."

You haven't changed a bit since my last visit here.
And your hair gets Orangeeeer by the minute.

 

If only we had an unlimited democracy, it would be however much 51% of the pop doesnt have.

 

Your errors aren't under debate. Notice what I did when referring, for example, to the New Deal. I quoted directly from Economists: e.g. Renshaw (1999, Was There a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945?, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 34, pp 337-364)

This is extraordinarily naive. First, FDR scorned Keynes (e.g. "a mathematician rather than a political economist"). Second, he continued to espouse balanced budget cobblers. Indeed, he got a recession named after him in 1937 for that very reason.

This made me laugh at least. Are your views of Keynesian economics from Wikipedia? You might want to start reading from actual Keynesians (and their critics). You'd know, for example, that we can't refer to one school of thought. Compare neo-Keynesianism (a naive form which looked for consistency with microeconomic orthodoxy), new Keynesianism (which fed off the New Classical scraps) and post Keynesianism (which actually has the most coherent understanding of how pricing)

Actually I just referred directly to documented evidence of the folly of Corporate Welfare: the Walmart Effect.

And corporation tax? Reductions are typically about 'beggar thy neighbour' protectionism (see, for example, the myth of the Irish tiger economy). Should there be reductions? First, it could well be inconsistent with equity. Companies benefit from public sector generated infrastructure. They therefore should help pay for it. Second, there's a key efficiency issue here. Neoliberalism crows about tax reductions, but has actually favoured the corporation at the expense of the individual. We see that with growth harming income inequalities which hinder self employment. Corporation tax reduces the gains from short termism, whilst also providing funds that can be used for firm creation. We would just need those tax revenues being funnelled to regional investment banks.

You make another economic error here! Your logic is the standard prance used with the Laffer Curve. What you forget to mention is that the evidence finds that its multi-peaked. It therefore gives as much an argument for tax increases.

When are you going to destroy me with your economics?

 

Nothing is more scary than the state confiscating private property by force. Regimes that do that usually don’t last very long.

 

Prosperity gospel is heresy. Welcome back.

 

Tax unflavored income less makes sense because investment money has already been taxed and is saved money. Having a benefit to people to save and put money away for future use like retirement or healthcare makes a lot of sense and is a net benefit to the country. People that do not save and set aside money are a drag on the country. The people that do not get this are people who think everyone should be as miserable as they are and are jealous of other peoples success.

 

As of 2018, TARP didn't cost the taxpayers anything. Instead, Treasury received $3 billion more than the $439.6 billion it disbursed. Of that, $376.4 billion was repaid by the banks, auto companies, and AIG. The U.S. Treasury made a profit of $66.2 billion on those because it bought shares of the banks when prices were low and sold them when prices were high. Treasury made $5 billion on its TARP fund investment in AIG. The programs targeted to help homeowners allocated $37.4 billion. As of September 2018, they spent $27.9 billion.
Those funds were never meant to be repaid.
https://www.thebalance.com/tarp-bailout-program-3305895

That's all nice... But it worked.

 

I don't know how much money is "enough". But I can tell you how much money is not enough. When you work full time, and it's not enough to pay a typical college loan, sustain one or two children, a mortgage and basic needs.... that's when you don't make enough. And that's unacceptable in a developed nation. It means that you are not being paid enough. So one of two things: either whoever is paying you is making too much money, or they shouldn't be in business.

 

This is the new normal given to us, wrapped in a bow, by the scheme of globalism and the scheme of allowing 10s of millions of wage depressing illegal aliens to come and stay here.

This scheme of hollowing out, middle class jobs from america, compliments of our big bankers, big corporations and a complicit ruling class has given us a nation where the largest employer is walmart whose business model is based on working poor wages that need welfare in order to live. Financed by the taxpayers and borrowing, who will pay those loans off at some point.

The growth in disparity in income is what these two schemes yielded in the real world, and has been a pox on our working and middle class. All the while being told that this is the way it is, and it will never be changed, no matter how much americans suffer. As if it was driven by some natural law instead of simple choice.

On top of this, this scheme of globalism will create a communist china's whose GDP will be twice the size of the US's GDP and the EU's GDP by 2030, with no end in sight, short of a miracle. We, our ruling elite and money elites are guilty of enabling the rise of communist china and even helping them, in exchange for 80 cent an hour labor, lower environmental regs and lower taxes. Profits drove it, maxing out profits which cannot be done in a nation like america that has living standards and where these jobs payed a middle class wage.

And now we are worried about the power we helped to create. ha ha. We gave them our manufacturing technology that it took billions to develop here, by our industry, as a part of the deal, saving them much money and time. I guess 80 cent an hour labor back then was worth so much to our bankers and corporations. They gave away the store in order to get it. Basically, it was greed for max profits of human beings that insured we would help a communist state to rise, eventually becoming a giant economically, gobbling up most of the world's GDP. And that my friends is just how powerful greed is, using capitalism in order to satiate. I think that is the biblilical perspective of it. It has helped to create something that could turn in to be a threat to democracy itself, at some point, fueled my 21st century mercantilism. And a cultural mentality that sees nothing wrong with theft of what the US owns by law. They in effect live by a different set of rules, and being the middle kingdom, they believe are at the top and nothing is superior to them.

Unlike the West, china doesn't have a history of invading their neighbors, and waging wars. And they have the oldest civilization on earth. And being asian, have higher IQs than whites. That is the only good thing I can say about communist china. That they have been peaceful when compared to the west. Hell, England was at war more than a hundred times, with France! ha ha

And unlike the west, china does not spread its culture, historically by colonizing and turning other nations into china. If you think your understand the difference in the chinese mentality, from ours, you probably don't. I found that out today when listening to an academic and expert on china. I am still in the process of learning. But there are some US think tanks that think china will be a future problem, in regards to our economy, and perhaps to democracy itself. Unlike america and europe, china is culturally nationalistic, as any members of the Middle Kingdom would be. While many in the US have come to believe that nationalism is nazism.

This scheme of globalism, given to us by big bankers, big corporations, some economists and our ruling elites is the most destructive act ever committed by a western nation and its ruling class.

 

What, do you think you're entitled to all that? Get real. I had to scrimp by for damn near 20 years. I started working when I was 13.

Some jobs don't pay enough to cover what you think you're entitled to because some jobs are for people who shouldn't be having kids and a mortgage. Entry level jobs at fast food joints, for example, don't pay $100K/year and they shouldn't. If you're not making enough money, go find yourself another job or work overtime. And if that's not enough, then you're probably not qualified to get a job that pays all those things you expect to have in the first place.

If your college degree can't get you a job that pays more than a over-the-road truck driving job, that tells you all you need to know about your degree. Don't take out loans for **** degrees.

 

Yes the question should be how much Ordinary "net" income should be considered for the top income bracket.

Then the second question should be how much ordinary net income should be free of Federal Tax.

Because as it is, more than half those in the loiwer brackets pay nothing. Nearly 50% of taxpayers pay/owe no federal income tax.

So it is the top 50% that pay all federal income tax.

Not fair. I don't care what your taxable income is u should owe 10% on your taxable income.

 

Yes I read, and the idea that we ought to have something to show for a recession struck me as doofy. I didn't realize that the recession and the recovery were the same thing. Also, to say that we have nothing to show for the money that had been spent under Obama while ignoring that we avoided a second great depression is pretty doofy too.

 

The vast majority of liberals don't support a 100% income tax at any tax bracket.

 

Lol. As usual, U slap a one word label on something and write it off as irrelevant.

"In the United States, the movement has drawn many followers from the middle class[48] and is most popular in commuter towns and urban areas.[36] In Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism Steve Brouwer, Paul Gifford, and Susan Rose speculate that the movement was fueled by a prevailing disdain for social liberalism in the United States that began in the 1970s."

"The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States featured prayers from two preachers known for advocating prosperity theology.[45] Paula White, one of Trump's spiritual advisers, gave the invocation.[46]"

Why do you call the beliefs of your fellow "Christians" heresy?
They helped get your pal Trump elected and most likely will again.
Doesn't matter what he is, says, or does...as long as the "Right" things are getting done. (as you've stated also)
They think the same way as you do.
So how are your beliefs any different than there's?
Why are your "Christian" beliefs not also heresy?