The main problem I see, is it is still money being stolen basically from someone to give to someone else. If someone broke into your house and took all your money because they thought you had enough and wanted to give it to their neighbor that wouldnt be right. Would you care that the robbers neighbor was going to spend it back into the community. Its the same thing.

It may be in essence being shifted in both cases but why not get something out of it besides a walk to the mailbox?

It may be in essence being shifted in both cases but why not get something out of it besides a walk to the mailbox?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 1:54 PM

That is my whole point. Where does the money ultimately go when it is redistributed?

Whether they give the dollar to some one at the bottom of the chain in the form of taxes or they give the dollar to a industry in the form of tax dollars the money is still being shifted to different classes.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 1:52 PM

Instead of doing all that shifting, why not leave it with who earned it.

greasemonkey - We all pay taxes. I can't change this fact and I doubt the government is going to either. I know that there is an argument against the practice of wealth redistribution in either direction, but looking at the system as it currently exists, money is being shifted between different classes.

bellbuckletn - I think you are getting too specific when defining who is on welfare. While the example you cite fits some cases, it does not encompass all cases.

peace of mind*

Well if you start taxing small buisnesses 250,000 and up ( I heard this no. is now 150,000) then they will either lay off, cut hours, or raise their prices, or do all three, how does that help create jobs. I think that when they can't get enough money to cover all the programs they will raise everyones taxes, if you have a job you will be paying more in taxes. The more I pay in taxes the less I have to buy things with, how will that get the economy going.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:31 PM

I believe that the cycle I have shown here actually proves that the opposite will happen. Money will flow from the top to the bottom and back to the top. When the money is concentrated at the top it does not make its way back to the bottom. Over the last decade the system of tax breaks for the wealthy has not created jobs and has instead shown us that the exact opposite has happened.

We will never rid this country or any other of poor people God says there will alway be poor among us. The problem isn't helping out those who need it, it's how we help them out. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, but teach him to fish he eats for a life time. I think we need to teach people who get on welfare how to get off.

Posted by bellbuckletn on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:09 PM

bellbuckletn,

Where have you been all my life? I was starting to wonder if there was anyone out there that could make comments that truly made good long term sense.

Great comment and you know if they would go out and fish they might just catch more than they need and could become a contributor instead of a taker.

Of course it might take a while to convince them that it is not the governments responsibility to stock the mailbox with fish but it is a start.

srry

Please help me find the flaw in my mathematics. Arguing that welfare is wrong and people receive welfare that do not need it is not worth arguing because we agree on this. What happens to that dollar when it is redistributed is where I am looking. When the wealthy receives tax breaks the dollars do not always get reinvested in America. Some save the money, some invest it in other nations, some invest it in other publicly traded corporations, and some invest it in better tools and facilities. When the poor receives the money, they rarely save it, they almost always spend it locally on goods and services, and it is certainly going to generate tax revenue as it is passed on from person to person.

I do not personally know Bob the Plumber but I do know Greg the Plumber. I talked to him last Friday on his mobile while he was actually on a plane sitting in Beleize ready to take off for Miami. Guess what? Greg had just bought into Belieze.

Wake up America. A lot of us are figuring out this is not the only place to be if you are going to punish us for working hard.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:11 PM

I agree totally! With my girlfriend being Russian I have done some research into life in Russia. Turns out that Russia is the worlds largest importer of heavy construction equipment because it is growing fast and it does not have the competition that America has. I believe that I could take a good American idea that has not been done in Russia and earn a good living there.

That was just rude Marvin. Just because poverty exists does not mean that someone would be eager to take part in it.

I got this in an email, and IMO, it has a little merit for this discussion:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read

¡°Vote Obama, I need the money.¡± I laughed. Once in the restaurant my

server was wearing a ¡°Obama 08¡ä tie, again I laughed¨Cjust imagine the

coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him

that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood

there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his

tip to someone who I deemed more in need¨Cthe homeless guy outside. The

server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server

inside as I¡¯ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was

grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I

realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but

the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even

though the actual recipient needed the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept

than in practical application.

That was just rude Marvin. Just because poverty exists does not mean that someone would be eager to take part in it.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:19 PM

nathan.evans,

Again, you accuse me of being rude when I state a long known fact.

A man becomes what he thinks.

If truth be rude then I am loaded in the wagon with it.

Luckily a lot of good qualities are associated with truth.

Truth always wins in the long run and I am in it for the long run.

nathan.evans,

Again, you accuse me of being rude when I state a long known fact.

A man becomes what he thinks.

If truth be rude then I am loaded in the wagon with it.

Luckily a lot of good qualities are associated with truth.

Truth always wins in the long run and I am in it for the long run.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:23 PM

Here we go again, the truth as Marvin Parker sees it. Do not argue with him because opinions do not exist in him, only truth.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server

inside as I¡¯ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was

grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I

realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but

the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even

though the actual recipient needed the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept

than in practical application.

-- Posted by craftin_mom on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:23 PM

Also in your example had you given the waiter the tip the government would have taken a small portion of the tip anyways and not the entire tip, so it is not quite the same principle.

Now take it one step further and imagine the homeless guy going to the store and purchasing a can of beer with it and later that evening the store owner went to the restaurant and tipped the same waiter using the same dollar the homeless guy was given. In the end the waiter still got his tip, the homeless guy got his beer, the store owner made a sale, and the beer manufacturer made money as well.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:26 PM

Nathan,

That sounds like a good idea and will work until both the store owner and the restraunt owner get tired of being taxed unfairly to provide the dollar to the homeless guy and say enough is enough and close?

Look at the long term effect with a set of glasses that have reality lens in them.

Believe me I want someone to disprove my theory of how welfare dollars benefit more people than just those on welfare. If I earn $100 dollars and a percentage of the money spent goes to someone else who will then spend it in my store, did I really lose anything? So far all I am seeing is arguments against welfare, a story that does not exactly match the system as it truly exists, and Marvin defining reality according to how he sees it. Please disprove that a dollar given to someone on welfare will benefit more Americans than a dollar given to a major corporation.

The reality is that welfare exists and that is not going to change because it is necessary in a capitalist system. Fact: Capitalism cannot thrive with out some living in poverty.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:36 PM

nathan,

So are you wanting to live in a capitalist system or not?

nathan,

So are you wanting to live in a capitalist system or not?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:09 PM

If I did not want to live in a capitalist system then obviously I could just move elsewhere.

nathan,

So are you wanting to live in a capitalist system or not?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:09 PM

If I did not want to live in a capitalist system then obviously I could just move elsewhere.

-- Posted by nathan,

So are you wanting to live in a capitalist system or not?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:09 PM

If I did not want to live in a capitalist system then obviously I could just move elsewhere.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:18 PM

Nathan,

Do you want the capitalist system that you want to live in to thrive?

aveteran,

What a great day. You are the second person I have seen spit out a mouthful of raw truth and good sense today. It must be the good weather causing people to see so clearly.

I have been waiting for someone to bring up the points in your first paragraph.

aveteran,

I agree with what I think you are saying in the last sentence of yours......."That doesn't seem relevant when comparing them to people who don't work."

By no means am I saying it is wrong to have an opinion other than mine but I have to say that I can stomach 20 illegal working immigrants easier than I can one lazy healthy non working American man.

I think one reason you hear so many complaints against a working immigrant is because they somewhat prick the conscience of the lazy.

memyselfi and nathan,

I think one point both of you sometimes miss is the fact that a lot of all people are generally where they are at because that is where they are more comfortable at and really want to be.

And before you say..."Are you trying to tell me that you think people enjoy being poor" let me explain something first.

If you could remove society's self inflicted devaluation of people because of their financial status and let no stigma be attached whatsoever in anyones' mind I beleive that it is an accurate statement to say that 95% of people are 95% satisfied with their station in life and you would not see a great movement either up or down in stations from any sector.

I believe it is just as wrong to impress upon a man in a shack that he needs to be in a mansion as it is to impress upon a man in a mansion that he needs to be in a shack. I have had both and I am a lot closer to being comfortable in a shack than I am in a mansion.

In all honesty there is opportunity here if people want it but it is nothing wrong with someone if they do not want all the opportunties that are out there. Let every man choose where he wants to be at in life and let him work to it. Just do not try to entitle people into where they have not self chosen their comfort level at.

any civilized society provides a safety net for those in desperate situations

Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 6:07 PM

lazarus,

The only real problem I see is these nets seem to get thrown over them instead of under them and they get all tangled up in them and can not get out of it if they wanted to.

parkerbrothers, We have been all around this tree before. People just do not choose their situations. We cannot all be successful and some of us will be weak. I daresay most living in a shack are not expecting a mansion, but when the cupboard is bare in that shack and there is no heat, while the man down the road (likely his employer) is comfortable in his mansion wondering what is wrong with all these poor people and not comprehending his part to play, there may be another problem. Since Lazarus is commenting anyway, why not refer to his predicament in the Bible? It may clear up my position for you.

"I'm not an economist, but I think I can suggest what might be missing from your math. You must be assuming that prices won't increase. If you take more of a company's profits in taxes, that creates price pressure. Ultimately, the person who is now receiving more welfare ends up with less spending power as inflation pushes prices up. With prices going up, businesses cannot achieve increased profits to provide money for expansion. Interest rates increase, so the same business cannot afford to borrow for expansion."

I am not changing taxes nor am I changing rates. I am only pointing out that if you looked at the system at this very minute, wealth is moved throughout the land to many people, controlled directly by the government. The system is already in place. Regardless of who gets the money or how much they get the next step in the chain is someone in America in business.

"It is taboo to suggest that a rising tide lifts all boats, but it is true in economics."

I did not know that.

"The concern that companies invest abroad or sit on money comes from class envy. The economy will still run more efficiently than if the welfare recipient spends the money. I don't deny that people end up in poverty in a capitalist system, but opportunity is still available. People risk death in the Southwest deserts to come here. Many of them live comparable lifestyles to American citizens while sending money back to Central America to their families. I know some of them don't pay taxes. That doesn't seem relevant when comparing them to people who don't work."

These two examples you give have a globalist feel to them. Globalism in some shapes has benefits such as building a strong work force no matter who is doing the work. It provides hope to many people that are working hard for it. On the other hand investing in every nation in the world seems dangerous. We are taking on a huge threat importing a proportion of imports that we can not safely inspect to protect our own nation from attack. If we as a nation cannot fund container inspection then we must cut back the number of containers.

Everyday we each fill our gas tanks with oil that possibly came from a nation that doesn't share our point of view and may even openly speak out against us. We have to find a way to keep those dollars here among us. A corn farmer in Iowa getting paid has to be better than a nation on the other side of the planet whose government may or may not wish America harm.

The system needs attention on many levels. At Microsoft, Bill Gates had two different competing types of Windows operating systems. One ran on top of the original DOS operating system and the other ran on NT. Windows 98 was the leader in home use, but NT ultimately won the battle easily because of its new ideas and more efficient mathematics. We are all in the machine, how are we going to control it?

Nathan, it's an interesting mental exercise. Let me try.

The assumption in the original post was that in your bottom up approach the money would stay here and continue to circulate generating tax revenue. I think your hypothesis is somewhat flawed in that you're assuming that none of the money will leave the system. Money will leave in the form of foreign investments by individuals (as opposed to companies) and as foreign aid (through tax disbursements by the government). Along the way it will be very difficult for the individual dollars to gather in enough force to have long term effect on the economy.

Contrast that with giving corporations incentives through tax breaks. Even if they don't use every dollar here they can have enough of an effect to push the economy forward. According to Okun's law, it takes an annual growth in the GDP of 3% to keep unemployment stable. For every 1% drop in the GDP there is a 0.5% rise in unemployment. While we're waiting for your bottom up dollars to make it up, the GDP will contract further causing more unemployment. Which will cause a rise in welfare recipients, causing the government to have to issue more checks. It becomes a vicious cycle that, in it's current form is impossible to break. When the dollars finally make it up, taxes have increased to the point that there is no more demand for products.

Ok that was fun, what's next? :)

"Many of them live comparable lifestyles to American citizens while sending money back to Central America to their families. I know some of them don't pay taxes. That doesn't seem relevant when comparing them to people who don't work."

The system could be better by finding a way, using current technology to allow able bodied people, stuck at home caring for someone long term to have an opportunity to give back instead of get a handout. For even just a little bit more money many would jump on the opportunity to work. If you don't see those people out there among you, then you have turned your back on them. I believe that most people have good hearts and I believe these people just want to be heard. Who is going to lobby for them? They are Americans and this is America.

In the Marine Corps you are rewarded promotion points for taking classes on all types of subjects. Read, do some lessons, take a test, mail it off. At first people would not think much of it, but when managed in the same way that the Marine Corps Institute is managed, it will become a brand that gains value over the years and improves a portion of the population's skills in subjects that they chose. Why not save the paper printing credit card offers and instead invest it in books for those willing to learn?

Everyday we each fill our gas tanks with oil that possibly came from a nation that doesn't share our point of view and may even openly speak out against us.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 6:36 PM

Nathan,

You know, you are starting to sound a lot like Bush. You just might not be all bad after all. :):)

My only suggestion might be to fill your tank up with gas instead of oil. Putting oil in your gas tank will cause it to puff like a freight train.

The assumption in the original post was that in your bottom up approach the money would stay here and continue to circulate generating tax revenue. I think your hypothesis is somewhat flawed in that you're assuming that none of the money will leave the system. Money will leave in the form of foreign investments by individuals (as opposed to companies) and as foreign aid (through tax disbursements by the government). Along the way it will be very difficult for the individual dollars to gather in enough force to have long term effect on the economy.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:12 PM

Please see paragraph 2 and 3 in the post below:

Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 6:41 PM

For even just a little bit more money many would jump on the opportunity to work.

Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:40 PM

Nathan,

Kind of sounds like an excuse you would hear from one of those on the side of the interstate ramps with a sign that says "Will work for food." Get real.

Actually their number one excuse is reported to be...."I can't today. I have a doctors' appointment in a little while. But I will tommorrow."

You think they would go to work for just a liiiitle bit more money?

You think they would go to work for just a liiiitle bit more money?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:58 PM

If one of them did would that be a failure?

You think they would go to work for just a liiiitle bit more money?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:58 PM

If one of them did would that be a failure?

nathan.evans, Yes, I am able to work. I am fortunate enough to have a degree of freedom though as I work for myself here at home.

You think they would go to work for just a liiiitle bit more money?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:58 PM

If one of them did would that be a failure?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:03 PM

Nathan,

No, It would be a miracle.

parkerbrothers, No, I wont be working this weekend, or for that matter, any this week. Why do you ask? Are you proposing that someone could work 12 hours a day every day and drastically improve their condition?

Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:03 PM

memyselfi,

Well, yes.

I was actually raised and taught there was no other way to improve your financial condition except working. Is there another way? (That is legal).

nathan.evans, I have been selling on ebay exclusively for all of my income for about 9 years now. Yes, I can do pretty much whatever I like, provided my income can support it, but most weeks end up working more than I would at a regular job. When you gain the freedom from traditional employment, you trade off the traditional separation of work and home lives.

parkerbrothers, Again, you attempt to portray me as an opponent of work. I am not. You left off the relevant part of my comment. Working for a fair wage is the only way to improve the condition of any of us in our society.

parkerbrothers, Perhaps it may be a stretch to you, but most of the time, I am not commenting on my behalf. I am fortunate and I do realize that. I am not so confused as to believe everyone has the options that I do, nor am I so selfish that the only segment of our society that I will defend is my own. As a matter of fact, I was quite concerned to see you defend Farmer Joes right relating to Bessie, as I knew deep down it was only your rights you were concerned about????

parkerbrothers, Again, you attempt to portray me as an opponent of work. I am not. You left off the relevant part of my comment. Working for a fair wage is the only way to improve the condition of any of us in our society.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:32 PM

memyselfi,

Oh wise and wonderful :):), tell us who determines what a fair wage is?

The market or you?

You need to slow your role a little.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 8:44 PM

Please substitute the word "bitch" with moan, groan, or complain.

parkerbrothers, The market of course, the true market. The one that isn't saturated with employers hiring illegals, the one that offers punishments instead of entitlements to prevent job flight, the one that does not negate the basic right of effective unionization. You know the one that removes all the protections I have heard you claim?

Nathan, I am not fortunate enough to have found a supplier of ready sellable merchandise. I sell whatever I can find. From antiques to electronics, if I can financially justify my time dealing with it, I sell it. I slow down every winter, but expect it and plan for it as best as I can.

Nathan,

Back to something a little more close to the original topic which has been great by the way.

Disregaurd welfare but substitute the theory of a higher minimum wage into the cycle you started with. Actually I will just copy and paste your "cycle" paragraph and substitue and CAPITALIZE the word "extra minimum wage dollar" everywhere you used the word "welfare" and ask you a question.

---------------------------------------

Your cycle paragraph -> "Here is what I am getting at. Imagine a cycle. This cycle starts with a EXTRA MINIMUM WAGE DOLLAR being given to a person on minimum wage. That dollar is spent on food, clothing, services, liquor, and just about anything else you can spend a dollar on in America. In this cycle it truly matters not where the dollar was originally spent because it will continue to be passed around in exchange for goods and services in our economy until it ultimately ends up back into the hands of the wealthy where it will be taxed again. Along the path to get back to the wealthy it generated income for state and local governments, it generated income for small business and large business, and it helped out someone that in many cases truly needed it. That EXTRA MINIMUM WAGE DOLLAR, because it went to someone that almost always reinvests it back into America, benefits many people during its trip through the cycle."

My question Nathan is... What happens to the price of all the products these employees who are working for minimum wage are producing and selling?

Keep in mind that in your words you said this extra dollar.... "is spent on food, clothing, services, liquor, and just about anything else you can spend a dollar on in America".... by these very people that produce these products.

Who really benifits any?

Who benefits the most?

the one that does not negate the basic right of effective unionization. You know the one that removes all the protections I have heard you claim?

Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:17 PM

memyselfi,

You are good at jarring questions loose in my mind (or rocker as the evil stargate monkey likes to call it).

If companies were to exercise the basic right of effective unionization for themselves among all companies that produce the same product what would it be called?

My question Nathan is... What happens to the price of all the products these employees who are working for minimum wage are producing and selling?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:30 PM

I would call it investing in America. You are creating an agency that will employ Americans and at the same time directly benefit America in a positive way. The correspondence courses would be something that the American government can create that would be a good public service. It would employ people printing the books and handling the records, and people that really have a desire to learn can learn how to provide a trade and compete in ways they never imagined.

Who really benifits any?

Who benefits the most?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:30 PM

Who really benefits? Who benefits the most?

Ask your self the same question when comparing trickle down economic and welfare?

Nathan,

I hope you are not trying to assume the "role" of "wise and wonderful" are you. :)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:40 PM

This is generally just me drinking a cup of coffee having a pleasant discussion.

n all seriousness what if it did not trickle up or down and just ran steady at a flat rate?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:51 PM

Well obviously that money has no where to go but when it is held by a person that is receives welfare. Do you think people on welfare are going to invest the money in Google and sit on it for a few years with hopes of a return?

You have increased the supply of money so much that the demand for goods would far outweigh the supply creating massive inflation.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:04 PM

You think? I see it as supplying more jobs.

Now how would this be any different than welfare checks except on a much smaller scale?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 9:48 PM

You have increased the supply of money so much that the demand for goods would far outweigh the supply creating massive inflation.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:04 PM

Nathan,

Why did you go and have to spoil my Christmas? I had already got excited and got the lights and balls out to put on the tree I was going to cut tommorrow.

If you give all 300 million Americans, $100,000 apiece you have given all of America 30 trillion dollars.

Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:20 PM

Nathan,

Dianetns example called for $100,000 per household instead of $100,000 per person.

If you give all 300 million Americans, $100,000 apiece you have given all of America 30 trillion dollars. The total amount of taxes collected in 2006 was 2.5 trillion dollars.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:20 PM

Sorry you did say every household and not every American. It does not change my answer though.

I know it is a lot of money also parkerbros but I think the government would end up getting more of that back than they will ever see from the Wall Street bailout and honestly never think for one minute the bailouts are over.. just hold on to your wallet!!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 10:24 PM

We got screwed on the bailout, plain and simple. They lost it and we gave it back to them plus interest to protect ourselves. The whole situation is obscene. Bank of America said they didn't even need the money, but because banks are in the business of trust, all banks were forced to take the money as to not indicate which banks need the money and cause a panic. What a joke!!! Oh well, if you must!! What is to keep these banks from taking that free money and purchasing the treasury bonds sold to finance the bailout itself and earn a profit on our dime?

The assumption in the original post was that in your bottom up approach the money would stay here and continue to circulate generating tax revenue. I think your hypothesis is somewhat flawed in that you're assuming that none of the money will leave the system. Money will leave in the form of foreign investments by individuals (as opposed to companies) and as foreign aid (through tax disbursements by the government). Along the way it will be very difficult for the individual dollars to gather in enough force to have long term effect on the economy.

Contrast that with giving corporations incentives through tax breaks. Even if they don't use every dollar here they can have enough of an effect to push the economy forward. According to Okun's law, it takes an annual growth in the GDP of 3% to keep unemployment stable. For every 1% drop in the GDP there is a 0.5% rise in unemployment. While we're waiting for your bottom up dollars to make it up, the GDP will contract further causing more unemployment. Which will cause a rise in welfare recipients, causing the government to have to issue more checks. It becomes a vicious cycle that, in it's current form is impossible to break. When the dollars finally make it up, taxes have increased to the point that there is no more demand for products.

Ok that was fun, what's next? :)

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:12 PM

Tim I wanted to revisit your statement once more. Your first paragraph states that my hypothesis is flawed because the money will leave our nation as the dollars are spent on certain goods in America. But in your second paragraph you inform us that by giving money to the very corporations that hold the foreign investments that somehow US GDP will increase as they expand into the global economy. Is an increase in GDP the only factor to look at when measuring the success of an economy?

If companies were to exercise the basic right of effective unionization for themselves among all companies that produce the same product what would it be called?-- Posted by parkerbrother

The status quo? I am just advocating equal opportunity for labor.

My question Nathan is... What happens to the price of all the products these employees who are working for minimum wage are producing and selling?-- Posted by parkerbrothers

Raising the minimum wage alone is not the answer. There are many ways to achieve a livable wage without inflation. A more representative reverse tax, limiting investment interest dividends, or several other ways could be effective.

If we are all on welfare, who puts in the dollar to be given out?

If we are all on welfare, who puts in the dollar to be given out?

-- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Sat, Nov 1, 2008, at 7:58 AM

Look Chef Boy R.D., what I am saying is that if you look at the state of welfare at this very minute on November 1st, 2008, the November welfare checks that are being delivered to someone that the government has noted as needing it for whatever reason, helps more Americans than just the original recipient of the welfare check, and because the money is being distributed throughout the United States in small increments it is more direct and efficient. Plus at the same time it helps those in need (and unfortunately some that are not in need).

On the other side of the coin would be the trickle down system in which we give companies a large concentration of money in the form of a tax break or a bailout with the hopes that they will increase spending here at home which will employ more people or that somehow the US GDP will grow when they use the money for foreign investments. Either way it is up to the corporation to distribute the money how they see fit.

That is so true Nathan, the American Public is not like the government. We can not spend what we don't have and that hurts Big Business just as much as it does Little America.

Explain to me why when Clinton was pres. we had higher taxes and a slower economy and with Bush we've had lower taxes and our economy on a whole is up. Yes bush has put us further in debt, trying to get us out of a problem that started back in the Clinton Admin. These banks didn't go belly up over night They have been making bad loans for more then 10 years and lets not forget the greed of the higher ups.

No what is shrinking the worker base is no freaking jobs and the ones that are still out there don't pay enough to live on..

Jobs moving overseas because of cheaper wages is a major problem. Companies producing products that a cheaply made with high prices tags is another thus the company loses money because people will not buy products they have a high price tag but don't last.

They don't pay enough because it is basic supply and demand. We have more people searching for jobs than there is jobs. I remember back maybe 10 or 12 years ago a person could quit their job on Friday and have another job just as good or better by Monday, that is not the case now. People feel they have to stay in jobs that are dead end making barely enough to get by because they know the workforce is overloaded with job seekers.

"Currently the international standard for currency trading is the dollar. Eventually the treasuries of the world will get tired of the US constantly devaluing the dollar and hurting their own currency." Posted by Tim Baker

I believe if it ever came even close to that, we would all see the importance that the other economies of the world have to our "national security", and the extent to which we would defend those protections. I do not think that is a real concern anyway, the dollar is the only game in town, and it is that way for a reason. If the EU can eventually project the same military and economic power that we currently do, the world market may open up some, but it appears to be all wrapped up, at this time anyway. Even in this mess we currently have going on, in the end, our economy will rebound to normal here, but most of the rest of the world will be paying for years. Economic empire building, like it or not, you have to admit it is better to live in the empire than the colonies.

"We need, no, we REQUIRE a sound conservative fiscal policy now. This means cutting government spending including entitlement programs." Posted by Tim Baker

I do not think the lower classes can absorb the burden of a conservative fiscal policy at this time. I will tell you why I believe this and try to make it relevant to you. You said on another page that you would be paying over half of your income to taxation if Obama were elected. I understand your position, and I had no desire to criticize your belief that you should be able to keep a greater percentage of your income. I agree that you should. That being said, I know several people currently paying 40%-60% of their income for really crappy HMO policies. As the price of basic commodities continue to rise (I believe they will as we have still not see the full effects of the minimum wage increase) the more people will have to cancel their policies. Food, gas and electricity are considered by most to be more important expenditures than healthcare. As crappy as they are, these policies provide a steady stream of income into your industry. If the price increases are not arrested soon, or there is not some relief provided from somewhere, we will pass a tipping point and there will be so few people with policies, the providers will not have enough paying clients to pay their 50% in taxes. The fastest way to drop both the GDP and tax revenues is to dry up the consumer base. I believe most investments in the lower classes (especially in times like this) will pay for themselves many times over when tax revenues and investment dividends are taken into consideration. I see it as a win-win situation, not theft from the wealthy.

Explain to me why when Clinton was pres. we had higher taxes and a slower economy and with Bush we've had lower taxes and our economy on a whole is up. Yes bush has put us further in debt, trying to get us out of a problem that started back in the Clinton Admin. These banks didn't go belly up over night They have been making bad loans for more then 10 years and lets not forget the greed of the higher ups.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Sat, Nov 1, 2008, at 10:32 AM

bellbuckletn,

No this happened back during the Reagan years, Savings & Loan debacle. Don't remember? Notice something seems to always happen during a republican administration?

How did we have a slower economy when over 11.2 million jobs were created during his presidency? Higher taxes? So what? We could afford to pay them. Slow economy? Are you joking? Really, I, personally know a couple dozen people that became millionaires through their innovative ideas during the 1990s. Innovation has been squelched, freedom of speech is being squelch, Oh unless it induces fear and national security.

Stop being close-minded and really think about it and stop watching Fox News unless you are able to discern the bullcrap over what is really happening.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sat, Nov 1, 2008, at 12:18 PM

Evil Monkey,

I have been in and around the business long enough to know where the root of the problem really sprung forth. We watched it sprout and really grow with Clinton.

This opinion is not through watching Fox News. Most of us that have first hand knowledge of what happened was too busy working trying to avoid the forth coming ramifications of Clinton's measures to watch a lot of Fox News. It is not like we just decided to place the load on Clinton, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd all at once now. We were talking about what was going to be the problem 8-9 years ago when it first looked like Clinton was trying to no-till the poisonous seeds.

What experience do you have in this field Evil Monkey that helps develop your opinion? Could it be that you are actually the one that is watching too much Fox News instead of living the experience?

parkerbros

If you would go back and reread my comment I said the cause of Americans not having jobs is because of companies moving overseas, they move overseas because of much cheaper wages (ie. Mexico they have cheaper wages because you can live over there like a king on $500 a month vs in America you live below poverty on $500 a month) I also said America is losing jobs because of companies making crappy products and charging outrageous prices. Take Whirlpool for instance, crappy high price products= losing customers=large layoffs=factory closings. Just Google sometimes when you have nothing better to do: Whirlpool product reviews and look at the thousands of customer complaints. Now we know why Whirlpool is having such large layoffs and factory closings don't we?

Watch out. The definition of "wealthy" has slipped from 250k per year to 150k in the last week. By inauguration day, it may be "gainfully employed". Well, at least if BHO raises taxes during a deep recession he'll be famous. Just like the last guy. Herbert Hoover.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 12:11 AM

I expect and even riskily venture to say that almost all of BHO definitions will change when reality replaces the dream. Perhaps decades later historians will look back and call it the period of "The Rude Awakening". --:)

"I expect and even riskily venture to say that almost all of BHO definitions will change when reality replaces the dream. Perhaps decades later historians will look back and call it the period of "The Rude Awakening". --:)"

LOL I expect that's the response from everyone who's ever won the presidency. Staffers probably spend the first two weeks trying to coax the new president out from under the desk.

"People feel they have to stay in jobs that are dead end making barely enough to get by because they know the workforce is overloaded with job seekers."

I've been there (proud graduate of Josten's 3rd shift). One night while watching the umpteenth graduation announcement pass through my die stamping press I came to the conclusion that I had to do better. After the season, I left town, went to school full time (without assistance from the parental units, that was not an option) and stuck with it until I got my degree. During college I worked at Zayre (now there's a blast from the past), worked as a phone solicitor (I have a great phone voice) and cleaned out rat cages in a research lab. It's hard, anyone who tells you any differently is lying. But I appreciate my education now more than ever. Not just the "book learnin", but just as important was the experience. That's why I'm so passionate about this issue. What I see is a country that's thrown in the towel and said "I can't deal with this". I say "YOU CAN, YOU MUST!!" In the Marines there is a saying, "adapt and overcome". That's what's required.

"No, I think they would probably be accussed of forming a monopoly and/or bid rigging if they all got together and collectively decided what they were all going to pay in the market to all the workers."-- Posted by parkerbrothers

parkerbrothers, The way I see it, this is now achieved at the legislative level, not the local. A monopoly is exactly what it is in practice, but it is legal and seldom questioned. For example (hopefully one you can relate to), the illegal immigrant problem we face today. Most Americans desire some degree of prevention or accountability however, neither party could (or would) garner enough support to address the situation. That is a direct attack on the supply side of labor. We have 2 presidential candidates that will encourage these people to inflate our workforce. Why do you imagine the 2 candidates are so close on this issue? Why has it not been a topic open for debate? There is not an option for "change", as it provides a protection to either party's constituents.

There are a dozen ways to over supply and cut demand for the labor market, and just as many ways reduce supply and increase demand. We do very little to achieve the latter and most actions taken ultimately achieve the former. What I would personally like to see is the demand for unskilled labor increase dramatically because the majority of the unskilled labor became skilled, and the jobs that they could fill remain here in the US economy, with threat of penalty for non-compliance. I see that as another win/win situation.

Evil Monkey, I agree with your comment. In the last 25 years, the reality of our job market has changed considerably. 25 years ago, a prime age male skilled or unskilled, could generally garner enough wages to provide a living. Now the same man is not only competing with teens and young adults who generally have no family to support, he also is competing with women (some of them having supplements to their income) for the most entry level of positions paying right at, or just above the minimum wage. That is assuming they could get a real job, without the employer using the probation period and outsourcing protections to keep labor perpetually temporary and without security or benefit.

Tim Baker, Okay, Not sure if I am reading you right, but I think so...if you see how a tight federal budget will not only be painful for the poor, it would also affect you, and millions like you, how do you suppose a shrinking GDP and tax base can pull us out of what we currently have? Our dollar is not restrained by being fixed, it still has the faith of most of the world, even in this situation. To my way of thinking, it is time to grow the pie, not shrink it. The more movement we see with the dollars out here, the better it is for everyone, at least to my way of thinking.

Back then you could stand up for yourself, there wasn't a fear then, Now? You lose everything.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 10:49 AM

Evil Monkey,

I may be wrong but I believe things are exactly backwards of the way you describe them. I think you can probably stand up more now than you ever could. It has not been too many decades ago that it was the employers' way or the highway. Plain and simple and nothing between you and the highway but the door you were fixing to go out.

Now days all someone has to do is yell I'm black, I'm female, I,m this, I,m that and the employer has to deal with more different kinds of Boards than the lumber company ever thought about stocking on the shelves.

Again, I may be wrong but it appears to me that employees today have been provided more whistles to blow than they know what to do with. We didn't even have a whistle to blow when we worked.

"When you did all of that, was college cheaper? What was the unemployment rate? 7.2% projected to achieve 8.4% next quarter? In the good ole days, it is easy to say, but these are different times. You are fighting for low income wages against people that will work for alot less. Bet you didn't get fired either just for anything. Back then you could stand up for yourself, there wasn't a fear then, Now? You lose everything."

Yes EM college was cheaper....and wages were lower. When I started college prime interest rates were at 20%, Unemployment was at 8% and reached 10% during my freshman year. I nearly got fired from Josten's because someone misinterpreted something I said as racist (a month before I left for school). Yeah, those were some "good 'ol days".

"how do you suppose a shrinking GDP and tax base can pull us out of what we currently have? Our dollar is not restrained by being fixed, it still has the faith of most of the world, even in this situation. To my way of thinking, it is time to grow the pie, not shrink it. The more movement we see with the dollars out here, the better it is for everyone, at least to my way of thinking."

That's a valid question. The counter question would be "what is the economy really worth?" For years (and I don't restrain this to any particular president) the economy has been restrained from natural ebbs and flows by government intervention, which caused serious overvaluing. They did this primarily by "printing money" i.e. increasing the money supply through borrowing.

Now if you believe the Keynsian multiplier theory for every 100$ the government pumps into the economy, there should be about 300$ after it's turned over (assuming 33.33% saving or investment which is a pipe dream today). However once you take into the rise in inflation, debt service and real world conditions, you end up with 100$ again (or possibly less). The standard of living hasn't changed.

As far as the dollar, it may still be the "coin of the realm" right now. But the more outstanding debt that is held by other nations, the higher the probability that won't be the case. If spending continues to be out of control, countries may decide that the Euro is more stable. If that happens there will be a glut of dollars on the market which will severely devalue the dollar. It will make importing anything cost prohibitive. Since so much of our daily goods are made overseas (due to the erosion of our manufacturing base) the standard of living would take a catastrophic hit.

They said the same thing about Clinton... Funny.

Yeah, and Clinton had a hand in many of the current problems we are facing now(especially with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc). I voted for him and think he did a pretty good job but we are now seeing some of his decisions were not the best.

I only hope that if any people are in the next building that topples it will only be supporters of the One that misjudged foreign policy. May the people that escaped the deception of the One and did not support him also escape the destruction and damnation he brings forth...

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Nov 3, 2008, at 11:50 AM

A true Christian would never wish harm on anyone no matter what their opinions or beliefs are. That comment was very distasteful and I don't wish any harm on anyone no matter who they vote for or how angry someone like darrick_04 can make me. We don't need those kind of statements in this forum. You were giving a somewhat reasonable comment but the last paragraph ruined it and made you seem so cruel and hateful.

"Keynes is not a favorite of mine. I have faith in the multiplication theory, but I question your numbers. "

I shamelessly stole that very example from Milton Friedman.

"I think your concern about some nations dumping their dollars is a concern in the long run, but not anytime in the immediate future. "

I think that may be part of the problem. I agree that it won't happen tomorrow but we have to forget the temptation of looking at next year's GDP. We have to be more proactive in controlling our long term financial future.

As far the real worth of the economy, all we have to do is look at the last six months. The economy was overvalued fueled by ridiculous home values brought on by pumping money into the economy, Once people realized that many of the mortgage securities were not worth the paper they were written on, you started to see contraction of the economy back to where it should have been in the first place.

Have we set the record yet for longest blog thread here? I know I've done my part :)

No, you are wrong parkerbrothers . . . you should never wish anyone dead no matter the situation . . . you should always wish the building would be empty no matter what opinions there are out there.

I only hope that if any people are in the next building that topples it will only be supporters of the One that misjudged foreign policy. May the people that escaped the deception of the One and did not support him also escape the destruction and damnation he brings forth...-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Nov 3, 2008, at 11:50 AM

Spoken like a "TRUE CHRISTIAN". Now I know you really are innocent of Vehicular endagerment, and unpleasant finger gesturing, and Cursing, and Fist throwing or physical harm to your Christian brothers and sisters. We are all Gods children, and what you do, say, and wish upon one of us you do, say, and wish upon God.

May God heal you from your hurt and anger toward yourself and others.

May God heal you from your inability to understand and the true underlying intent of your heart when you take something you know absolutely nothing about and try to interpret.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 7:03 AM

Sort of like your sad attempt to know anything about the Constitution, the economy, or any other important issue.

Am I missing something? Just thought I'd post the topic of the blog again.

May God heal you from your inability to understand and the true underlying intent of your heart when you take something you know absolutely nothing about and try to interpret.-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 7:03 AM

Sort of like your sad attempt to know anything about the Constitution, the economy, or any other important issue.-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 9:39 PM

-"Ain't that the truth! PB, the thing is you are very easily interpeted because everything you post has a negative bias toward someone in some kind of way".

Back then you could stand up for yourself, there wasn't a fear then, Now? You lose everything.-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 10:49 AM

Evil Monkey,

I may be wrong but I believe things are exactly backwards of the way you describe them. I think you can probably stand up more now than you ever could. It has not been too many decades ago that it was the employers' way or the highway. Plain and simple and nothing between you and the highway but the door you were fixing to go out.

Now days all someone has to do is yell I'm black, I'm female, I,m this, I,m that and the employer has to deal with more different kinds of Boards than the lumber company ever thought about stocking on the shelves.

Again, I may be wrong but it appears to me that employees today have been provided more whistles to blow than they know what to do with. We didn't even have a whistle to blow when we worked.-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 7:25 PM

-"And yet they were fired, downsized, or eased on out the door by any means neccessary. This sounds like someone who lacks the experience of being employed in the working field for the current and past 8-12 years. Job Security is a thing of the past. You are not in touch with reality. Just like John McCain stating our economy is fundamentally sound. (It may be sound for the wealthy, but not the other 95% of Americans. How in the world can any one help a country and it's economy if they don't even realize it is suffering?) Your statement below speaks volumes. You are one of the reasons for this blog "What am I Over looking", selling out the American workers, and the American economy going down the drain because About 82% of you left this punishing tax system and went to a country where you pay no income tax, and what you call raping you when you die with inheritance taxes".

Eight years ago I peaked at approximately 385 direct and indirect employees in the States. Today I only want to put up with 5 good employees here and piddle. The opportunities overseas keep drawing more and more people to give them a good look. About 82% of me left this punishing tax system and went to a country where I pay no income tax nor am I raped when I die with inheritance taxes. I am afraid if people do not wake up here they may be faced with a system that will eventually have to deal with the dilema of trying to figure out how all the people on welfare are going to pay for all the others on welfare.

I do not personally know Bob the Plumber but I do know Greg the Plumber. I talked to him last Friday on his mobile while he was actually on a plane sitting in Beleize ready to take off for Miami. Guess what? Greg had just bought into Belieze.

Wake up America. A lot of us are figuring out this is not the only place to be if you are going to punish us for working hard.-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 3:11 PM

-"So does this mean you will be moving out of the Good Ole USA. If 82% of you is invested in another country, why not go live there. I'm sure that is what you would tell someone else". : )

You are so funny, yu pooty wabit. Jus ful o it. : P

Time is flying, I keep forgetting Thanksgiving is in this month. Must be because we just got threw with Halloween.

It maybe, befor an other year is over, many more may need welfare, yes it has become a way of life for many, generation follows generation colecting it,

It maybe better if it is policed more, thogh that seldem seems to work eather,

As long as money is printed with nothing to back it, maybe it maters not, if one works for it or not

The mater is just to spend it, as long as it cirulates it makes work for those wishing to work,

Money siting still dose nothing,

It is a visious cirkle with out an answer,

I would hate to see those who truly need go with out,

Lets hope all including those on welfare Spend as much as they can as often as they can

so our great countys can get back the jobs it has lost and those it is still loosing.

Bill

It's interesting how the topic strays...

I only want to say that not everyone receiving public assistance is lazy, or spends their money on alcohol and drugs, or uneducated, or have babies out of wedlock. I, myself, am educated, work, and don't take what I don't need. I see more and more divorced mothers, whose ex-husbands move or don't to work where they can be tracked and garnishments taken. I don't have any support structure to help with child care, so I work a job that pays $7.25 hrly so that I can give my child a Mother who stays home with her after work, and carries her to her after school events. Sometimes life throws you curve balls or pushes you down a cliff. I am the working, uninsured poor. I don't look like the stereotype...most of us aren't. I receive $60 a month for food stamps. You can do the math on my take home pay. After utilities, gas, repairs, school fees (public school is no longer free). I have very little wiggle room for savings or anything else. I receive TennCare. If you want national health coverage, then try living with TennCare. It's an eye-opener.

I'm not making excuses. All the above being said, I own my home. I own my car. I have no debt. I live within my means.

I don't buy into the "redistribution of wealth" theory. But I do believe that public assistance should be at the state and local level and a case-by-case decision. When I was growing up, the men in my hometown would gather regularly and decide to give. They would help widows and infermed. They would do home repairs. Women would donate clothes.

The biggest part of the problem is that Americans have been convinced that we should lead the lives we see on TV. Big house, big cars, big lifestyles... Some people even think they are entitled to it. Some of those are on the public assistance problem. If locally there were more control, there would be less inefficiency.