Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Krugman on the Economy and the Candidates

  1. #1

    Krugman on the Economy and the Candidates

    Great analysis. And Paul sticks it to Obama again. Some people are going to be angry.

    January 14, 2008
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Responding to Recession
    By Paul Krugman
    Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it’s quite possible that we’re already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we’ll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.

    Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?

    In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.

    Take, for example, John McCain’s admission that economics isn’t his thing. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”

    His self-deprecating humor is attractive, as always. But shouldn’t we worry about a candidate who’s so out of touch that he regards Mr. Bubble, the man who refused to regulate subprime lending and assured us that there was at most some “froth” in the housing market, as a source of sage advice?

    Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani wants us to go for broke, literally: his answer to the economy’s short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn’t.

    About Mike Huckabee — well, what can you say about a candidate who talks populist while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich?

    And then there’s the curious case of Mitt Romney. I’m told that he actually does know a fair bit about economics, and he has some big-name Republican economists supporting his campaign. Fears of recession might have offered him a chance to distinguish himself from the G.O.P. field, by offering an economic proposal that actually responded to the gathering economic storm.

    I mean, even the Bush administration seems to be coming around to the view that lobbying for long-term tax cuts isn’t enough, that the economy needs some immediate help. “Time is of the essence,” declared Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, last week.

    But Mr. Romney, who really needs to take chances at this point, apparently can’t break the habit of telling Republicans only what he thinks they want to hear. He’s still offering nothing but standard-issue G.O.P. pablum about low taxes and a pro-business environment.

    [B]On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus[/B]: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

    Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

    And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

    [B]The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable[/B]: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” [B]Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?[/B]

    Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

    For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. [B]I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.[/B]
    In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    How is that a great analysis? Standard gratuitous potshots at the GOP candidates while fawning over the democratic candidates' blatantly socialist platforms (except for attacking Obama's "right-leaning" :eek: policy suggestions -- hey, if Charles Krauthammer said a negative word about Obama, wouldn't he be branded a racist?)

    Krugman is an unabashed tool of "progressive" swamp-creatures like those at moveon.org, etc., and what he understands about economics could fit into a ferret's nostril.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=shakin318;2316012]How is that a great analysis? Standard gratuitous potshots at the GOP candidates while fawning over the democratic candidates' blatantly socialist platforms (except for attacking Obama's "right-leaning" :eek: policy suggestions -- hey, if Charles Krauthammer said a negative word about Obama, wouldn't he be branded a racist?)

    Krugman is an unabashed tool of "progressive" swamp-creatures like those at moveon.org, etc., and what he understands about economics could fit into a ferret's nostril.[/QUOTE]

    W himself is talking about offering a "socialist" package.

    Try listening, discussing the issues, showing some intelligence, rather than just more name calling and reciting right wing talking points.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2316121]W himself is talking about offering a "socialist" package.

    Try listening, discussing the issues, showing some intelligence, rather than just more name calling and reciting right wing talking points.[/QUOTE]

    As opposed to what, cutting and pasting articles from blatant leftists?

    Exactly what in my thread is a "right wing talking point?" Go back over Krugman's career and look at his comments and predictions on a broad spectrum of domestic and FP subjects and see just how miserably misinformed and biased he has been (both at face value and in hindsight)...but it doesn't stop him from continuing to churn out "progressive" pablum eagerly praised, copied and pasted by "intelligent" guys like yourself.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2316121]W himself is talking about offering a "socialist" package.

    Try listening, discussing the issues, showing some intelligence, rather than just more name calling and reciting right wing talking points.[/QUOTE]

    :zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2316121]W himself is talking about offering a "socialist" package.

    Try listening, discussing the issues, showing some intelligence, rather than just more name calling and reciting right wing talking points.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, because telling someone to “show intelligence” isn’t name calling. Please don’t ever complain about personal attacks.

  7. #7
    Paul Krugman is a tax and spend big government guy, he only dislikes big government if there isn't enough taxation of the "rich" to support his agenda of redistribution.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2316379]Yes, because telling someone to “show intelligence” isn’t name calling. Please don’t ever complain about personal attacks.[/QUOTE]

    Calling someone names does not show intelligence.

    Your post is also off base since my point was not that I was being personally attacked, but that pigeonholing Krugman served as a way to avoid discussing the substance of what he said.

    What is really the point of posting here if people you disagree with respond to any point with "Why should I talk about what he said? He's just a _________, and those people never have anything worth responding to?"

    Come to think of it, that probably represents about 90% of what goes on here.

    Since no one else seems capable of focusing on the substance of Krugman's column, I will attempt to do so, without namecalling.

    He starts out by noting that adverse developments in the economy are only now beginning to be noted by the candidates, excepting John Edwards, who did so several weeks ago by broaching a comprehensive proposal.

    He then goes down the list of the candidates and notes who has said and proposed what about the economy. He then notes that Clinton essentially adopted Edwards's proposal, while Obama essentially says his earlier tax policies, designed for a different purpose, that is general tax reform, will also address the recent developments in the economy. He then contends that Obama is proposing, again, something to the right of what Edwards and Clinton have proposed, all the while claiming the mantle of the progressive in the Democratic race.

    See, not a single use of namecalling, or ad hominem attack. It can be done here.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2316696]
    Your post is also off base since my point was not that I was being personally attacked, but that pigeonholing Krugman served as a way to avoid discussing the substance of what he said.

    What is really the point of posting here if people you disagree with respond to any point with "Why should I talk about what he said? He's just a _________, and those people never have anything worth responding to?"

    [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani wants us to go for broke, literally: his answer to the economy’s short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn’t.[/QUOTE]

    Talk about pigeonholing, Krugman has shown his true face on his comment on Guilliani. Any government plan to stimulate the economy is one that calls for more money in the economy. The advantage to a long term tax cut plan coupled with regulatory reductions is they not only stimulate but allow people to plan around something that is more than temporary which reduces the risk of investing long term.

    What if Congress throws a ton of money at alternate energy and it's spent on alternates that either don't work or have other uninteded consequences like higher food prices a reduction of the water table and the destruction of large areas of arable land through unsustainable crop rotations? How will that stimulate the economy?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2316778]
    What if Congress throws a ton of money at alternate energy and it's spent on alternates that either don't work or have other uninteded consequences like higher food prices a reduction of the water table and the destruction of large areas of arable land through unsustainable crop rotations? How will that stimulate the economy?[/QUOTE]

    I just wanna first say that there are a lot of right-wingers on this site!

    With that outta my system, great points. Too bad out gov't is too busy committing war crimes to bother fixing this mess we're in. I don't like any of the candidates plans to stimulate the economy and i wish it could be addressed before we have a new president. Lefties are the conscience of this country but Righties are the economic brains. We gotta put 2 n 2 together and make this country work again.

  11. #11
    Blocker, the problem is that Krugman starts from the assumption that the only way to address a recession is by increasing government spending, and then assesses the candidates' proposals based on whether they accomplish that.

    Also, most of Edwards' "economic stimulus" package has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Increasing aid to states to meet medicaid needs doesn't create jobs or pump money into the economy. And increased unemployment benefits paid for with a tax increase doesn't stimulate the economy, it merely moves money around.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2316843]And increased unemployment benefits paid for with a tax increase doesn't stimulate the economy, it merely moves money around.[/QUOTE]

    An argument can be made that it does the direct opposite, actually. Less money in the working market (i.e. creating jobs, building busineses) and more incentive to not work, i.e. subsidization of inactivity. Throiw is the abysmal lack of oversight in the average Unemployment program, and it adds up to nothing good.

  13. #13
    The amount of what passes for economic knowledge here by the right wingers, meaning most who post here, is shocking.

    First of all, it is obvious that most are unfamiliar with the concept of the velocity of money. Money distributed by government expenditure has greater velocity through the economy than money spent through tax cuts to the wealthy.

    Take a rich person who gets a tax cut. He may save his money, if he already has plenty. He may concededly spend that on, say, an addition to his house, hiring local contractors. Or, he may buy a new S series Mercedes. Other than the salesman at and owner of the local Mercedes franchise, most of that expenditure goes elsewhere.

    By comprison a poorer or even just middle class peson will spend money given to them much more quickly, and more likely on something made or serviced locally.

    Putting aside the propensity of the rich to spend money on products made in other countries, or even services, the key factor is that they spend it more quickly, with greater velocity.

    Greater velocity of expenditure creates more wealth in society. Simple economics. Just not taught by supply side economists.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE that cutting taxes below a certain amount will eventually mean that the reduction in government revenues will be made up down the road. Similarly the notion that tax cutters will cut government expenditures is not borne out in practice. It instead amounts to a policy of borrow and spend on tax cuts AND governmental expenditures. That is why when supply siders take control of the government, we see deficits go up.

    And of course that totally puts aside the issue of helping our fellow citizens who are most being adversely effected by the inevitable results of governmental policies that favor the wealthy and corporate interests over the average citizen.

    I take it most posters here somehow benefit personally from the current regime, which is why the nostrums of big business and supply side economics are so frequently cited and almost never examined. It is certainly not because such nostrums are established truth or beyond question or criticism.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2316778]Talk about pigeonholing, Krugman has shown his true face on his comment on Guilliani. Any government plan to stimulate the economy is one that calls for more money in the economy. The advantage to a long term tax cut plan coupled with regulatory reductions is they not only stimulate but allow people to plan around something that is more than temporary which reduces the risk of investing long term.

    What if Congress throws a ton of money at alternate energy and it's spent on alternates that either don't work or have other uninteded consequences like higher food prices a reduction of the water table and the destruction of large areas of arable land through unsustainable crop rotations? How will that stimulate the economy?[/QUOTE]

    Less regulation? LIke the less regulation that led to the subprime mortgage fiasco, threatening our economic well being?

    You are aware that long term capital gains rates have already been substantially reduced from rates that were in effect at other times, times that we had greater rates of growth while income inequality was lower?

    As for energy policy, I assume your alternative is to grab our ankles and wait for the oil and gas industries on their own to solve the problem? Pass the KY Jelly.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317508]The amount of what passes for economic knowledge here by the right wingers, meaning most who post here, is shocking.

    First of all, it is obvious that most are unfamiliar with the concept of the velocity of money. Money distributed by government expenditure has greater velocity through the economy than money spent through tax cuts to the wealthy.

    Take a rich person who gets a tax cut. He may save his money, if he already has plenty. He may concededly spend that on, say, an addition to his house, hiring local contractors. Or, he may buy a new S series Mercedes. Other than the salesman at and owner of the local Mercedes franchise, most of that expenditure goes elsewhere.

    By comprison a poorer or even just middle class peson will spend money given to them much more quickly, and more likely on something made or serviced locally.

    Putting aside the propensity of the rich to spend money on products made in other countries, or even services, the key factor is that they spend it more quickly, with greater velocity.

    Greater velocity of expenditure creates more wealth in society. Simple economics. Just not taught by supply side economists.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE that cutting taxes below a certain amount will eventually mean that the reduction in government revenues will be made up down the road. Similarly the notion that tax cutters will cut government expenditures is not borne out in practice. It instead amounts to a policy of borrow and spend on tax cuts AND governmental expenditures. That is why when supply siders take control of the government, we see deficits go up.

    And of course that totally puts aside the issue of helping our fellow citizens who are most being adversely effected by the inevitable results of governmental policies that favor the wealthy and corporate interests over the average citizen.

    I take it most posters here somehow benefit personally from the current regime, which is why the nostrums of big business and supply side economics are so frequently cited and almost never examined. It is certainly not because such nostrums are established truth or beyond question or criticism.[/QUOTE]

    Brilliant point about velocity. Why not give 100% of everyone's income to the government...think of the velocity then? Wouldn't that be great! Where do you think this money comes from? Does it just magically appear? "Velocity of expenditure" creates wealth? Are you freaking kidding me? Who creates this wealth for expenditure, I ask? The government creates no wealth. All they can do is redistribute it. Yes, having money churn is better than taking it and stuffing it under your mattress, because it can revolve and have "velocity." No sh*t sherlock. However, your point that "rich" people don't churn money to the same extent that poor people do is laughable. You don't have to buy anything to churn money. You can put money in a freaking bank account and add to velocity, because the bank takes that money and invests it. Aside from digging a hole in the ground and putting cash in it, everything churns money. Ditto for investing directly in securities. And your ignorant economic nationalism (your ridiculous notion that buying a Mercedes is worse, somehow, than buying something "local') is a relic of the past, like belief in witches, because you are only looking at one side of the ledger and you obviously don't know what wealth is, or else you wouldn't make such a basic mistake.

    You keep saying "tax cuts to the wealthy" and you have a laughable and pathetic understanding of what constitutes wealth or what are defined as rich people, especially in a country this large with many different costs of living and you have a childish notion that rich and poor people are stocks of the same people over time, as if all "rich" people are born that way and are filthy rich and all poor people are desparately poor and will remain so for their entire lives, or the fact that poverty continuously gets defined upwards as living standards rise in this country and income levels across the country are a tough gauge considering the wide disparity in costs of living and age, among our workforce. And you have the gall to imply that you know anything whatsoever about economics?

    You talk about helping our fellow citizens and act as if is not even up for debate that Big Government is the best way to do that. I love it that liberals talk about helping people but, on average, give away much less of their own money and free time to charity than conservatives do, particularly the same religious conservatives you so routinely hammer away for being bigots and fools. You are all generous as h*ll with othe people's money and time, just not your own. I love, just LOVE self-important sanctimony from people who support killing babies and don't give away any money to charity. It never gets old. Yeah,why don't YOU lecture ME about caring, pal. Put that sh*t on toast. You are such a lightweight, it's not even funny. You should be embarassed for posting a Krugman article. He's a hack and a proven liar and fraud. Check out KrugmanTruthSquad. They've exposed him countless times for what he is. No one takes him seriously outside of your mouth-foaming DailyKos bubble, Toonces.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317508]The amount of what passes for economic knowledge here by the right wingers, meaning most who post here, is shocking.[/quote]

    Standard issue Big Blocker....lead off with an insult to everyones intelligence because he disagrees. Frankly I am growing tired of this kind of insult-based trolling BB.

    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317508]First of all, it is obvious that most are unfamiliar with the concept of the velocity of money. Money distributed by government expenditure has greater velocity through the economy than money spent through tax cuts to the wealthy.

    Take a rich person who gets a tax cut. He may save his money, if he already has plenty. He may concededly spend that on, say, an addition to his house, hiring local contractors. Or, he may buy a new S series Mercedes. Other than the salesman at and owner of the local Mercedes franchise, most of that expenditure goes elsewhere.

    By comprison a poorer or even just middle class peson will spend money given to them much more quickly, and more likely on something made or serviced locally.

    Putting aside the propensity of the rich to spend money on products made in other countries, or even services, the key factor is that they spend it more quickly, with greater velocity.[/QUOTE]

    The number of assumptions you make here is the downfall (IMO) of your argument. You assume the "rich" only save (hoard?) or spent greedily on foreign luxuries. That is an invalid argument as I see it, many will pump that money into their businesses, their property or their investments (as well as plenty of American made luxuries), all of which help the economy and add capital to the market.

    You assume the "poor" spent fast and buy American. Again, I disagree, as would anyone who's been to a Wal-Mart, Foodtown, K-Mart of any other Big Box retailer of late. A vast number of products are foreign-made, and their purchase help only one step....the purchase. One bought, they do nothign for the economy, other than buffer the profit margins of selected Big Box Retailers.

    I'm sorry BB, but economic theory is simply not as cut and dry simple as you'd like to paint it.

    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317508]I take it most posters here somehow benefit personally from the current regime, which is why the nostrums of big business and supply side economics are so frequently cited and almost never examined. It is certainly not because such nostrums are established truth or beyond question or criticism.[/QUOTE]

    Given some of your comments, and the likly fact that you are a Lawyer of some kind (based on your answer in a previous thread), I am willing to be you benifit far more from "tax Cuts for the Rich" than I do. I make 42K. I think Id'd bet you make a healthy sum more than that. So no, not everyone who disagrees with you is a wealthy self-server. Some simply disagree with your opinion. Considering the field of economics if pretty split on the issue, it's hardly wrong to hold a differing viewpoint from your own, and it certainly doesn;t mark one as unintelligent.

  17. #17
    [quote=Big Blocker;2317508]The amount of what passes for economic knowledge here by the right wingers, meaning most who post here, is shocking.

    First of all, it is obvious that most are unfamiliar with the concept of the velocity of money. Money distributed by government expenditure has greater velocity through the economy than money spent through tax cuts to the wealthy.

    Take a rich person who gets a tax cut. He may save his money, if he already has plenty. He may concededly spend that on, say, an addition to his house, hiring local contractors. Or, he may buy a new S series Mercedes. Other than the salesman at and owner of the local Mercedes franchise, most of that expenditure goes elsewhere.

    By comprison a poorer or even just middle class peson will spend money given to them much more quickly, and more likely on something made or serviced locally.

    Putting aside the propensity of the rich to spend money on products made in other countries, or even services, the key factor is that they spend it more quickly, with greater velocity.

    Greater velocity of expenditure creates more wealth in society. Simple economics. Just not taught by supply side economists.

    And there is NO EVIDENCE that cutting taxes below a certain amount will eventually mean that the reduction in government revenues will be made up down the road. Similarly the notion that tax cutters will cut government expenditures is not borne out in practice. It instead amounts to a policy of borrow and spend on tax cuts AND governmental expenditures. That is why when supply siders take control of the government, we see deficits go up.

    And of course that totally puts aside the issue of helping our fellow citizens who are most being adversely effected by the inevitable results of governmental policies that favor the wealthy and corporate interests over the average citizen.

    I take it most posters here somehow benefit personally from the current regime, which is why the nostrums of big business and supply side economics are so frequently cited and almost never examined. It is certainly not because such nostrums are established truth or beyond question or criticism.[/quote]

    So:

    1) It's more socially useful for the less well off to have money than for the well off to have money

    2) So lets just move the money around.

    That, my friend, is socialism, pure and simple. The fundamental principle you are espousing is that the government not only has a right to but should move resources from person to person based upon concepts of "the greater good". That's an extraordinarily dangerous proposition - and one I'd bet you don't support when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Lets take eminent domain, for example. Yes, there are very legitimate uses of it - but should the government use eminent domain to purchase homes in low income areas and turn the land over to private corporations for business use? Doing so would (a) increase local spending (since the displaced people would need to buy or rent new homes); (b) heat up the housing market (since you'd now have a ton of new demand in the form of displaced former residents); and (c) create jobs, both in construction and in the new business taking over the land. That would also create an increase in tax revenue that could be used to fund increased services (like, say, more funding for the schools in the low income area next door, better unemployment pay, and some basic health coverage for everyone).

    So, when can I expect your endorsement of that plan, Blocker?


    Secondarily, you act like merely increasing the velocity of money is a net benefit. But you are ignoring that the process of moving the money around isn't 100% efficient. Unlike, say, George Soros handing out $1,000 bills to homeless people, the people who will benefit from the increased services aren't getting dollar for dollar the amount taken from the well off to pay for them. So if the only benefit of moving the money around is its increased velocity, then simply saying that the velocity of what reaches the lower income folks will be greater isn't enough to justify it. What you would need to be able to show is that the increased velocity of the net that will reach lower income people (i.e. the money collected, less administrative costs) will have a greater effect on the economy than the slower velocity of the gross (the money collected) would have had if it had simply been left alone. I've seen nothing to support that claim from you.

    Finally, to the extent that you define "right wingers" as anyone not as far to the left as John Edwards, or anyone who disagrees with you, that's a joke and not worthy of a response.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2317607]Standard issue Big Blocker....lead off with an insult to everyones intelligence because he disagrees. Frankly I am growing tired of this kind of insult-based trolling BB.



    The number of assumptions you make here is the downfall (IMO) of your argument. You assume the "rich" only save (hoard?) or spent greedily on foreign luxuries. That is an invalid argument as I see it, many will pump that money into their businesses, their property or their investments (as well as plenty of American made luxuries), all of which help the economy and add capital to the market.

    You assume the "poor" spent fast and buy American. Again, I disagree, as would anyone who's been to a Wal-Mart, Foodtown, K-Mart of any other Big Box retailer of late. A vast number of products are foreign-made, and their purchase help only one step....the purchase. One bought, they do nothign for the economy, other than buffer the profit margins of selected Big Box Retailers.

    I'm sorry BB, but economic theory is simply not as cut and dry simple as you'd like to paint it.



    Given some of your comments, and the likly fact that you are a Lawyer of some kind (based on your answer in a previous thread), I am willing to be you benifit far more from "tax Cuts for the Rich" than I do. I make 42K. I think Id'd bet you make a healthy sum more than that. So no, not everyone who disagrees with you is a wealthy self-server. Some simply disagree with your opinion. Considering the field of economics if pretty split on the issue, it's hardly wrong to hold a differing viewpoint from your own, and it certainly doesn;t mark one as unintelligent.[/QUOTE]

    Most of what the poor spend money on are rent and food. Compare that to the rich spending money on foreign products.

    My point about velocity of money is that no one here mentioned it before me. Sorry you found my reference insulting. Well, not really.

    5ever of course chimed in afterward, but with a typical right wing talking points rant about where the money comes from. He chooses to ignore the obvious in doing so - we are talking about what action the government should take for the collective benefit of all.

    I obviously did not assume the rich only hoard or spend on foreign products. I mentioned in my post they might build an addition on their house. The problem is if you want to reverse a recessionary trend in the economy, the odds are the rich will spend less money more quickly than the poor.

    You are the one who questioned the benefit of giving money to the poor, not me. You have no data to back that one up. And you know it.

    As far as how much money I make compared to you, fair enough, but most others here are probably doing better than you. As for why some might choose to naively kowtow to economic policies that redound to their own personal detriment, that is a complex question. There is the useful idiot phenomenon. But that does not explain everything.

    In my case I happen to believe an increase in income inequality is corrosive in a great variety of ways, and it is worth it to me personally to see to it that something be done to correct that, even if I might be harmed somewhat in the process.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317726]As for why some might choose to naively kowtow to economic policies that redound to their own personal detriment, that is a complex question. There is the useful idiot phenomenon. But that does not explain everything.[/quote]

    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317726]In my case I happen to believe an increase in income inequality is corrosive in a great variety of ways, and it is worth it to me personally to see to it that something be done to correct that, even if I might be harmed somewhat in the process.[/QUOTE]

    Guess you're a pretty useful idiot (your term, your definition) yourself, since you just admitted your socialist ways will hurt you personally.:rolleyes:

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2317726]Most of what the poor spend money on are rent and food.

    Sorry you found my reference insulting. Well, not really.[/QUOTE]

    If you really think the "Poor", i.e. those who reap the greatest reward from the Govt. Teat, "only spend that money on rent and food", you must really not know any poor. I do, both in my own family, and in the places I have lived. You couldn't be further form the truth, in my experience. The "poor" use every method possible to exploit the "free money" they get, to ensure they (like so many Americans" have their High Def TV's, Flashy Cars and nice Clothes. You only wish the "poor" truly neede dteh money they get to survive, because reality does not bolster your argument in any form in my experience.

    And I wasn't insulted BB. I'm just waiting for you to make the wrong insult, step over the line of personal attack yet again, and then you won't be a bother any longer. Knowing your (short but colorful) history in here of arrogance and insult, I'm doubting it'll take too long. Don't say you were not warned.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us