Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

The tax cuts that began under Reagan have been doing that for almost 40 years

 

Letting people keep their money isn't handing them money.

Unless you believe that just because I haven't stolen your car, I have given you a car.

 

It barely sustains them, it doesn't help them.

Help would be some method to actually get people out of poverty.

 

What makes it their money.

 

I simply visit
Congo, Democratic Republic of The - Overview of economy

and take that in to consideration and give the visiting Congolese all the economic seriousness they currently have accomplished to date

 

Is this some type of joke post?

 

Every dollar that the bottom income brackets gets is spent in the next couple of days

Yea on lottery tickets, instead of meth they buy crack, instead of natural lights they buy budlights, instead of generic ciggs they buy Marlboros..



.

 

This may be one of the biggest nonsense response here. This is a great one, Quote"if you want to purchase something, you must first produce something." Why the **** would someone produce anything if their is no demand for it. Stupidity level 9. That was so well known that manufacturers said straight out they couldn't spend the stimuli money because there wasn't any blank . This is a quiz what word do you think was in the "blank"?????? Then he says if you create demand it won't create prosperity. Does this clown know anything about capitalism???? He says money doesn't go into mattresses , Even though years after the bailout business was still saying that the put it in the mattress because there wasn't any "blank," Quiz number two. I have to clear up this mattress comment , otherwise Dr wackaroo will try to make something out of it. They put it into a accessible account. At 1/4 of a percent point ,if they were lucky. Then he says putting money into the hands of people who would spend it. Makes me a commie. Except their is no capitalistic economist that won't tell you that the fastest way to create demand is to put money into the poorest people possible. because guess what, they spend it immediately. Now that isn't rocket science is it. Nor did I say to do it. but I'm still a commie, Something I guarantee he has no clue what the definition is.
My question was simple, how do you create demand with supply side economics,, the same demand that business said didn't exist so they couldn't spend the stimuli money until there was .. Basically the only way economy that are having a bad time can stimulate, is by creating demand. Tell me what good it possibly can be to put the money into the supply side to come out of a recession. These wackaroos never seem to answer my question. but I have to give this guy credit , he at least tried. Trouble is it make no sense and lacks Knowledge. but what can I say he tried.[/QUOTE]


My question was simple, how do you create demand with supply side economics


1. You ever hear of advertisement industry? You know it's a billion and billions of dollars industry..a good salesman could sell ice to an Eskimo






2. What do you think a bunch of consumers got together and decided we needed a computer, a cell phone, a pocket fisherman and presto the scientist invented it ?

3. There was a lot of demand in the old Soviet Union also








.

 

????

Uhm, could it be maybe they earned it.


..

 

The fact that they earned it as part of their employment contract or as the proceeds of investments.

 

It certainly doesn't HURT them.

And maybe you have some magical poverty elimination plan?

NO?

Then we'll settle for helping those who need it while stimulating the economy

Oh and you might want to look up Condi Rice and Ben Carson who credit the government with helping them get out of poverty

 

Poorer Republicans really ought to take note of what their more affluent Republican buddies think of them

 

You sure it doesn't hurt them? Can you say with certainty that no one that's sitting on the govt dole isn't being hurt by it? That that arent being hurt by the fact that no politicians have bothered to try to find programs to get them out of poverty?

 

Can you say with certainty (and evidence) otherwise?

And as noted...Ben Carson and Condi Rice would disagree with you.

By the way what are your magical poverty elimination programs?

 

Wealth is created by producing. It doesn't matter how you place money in the hands of the poor, if they did not produce it it will not generate wealth.

The two ways of doing this is via wealth redistribution (taxation) and printing money. These options actually stunts wealth production.

 

Were did you get the idea that I want to give them more money. The reality of stupidity though, is that we spend twice as much on Corporate welfare as we spend on welfare for the needy.
Even a right wing economist won't argue the fact that the fastest way to get money into the economy, to drive the economy, is through the people with the least amount of money. The less they have the faster they will spend what they have. I know you people don't understand this because your hate takes over reason but that is the reality.

 

Ya and your right wing economics is a total disaster for this country, in fact it is so bad that you have to be stupid to elect a hate party candidate for president. Your comment is ridiculous. To start of with no one was talking about increasing wealth, you threw that bullshit in yourself. The premise is you can't create demand with supply side economics , to get us out of one of the many economic disasters that the right gets us into.

 

My question was simple, how do you create demand with supply side economics


1. You ever hear of advertisement industry? You know it's a billion and billions of dollars industry..a good salesman could sell ice to an Eskimo






2. What do you think a bunch of consumers got together and decided we needed a computer, a cell phone, a pocket fisherman and presto the scientist invented it ?

3. There was a lot of demand in the old Soviet Union also





View attachment 54871


.[/QUOTE] What the hell is this clown talking about.

 

Oh look. Someone else that lost the argument so going back to name calling and personal attacks.

 

I really don't buy into your right/left paradigm. I don't see "right wing economics" or "left wing economics". I just see "economics":

SOURCE

There have been many disastrous economic decisions made in this country, starting as early as the early 1800's and really culminating in the early 1900's. Both of the political parties have been involved in these decisions. I see most people as being just like you, who really do not understand this equation:

GDP=C + I + G + (Ex - Im)

I guess I can't expect you to, as you don't even understand Say's Law and completely misunderstood the context of BHK's post regarding it.

Yes, the people that elected Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all pretty stupid. They have allowed the election process to careen out of control, and now it is difficult for them to elect and serviceable candidate to POTUS, let alone Congress. I see their seething hatred, and I see yours as well. It is unfortunate.

I see. So you are illiterate on the topic of economics. That's okay. I can direct you to some very good educational sources, if you'd like. Just remember though, willful ignorance isn't at all becoming. (Investopedia has some decent article for a neophyte such as yourself)

 

The logical conclusion here is that the estate tax should be 100% as proposed by some people at the time of the revolution to prevent wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few families. After all, the children did nothing to earn their inheritance did they? Yet it is that inheritance that fuels the perpetuation of the very thing the founding fathers feared.

The value of work is determined by the uber rich. A coal miner literally is sacrificing some of his lifespan and health and working under horrific conditions to mine coal but the value of his work is determined by someone in a board room. That's an example of someone working very hard to earn money but it's the guy with the two hour corporate paid for lunch that decides his worth. That person in the board room could not do what the miner does even though he is somehow better and worth more than the miner. During the age of the robber barons they would play one immigrant group off of another, "The Italians want more than a dime for 12 hours of labor? I'll have you know the Irish will take those jobs for a nickle." They set the value based on nothing other than greed for themselves. They had to be forced to change by unions and then the minimum wage and higher taxation.

This thread is about the minimum wage. It has been proven over and over to have no down side except for the uber rich because as the lower and middle classes gain ground financially they buy or hold on to wealth and that means the uber rich can't get their hands on it. Don't take my word for it take the advice of the president who said there's money to be made from foreclosures.

 

More crapola , The difference in their economic direction is Supply side the choice of the hate party- running the money through the supply side with the humorous Idea that it will trickle down. The results of which are the last 35 years of transfer of wealth to the top. Exactly how the hate party wants it.
Democrats know that demand side is the only real choice , which is supported again by the results of the last 35 years. This does not give all the new wealth of this country to the top few, as the trickle down lie does. Your just a real Economic expert with you copy and paste.

 

Well then, if you can spew such ignorant condemnation of the poor, I can spread some on the rich..... Give the rich tax cuts and you get incentive for increasing greed, more pollution in cities, more toxic chemicals in food, more shoddy goods, more buying of government, more wealth and income disparity, poorer health for more people, loss of educational opportunities, more militarization of police, loss of our civil rights, and greater polarization of citizens.

Oh wait. That's not "ignorant condemnation of the rich". It's truth. It's fact. And just think, I really, really tried to invent some ignorant lies and couldn't.

 

I worked as a child. It rocked. Unlike other children, I had money.

Lefties claim to represent the working class, but the working class don't want them to be represented by them. Which is why they vote for the right.
The wealthy I see getting richer and richer, they work for the state.

And their catchphrase is "do it for the poor" and "do it for the children".
But no one screws the poor more.

What you don't get is my attitude towards the rich. I don't see my mates exploiting people. And I don't see my mates being exploited.
All I see is some rich lazy types jealously eyeing the property of others.

Who think I owe them a job.
That they are entitled to one at my expense.
That I owe them benefits/jobs and workers rights and pensions and sick pay. And holidays. And a standard of living that myself I do not enjoy.

And why? So that they can help the poor. They can help the poor by taking poor peoples money and spending it on making themselves rich.
Minority rule at it's worst.

 

So you want to go back to child labor?

Well maybe we'll get the sweat shops back then huh?