PDA

View Full Version : A Quotes from a Real Liberal



Cigar
12-18-2013, 08:22 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Y3QnFWn.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/p320x320/1069312_516958001702831_898774419_n.jpg

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 08:31 AM
Yep, he's a real liberal and a bad joke as an economist.

Not surprised you worship him, your understanding of economics is another bad joke. I guess that is what happens when you are handed a living because of your color, something you apparently share with Barack Obama, the worst joke of all.

:rofl:

jillian
12-18-2013, 08:33 AM
Yep, he's a real liberal and a bad joke as an economist.

Not surprised you worship him, your understanding of economics is another bad joke.

:rofl:

no doubt you know much more than a nobel prize winning economist.

but please, let us know when rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works...... for someone other than the already massively wealthy.

and the thing is, you don't need to be an economist to observe the schadenfreude of the right with respect to those who struggle.

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 08:35 AM
Well, I definitely know more than a Nobel prize winning POTUS. So yes, it is quite probable. In any case, the serious economists know a lot more than this one.


rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works...... for someone other than the already massively wealthy.

Nope, they obviously don't work as well as ObamaNomics, given how the rich have gotten far richer faster since you elected the Vacationer In Chief.

:rofl:

Cigar
12-18-2013, 08:37 AM
no doubt you know much more than a nobel prize winning economist.

but please, let us know when rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works...... for someone other than the already massively wealthy.

and the thing is, you don't need to be an economist to observe the schadenfreude of the right with respect to those who struggle.

Careful ... they'll cry to Mama ... and Mama will appease :laugh:

jillian
12-18-2013, 08:37 AM
Well, I definitely know more than a Nobel prize winning POTUS. So yes, it is quite probable. In any case, the serious economists know a lot more than this one.



Nope, they obviously don't work as well as ObamaNomics, given how the rich have gotten far richer faster since you elected the Vacationer In Chief.

:rofl:[/COLOR]


what obamanomics? the wingnuts haven't gotten out of the way.

so own it.

although, i supposed we could still be bleeding 850,000 jobs a month like we did when baby bush was president.

yeah, that's the ticket.

(and the joy the right takes in hurting others is still inexcusable -- a huge moral failing).

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 08:38 AM
Oh, the wingnuts are responsible for the acceleration of the wealth of the one percent since Obama was crowned? HAHAHAHAHAHHA

:rofl:

Chris
12-18-2013, 08:39 AM
He can't possibly believe in rule of law. Rule of law as originally conceived subjected the ruling class to the same rules as the ruled classes. Krugman above is cited as saying he wants government to limit extremes of wealth and poverty. Rule of law also implies the same rules would be applied to all. As cited he want special treatment (limits) for some.

He says some pretty stupid things as well, like this about the need to create bubbles:

http://i.snag.gy/Ge4KV.jpg

Chris
12-18-2013, 08:42 AM
no doubt you know much more than a nobel prize winning economist.

but please, let us know when rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works...... for someone other than the already massively wealthy.

and the thing is, you don't need to be an economist to observe the schadenfreude of the right with respect to those who struggle.



Nice appeal to authority coupled with ad hom.

Accompanied by stringing meaningless words together: "rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works". --Rand wasn't an economist.

patrickt
12-18-2013, 08:46 AM
It took me a minute to place the face. He's the shill for Enron. Great job. As a Nobel Price winner he's right up there with Barack Obama.

But, he is a liberal and will sell out in a flash.

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 08:49 AM
Nice appeal to authority coupled with ad hom.

Accompanied by stringing meaningless words together: "rightwingnut trickle down, randian economics works". --Rand wasn't an economist.

I thought about awarding her a broken record but that is happening with almost everything posts, hence the award is becoming a broken record as well. :rofl:

Libhater
12-18-2013, 08:52 AM
I thought about awarding her a broken record but that is happening with almost everything posts, hence the award is becoming a broken record as well. :rofl:

Even cigar is getting a bit embarrassed with her irrelevant drivel.

Cigar
12-18-2013, 08:53 AM
Oh, the wingnuts are responsible for the acceleration of the wealth of the one percent since Obama was crowned? HAHAHAHAHAHHA

:rofl:

So you were for the Middle-Class Tax Cuts, Infrastructure Spending and Increased Taxes for The Wealthy :rofl:

Glad you're on board

Cigar
12-18-2013, 08:54 AM
Even cigar is getting a bit embarrassed with her irrelevant drivel.

I'd call you out, but all you'd do is cry to Mama :laugh:

jillian
12-18-2013, 08:54 AM
Even cigar is getting a bit embarrassed with her irrelevant drivel.

stop projecting.

nic34
12-18-2013, 08:56 AM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q52/Jimdotz/Reaganomics.jpg

Cigar
12-18-2013, 08:57 AM
stop projecting.

It's allowed :rollseyes:

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 08:57 AM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q52/Jimdotz/Reaganomics.jpg

And we proved it with OBAMANOMICS!

:rofl:

Max Rockatansky
12-18-2013, 09:01 AM
no doubt you know much more than a nobel prize winning economist.

Krugman did win the 2008 economic prize for "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2008/index.html), but the OP quotes are not about trade patterns. They are about Krugman's personal philosophies and politics.

There are very few Americans who desire to see poor kids starving in the streets and the bodies of old people lying in gutters and allies. The main differences between Left and Right isn't whether or not to help the poor or helpless, but how to help them. Socialism doesn't work. Simply making the rich pay for the poor may feel good but, as the USSR and Eastern European nations proved, eventually you just end up with a lot more poor people.

I believe the best system is a strongly capitalistic one, albeit a regulated system to prevent harm to others, with a social safety net to catch those who fall through. I don't believe in handouts. I believe in the philosophy of teaching people to fish rather than just giving them fish which is what the Democrat or "Liberal" philosophy seems to be. "But you have so many fish! You must give some away to feed the poor!"

Cigar
12-18-2013, 09:02 AM
And we proved it with OBAMANOMICS!

:rofl:

It was Filibustered ... in favor of Status Quo, what's wrong ... don't like your results?

Cigar
12-18-2013, 09:04 AM
How soon they forget the words that came out of Lord Reagan's own mouth :laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3f0A_P9kNBc

Libhater
12-18-2013, 09:05 AM
stop projecting.

Tell you what, I'll stop projecting once you stop running from the facts, and once you stop using nonsensical liberal talking points as a tool to avoid discussing the issues.
We got a deal, dear jill?

Chris
12-18-2013, 09:05 AM
So you were for the Middle-Class Tax Cuts, Infrastructure Spending and Increased Taxes for The Wealthy :rofl:

Glad you're on board


Has Obama implemented any of that, no, instead he's gutting the lower and middle classes to enrich the already rich.

Chris
12-18-2013, 09:06 AM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q52/Jimdotz/Reaganomics.jpg

That's Keynesian too.

Chris
12-18-2013, 09:07 AM
How soon they forget the words that came out of Lord Reagan's own mouth :laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3f0A_P9kNBc



Amazing, you can't even stay on topic in your own threads.

Mainecoons
12-18-2013, 09:28 AM
ObamaNomics works!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-17/83-numbers-2013-are-almost-too-crazy-believe

Disclaimer: I didn't say HOW it works. Read the list and draw your own conclusions. Some of my faves:


#1 Most people that hear this statistic do not believe that it is actually true, but right now an all-time record 102 million working age Americans (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-facts-about-the-growing-unemployment-crisis-in-america-that-will-blow-your-mind) do not have a job. That number has risen by about 27 million since the year 2000.#2 Because of the lack of jobs, poverty is spreading like wildfire in the United States. According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid) of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month.


#21 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html) on welfare programs over the past five years.
#22 Incredibly, 74 percent (http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/wealth-inequality.png) of all the wealth in the United States is owned by the wealthiest 10 percent of all Americans.


#32 In November 2000, 64.3 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO.txt) of all working age Americans had a job. When Barack Obama first entered the White House, 60.6 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO.txt) of all working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.6 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO.txt) of all working age Americans have a job.
#33 There are 1,148,000 fewer Americans (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/1148000-fewer-americans-have-jobs-today-7-yrs-ago) working today than there was in November 2006. Meanwhile, our population has grown by more than 16 million people during that time frame.


#41 At this moment, there are 6 million Americans (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-15-percent-us-youth-school-work-20630467) in the 16 to 24-year-old age group that are neither in school or working.
#42 The "inactivity rate" for men in their prime working years (25 to 54) has just hit a brand new all-time record high (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=LRIN25MAUSM156S).
#43 It is hard to believe, but in America today one out of every ten jobs is now filled by a temp agency (http://www.propublica.org/article/the-expendables-how-the-temps-who-power-corporate-giants-are-getting-crushe).
#44 Middle-wage jobs accounted for 60 percent (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/06/more-americans-are-working-but-pay-is-still-low/?iid=HP_River) of the jobs lost during the last recession, but they have accounted for only 22 percent (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/06/more-americans-are-working-but-pay-is-still-low/?iid=HP_River) of the jobs created since then.


#46 Approximately one out of every four (http://www.moneynews.com/nealasbury/full-time-part-time-jobs-workers/2013/08/29/id/522850) part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.
#47 After accounting for inflation, 40 percent of all U.S. workers are making less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968 (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/40-percent-of-u-s-workers-make-less-than-what-a-full-time-minimum-wage-worker-made-in-1968).
#48 When Barack Obama took office, the average duration of unemployment in this country was 19.8 weeks. Today, it is 37.2 weeks (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UEMPMEAN.txt).


#60 The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million (http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/10/16/decline-of-the-middle-class-behind-the-numbers) in the year 2000 to more than 47 million (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34snapmonthly.htm) today.
#61 Right now, one out of every five (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/23116928-20618000-households-food-stamps-now-outnumber-all-households) households in the United States is on food stamps.
#62 The U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs (http://economyincrisis.org/content/seminar-major-issues-affect-our-economy-and-country-todays-issue-lack-jobs-due-our-trade-def) for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported from overseas.
#63 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12300001) of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12300001) of all men in the United States have jobs.
#73 When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp). Today, it is up to 101 percent (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp).
#74 The U.S. national debt is on pace to more than double (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/another-one-trillion-dollars-1000000000000-in-debt) during the eight years of the Obama administration. In other words, under Barack Obama the U.S. government will accumulate more debt than it did under all of the other presidents in U.S. history combined.
#75 The federal government is borrowing (stealing) roughly 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.
#76 At this point, the U.S. already has more government debt per capita (http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/-1.img_assist_custom-640x421.png) than Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland or Spain.

Cigar
12-18-2013, 09:32 AM
Amazing, you can't even stay on topic in your own threads.

I didn't bring up Reaganomics ... I responded to it.

So Go cry to Mama with the rest of the puzzies

patrickt
12-18-2013, 10:55 AM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q52/Jimdotz/Reaganomics.jpg

Nic is learning how to post from Cigar. Amazing.

iustitia
12-18-2013, 11:04 AM
Taxes good. Freedom bad.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/78185C314B9C0FB414561142F9D35A50.gif
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/9152AB0813AC0019DBA6AA4DDC5ED1AF.gif?w=365&h=257&as=1
http://www.rightposters.com/images/posters/700/700_kennedy_tax_quote.jpg
http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2013/11/21/Photos/MG/MW-BP662_kenned_20131121144319_MG.jpg?uuid=842d8204-52e5-11e3-b3f7-00212803fad6
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/bg1765/bg1765table6sm.ashx?w=574&h=364&as=1
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/JFKontaxation1.jpg

jillian
12-18-2013, 11:10 AM
ah... if only the right cared as much when actual freedoms were infringed up.

*sigh*

iustitia
12-18-2013, 11:15 AM
If only the left realized there is no left or right.

Chris
12-18-2013, 11:17 AM
ah... if only the right cared as much when actual freedoms were infringed up.

*sigh*



If only the left understood you cannot legislate, administer or adjudicate freedom, only protect the freedoms we naturally have.

<sigh>

AmazonTania
12-18-2013, 11:53 AM
no doubt you know much more than a nobel prize winning economist.

Yes. Continue to listen to the nut who said that we needed an alien invasion to fix the economy.

Cigar
12-18-2013, 11:54 AM
Yes. Continue to listen to the nut who said that we needed an alien invasion to fix the economy.

Considering it already happened :rollseyes:

AmazonTania
12-18-2013, 11:56 AM
Considering it already happened :rollseyes:

There is a reason why no one in the financial community takes Krugman seriously.

The only ones who do are generally people too ignorant to know better.

AmazonTania
12-18-2013, 12:02 PM
And BTW, this noble prize winner said that 'no one knew if there was going to be a recession in 2008.'

Anyone with a half a brain could have seen it from a mile away, unless you're a pundit, politician or Federal Reserve Chairman...

nic34
12-18-2013, 12:03 PM
Taxes good. Freedom bad.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/78185C314B9C0FB414561142F9D35A50.gif
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/9152AB0813AC0019DBA6AA4DDC5ED1AF.gif?w=365&h=257&as=1
http://www.rightposters.com/images/posters/700/700_kennedy_tax_quote.jpg
http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2013/11/21/Photos/MG/MW-BP662_kenned_20131121144319_MG.jpg?uuid=842d8204-52e5-11e3-b3f7-00212803fad6
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/bg1765/bg1765table6sm.ashx?w=574&h=364&as=1
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/JFKontaxation1.jpg


Let's go back to the Kennedy tax rates.

Guess who would vote against it....

AmazonTania
12-18-2013, 12:07 PM
Less than 300 individuals paid taxes at the top marginal Kennedy rate.

No one would vote against not paying taxes. Not even those who love paying taxes.

Cigar
12-18-2013, 12:08 PM
And BTW, this noble prize winner said that 'no one knew if there was going to be a recession in 2008.'

Anyone with a half a brain could have seen it from a mile away, unless you're a pundit, politician or Federal Reserve Chairman...

What?

2 Wars, Tax Breaks for The Rich and Prescription Drug Plans aren't free?

Don't worry ... everyone will forget and blame it on the next guy, especially if he's got Big Ears :grin:

AmazonTania
12-18-2013, 12:09 PM
What?

2 Wars, Tax Breaks for The Rich and Prescription Drug Plans aren't free?

Don't worry ... everyone will forget and blame it on the next guy, especially if he's got Big Ears :grin:

None of that has anything to do with the recession.

You know when I said the only people who listen to Krugman are the only ones too ignorant to know better? You're a good example.

Chris
12-18-2013, 12:09 PM
Yes. Continue to listen to the nut who said that we needed an alien invasion to fix the economy.

Krugman's also the nut who suggested we could solve world poverty by loading up airplanes with money and dropping it around the globe.

Dr. Strangelove
12-20-2013, 11:56 AM
Krugman's also the nut who suggested we could solve world poverty by loading up airplanes with money and dropping it around the globe.

Actually, that money would have gone directly into the economy and spent by people. Rather than the trillions of bailouts given to the crooked bankers who caused the collapse!

Trillions for crooked banks, NOTHING for the victims, the people.

Krugmans alien joke just proves that cons have no sense of humor.

Chris
12-20-2013, 12:02 PM
Actually, that money would have gone directly into the economy and spent by people. Rather than the trillions of bailouts given to the crooked bankers who caused the collapse!

Trillions for crooked banks, NOTHING for the victims, the people.

Krugmans alien joke just proves that cons have no sense of humor.


Aren't you taking him too seriously?

Why not take all the wealth stolen through taxes and give it to people directly?

nic34
12-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Yes, what about "stolen wealth?"

What would have happened if the investment we all made by providing lands for oil companies, railroads and highways or inventing the net or pharmaceuticals had been put into a national permanent trust and distributed to all Americans each year rather than being given to corporations to create profits?

Mainecoons
12-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Yes, what about "stolen wealth?"

What would have happened if the investment we all made by providing lands for oil companies, railroads and highways or inventing the net or pharmaceuticals had been put into a national permanent trust and distributed to all Americans each year rather than being given to corporations to create profits?

Those nasty corporations probably wouldn't have such big payrolls, making the booming welfare rolls since Obama took office just that much bigger.

Interesting that Obama not only continued the handouts to those evil banks and wall streeters, he piled a bunch more on. However, only the Evil Bush is excoriated for this practice among the liberals here.

Chris
12-20-2013, 03:41 PM
Yes, what about "stolen wealth?"

What would have happened if the investment we all made by providing lands for oil companies, railroads and highways or inventing the net or pharmaceuticals had been put into a national permanent trust and distributed to all Americans each year rather than being given to corporations to create profits?


Just who do you think provided those resources, nic.

nic34
12-20-2013, 03:52 PM
State and federal lands as well as the public airwaves belong to the citizens.

You've no doubt heard of The Alaska Permanent Fund?

nic34
12-20-2013, 03:55 PM
An American Permanent Fund would be the centerpiece of the new commons sector proposed in this volume. It’s a way to fix, or at least ameliorate, capitalism’s flaw of concentrating private property among the top 5 percent of the population.



http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/American_permanent_fund.htm

Chris
12-20-2013, 03:57 PM
State and federal lands as well as the public airwaves belong to the citizens.

You've no doubt heard of The Alaska Permanent Fund?



How did those resources come to be owned by the public?

Chris
12-20-2013, 03:58 PM
An American Permanent Fund would be the centerpiece of the new commons sector proposed in this volume. It’s a way to fix, or at least ameliorate, capitalism’s flaw of concentrating private property among the top 5 percent of the population.



http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/American_permanent_fund.htm



And it says what about the tragedy of the commons?

nic34
12-20-2013, 03:58 PM
"Henry George must be in his grave spinning' like a cyclotron. We, the people at large, make the land more desirable; and then the landowners want us to pay them because we won't allow them to poison the air or to pollute the rivers." Molly Ivins 1995

Chris
12-20-2013, 04:06 PM
"Henry George must be in his grave spinning' like a cyclotron. We, the people at large, make the land more desirable; and then the landowners want us to pay them because we won't allow them to poison the air or to pollute the rivers." Molly Ivins 1995

We the people don't work the land (resources), individuals do, and in so doing rightfully appropriate it--even Henry George would agree with that. Ivins misinterprets him.

nic34
12-20-2013, 04:19 PM
Henry George: The Crime of Poverty (http://thepoliticalforums.com/HG/crime_of_poverty.html) (1885 speech)

But I have not time to enter into further details. I can only ask you to think upon this thing, and the more you will see its desirability. As an English friend of mine puts it: "No taxes and a pension for everybody;" and why should it not be? To take land values for public purposes is not really to impose a tax, but to take for public purposes a value created by the community. And out of the fund which would thus accrue from the common property, we might, without degradation to anybody, provide enough to actually secure from want all who were deprived of their natural protectors or met with accident, or any man who should grow so old that he could not work. All prating that is heard from some quarters about its hurting the common people to give them what they do not work for is humbug. The truth is, that anything that injures self-respect, degrades, does harm; but if you give it as a right, as something to which every citizen is entitled to, it does not degrade. Charity schools do degrade children that are sent to them, but public schools do not.

Mainecoons
12-20-2013, 04:31 PM
Matthew 26:11

Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Matthew 26:11 (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-26-11/).

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.


- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

So far, Nic, it appears to me that your ideas are basically succeeding in adding to the ranks of the poor and decimating the middle class. It's nice to hand wring and emote but when we get down to what has actually happened as government has gotten bigger and bigger and taken more and more of the resources of the private sector, the result is that poverty has grown by leaps and bounds.

nic34
12-20-2013, 04:34 PM
MY ideas don't include the failure of 30+ years of trickle-down Reaganomics....

Mainecoons
12-20-2013, 04:36 PM
Funny, they worked really well until the liberal housing bubble popped and then we got Obama. Perhaps you need to do a little review of the data charts that show when poverty took off. They've certainly been posted here enough for even the staunchest of deniers to see them.

Or you can just chant your silly mantras that have no basis in reality.

Your call. :grin:

Newpublius
12-20-2013, 04:38 PM
Let's go back to the Kennedy tax rates.

Guess who would vote against it....

Well, how about while we're at it we go back to government spending along the lines of when Kennedy was in office which means you'd basically have to halve government spending (not quite but close)

Chris
12-20-2013, 04:42 PM
Henry George: The Crime of Poverty (http://thepoliticalforums.com/HG/crime_of_poverty.html) (1885 speech)

But I have not time to enter into further details. I can only ask you to think upon this thing, and the more you will see its desirability. As an English friend of mine puts it: "No taxes and a pension for everybody;" and why should it not be? To take land values for public purposes is not really to impose a tax, but to take for public purposes a value created by the community. And out of the fund which would thus accrue from the common property, we might, without degradation to anybody, provide enough to actually secure from want all who were deprived of their natural protectors or met with accident, or any man who should grow so old that he could not work. All prating that is heard from some quarters about its hurting the common people to give them what they do not work for is humbug. The truth is, that anything that injures self-respect, degrades, does harm; but if you give it as a right, as something to which every citizen is entitled to, it does not degrade. Charity schools do degrade children that are sent to them, but public schools do not.


Practically stolen from Paine's Agrarian Justice.

Rights aren't granted or given.

nic34
12-20-2013, 04:43 PM
Matthew 26:11

Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Matthew 26:11 (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-26-11/).

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.


- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition





Matthew 25:45: "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

In Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of a rich man sent to hell because of his indifference to the disadvantaged

Jeremiah 22:15-16, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."

Chris
12-20-2013, 04:43 PM
MY ideas don't include the failure of 30+ years of trickle-down Reaganomics....

Or failed trickle up economics. Time to give up on both of those Keynesian ideas.

Chris
12-20-2013, 04:44 PM
Matthew 25:45: "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

In Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of a rich man sent to hell because of his indifference to the disadvantaged

Jeremiah 22:15-16, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."



Examples of private charity, not public.

Newpublius
12-20-2013, 04:47 PM
MY ideas don't include the failure of 30+ years of trickle-down Reaganomics....

So as a business owner, when I spent a dollar, people don't work, right? What happens? The government taxes me, takes the dollar and then magically the dollar becomes stimulative? This is basically what you're saying right? How many people actually collect paychecks? Many I would assume, quite possible over a hundred million people including the government workers whose salaries 'trickles' through the system from the taxpayers who pay taxes.

Bottom line is that 'trickle down' is just a pejorative appellation for nothing so different as the Keynesian multiplier. The Keynesian GDP equation is C+I+G+NET TRADE, there's no EXCEPTION for the expenditures of wealthy people in that equation is there?

Ultimately employees everywhere get up and go to work and in return receive a paycheck, this paycheck compensates them and induces them to SUPPLY THEIR LABOR, Nic, without which nobody would show up..... {There are even employees in NJ who, choosing between NY and NJ make the choice based on the total compensation package which changes because of materially different taxation regimes}

There's a reason supply curves are upward sloping and demand curves are downward sloping. If you decrease the benefit received from an activity you will see less of it, if you increase the benefit received from an activity you will see more of it. Likewise, with demand, if you increase the cost of something you will decrease the amount consumed/demanded and if you decrease the cost you will see more consumed/demanded. You can dispute the basic premise of the law of supply and the law of demand until you're blue in the face, but to be blunt if you want to then you need to explain why you won't show up to your job as a volunteer.

Taxes matter because taxes either increase the cost of something (like say a sales tax) or decrease the benefits received from an activity. Taxes are a necessity, but no matter how you slice it the negative consequences of a tax can't NOT exist.

If you don't think people care about the costs/benefits of activities, you're deluding yourself. I'm here to tell you, they do.

nic34
12-20-2013, 04:51 PM
Examples of private charity, not public.

Keep telling yourself that....

Mainecoons
12-20-2013, 04:55 PM
Matthew 25:45: "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

In Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of a rich man sent to hell because of his indifference to the disadvantaged

Jeremiah 22:15-16, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."

Do you understand the difference between encouraging people to help the poor versus stating the reality that the poor have always been with us?

Try dealing with the reality and not your constantly wistful thinking that if only we take enough from the successful, poverty will disappear.

No, it won't. It will just spread as I pointed out to you.

Chris
12-20-2013, 05:15 PM
Matthew 25:45: "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

In Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of a rich man sent to hell because of his indifference to the disadvantaged

Jeremiah 22:15-16, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."


Examples of private charity, not public.


Keep telling yourself that....

It's what it says, nic.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think we disagree on ends, just the means. We've been fighting poverty publicly since LBJ declared war and the poverty rate has only increased.

Mainecoons
12-20-2013, 05:21 PM
I wouldn't disagree on the means if progressive ideas worked. In point of fact, those Reagan policies that Nic likes to fulminate against worked like a champ right up until we elected Bush. And then really compounded the error by electing Obama and giving the Democrats full control of the government for two years. That latter worked just as well as when we elected Bush and gave the damned Republicans full control of the government.

I'll tell you this, if I could go back and do it over, I'd vote for Algore and divided government. We need the Republicans to regain control of the Senate.

We get screwed by both parties but we get screwed less when neither of them have full control of the government.

nic34
12-20-2013, 05:30 PM
“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.” Nelson Mandela

nic34
12-20-2013, 05:37 PM
Back to land:

The root cause of poverty is private ownership of the natural resource essential to life – land. Private property in land has been long established. In giving all men equal rights of access to land it is not necessary to confiscate land, undo titles or nationalise land. It is simply a matter of collecting the land value rental thereby returning to the community the value created by the community. This can be achieved through Land Value Taxation.

http://www.c4ej.com/resources/the-causes-of-poverty

Chris
12-20-2013, 05:41 PM
“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.” Nelson Mandela




No one's arguing about whether man can help his fellow man, The question is whether private charity or public welfare does the best. Government's are good for much but starting wars and redistributing wealth, and that usually from the poor and middle classes to the rich in the form of crony corporatism.

Chris
12-20-2013, 05:45 PM
Back to land:

The root cause of poverty is private ownership of the natural resource essential to life – land. Private property in land has been long established. In giving all men equal rights of access to land it is not necessary to confiscate land, undo titles or nationalise land. It is simply a matter of collecting the land value rental thereby returning to the community the value created by the community. This can be achieved through Land Value Taxation.

http://www.c4ej.com/resources/the-causes-of-poverty


Great claim. Where's the argument? It would need to address the crony corporatist practices from mercantilism to Obamanomics draining wealth from the poor and middle classes and redistributing it to the rich.

zelmo1234
12-20-2013, 06:14 PM
what obamanomics? the wingnuts haven't gotten out of the way.

so own it.

although, i supposed we could still be bleeding 850,000 jobs a month like we did when baby bush was president.

yeah, that's the ticket.

(and the joy the right takes in hurting others is still inexcusable -- a huge moral failing).

What was it that caused the economic collapse again???? I forget it has been nearly a week since you liberals have tried the Bull Shit!

Do we want to go through it again?

zelmo1234
12-20-2013, 06:20 PM
So you were for the Middle-Class Tax Cuts, Infrastructure Spending and Increased Taxes for The Wealthy :rofl:

Glad you're on board

So how did that work out for the American people?

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/cbo-obama-stimulus-may-have-cost-as-much-as-4-1-million-a-job/

OH! it only cost the American people 4.1 million for every job created? What a bargain!

BB-35
12-21-2013, 10:59 PM
what obamanomics? the wingnuts haven't gotten out of the way.

so own it.

although, i supposed we could still be bleeding 850,000 jobs a month like we did when baby bush was president.

yeah, that's the ticket.

(and the joy the right takes in hurting others is still inexcusable -- a huge moral failing).

You're fooling yourself if you think you can pin this mess all on the right...

Professor Peabody
12-24-2013, 11:39 PM
Yep, he's a real liberal and a bad joke as an economist. Not surprised you worship him, your understanding of economics is another bad joke. I guess that is what happens when you are handed a living because of your color, something you apparently share with Barack Obama, the worst joke of all. :rofl: I think Krugman wouldn't know his own ass from a burnt biscuit if he looked at them both at the same time, his articles show that.