PDA

View Full Version : The new red America and income inequality



Scerab
11-09-2016, 12:45 PM
It has been a very interesting policitcal season. Now that the dye is cast and the people have voted. We wake up to a red America. Republicans are fully in control of America.
I am interested to see what sane people have to say about what impact this will have on income inequality and social welfare programs.
If we look at our history, income inequality was rampant before the Great Depression in the 1930s. Today the impact of income inequality is subsided by the social welfare programs that keep people fed to a certain extent.
If you look at 2016, the rich have gotten richer, facebook and amazon founders, as an example, have almost doubled their net worths. Did they creat more jobs? Or are they in fact trying to use technology to lay off more people and increase profits.
What do you people think?
Will the reds, who now control all three houses, try to separate the food stamp bill from the agricultural bill, making it more vulnerable to cuts?
Can this new government lead to an even great shrink in the middle class? And further increase the gap of income inequality?
Many economists are predicting an inevitable recession. Many think that we live in stock market bubble. Can this be Americans second Great Depression? And will trump be a second Hoover?
I am interested in the argument not fanatical comments. Thank you

The Xl
11-09-2016, 12:45 PM
Donald Trump ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.

exploited
11-09-2016, 12:46 PM
Income inequality will skyrocket under President Trump. The people who voted for him will be hurt most of all. All these deluded people thinking that manufacturing is coming back? It isn't. Sorry. No matter who you elect President. Except now they can be damned sure their benefits and economic assistance will be cut.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 12:52 PM
The latest data from U.S deparmtent of agriculture shows that the majority of food stamps recipients are white.
The Reds claim that more rich equals more prosperity. But why are we not seeing that today? Where most of the billionaires are seeing a massive increase in net worth.

Subdermal
11-09-2016, 12:53 PM
Income inequality is a red herring created by socialists to harness a constituency to give their true ideology - control - legs. It is a function of the mathematical inevitability of Keynesian Monetarism, and the common logic of exponential growth. Everything in life obeys the following mathematical law:

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/exponential3.png

It works for every growth equation. If one virus duplicates, the rate at which new viruses appear exponentially increases as time elapses. The same is true of dollars.

So why wouldn't one believe that someone with more dollars will then grow their dollars at a rate commensurate with everything else which grows in life?

The lowest classes have a rate of growth reflected by their point on that curve. They are to the left.

Following proper habits, however (saving/investing/improving their market value) dictates how quickly they move to the right. Once they've ARRIVED at the right end of the curve, their wealth grows exponentially more quickly than those who are just getting started.

Why should the left be allowed to artificially alter that natural path?

Subdermal
11-09-2016, 12:55 PM
The latest data from U.S deparmtent of agriculture shows that the majority of food stamps recipients are white.
The Reds claim that more rich equals more prosperity. But why are we not seeing that today? Where most of the billionaires are seeing a massive increase in net worth.

Sweet. A new sock.

You don't seem to acknowledge the power of cronyism, and how it is only possible when we construct a Government large enough to affect all aspects of life; a Government large and powerful enough to JUSTIFY bribing it with the money of the wealthy.

Would a Federal Government truly limited by the traditional (read: proper) interpretation of the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution attract the attention of so many desiring to manipulate society to benefit them personally?

Cigar
11-09-2016, 12:57 PM
The latest data from U.S deparmtent of agriculture shows that the majority of food stamps recipients are white.
The Reds claim that more rich equals more prosperity. But why are we not seeing that today? Where most of the billionaires are seeing a massive increase in net worth.

... and if they are expecting Donald Trump to back Construction Jobs, they better Run across the boarder first, because that's were he get's his resources.

Those people looking for work after Coal Mining Jobs, better hope someday Republicans realize the those skills are useless and they The Educated in the New world gets the Jobs

Cigar
11-09-2016, 01:13 PM
Income inequality is a red herring created by socialists to harness a constituency to give their true ideology - control - legs. It is a function of the mathematical inevitability of Keynesian Monetarism, and the common logic of exponential growth. Everything in life obeys the following mathematical law:

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/exponential3.png

It works for every growth equation. If one virus duplicates, the rate at which new viruses appear exponentially increases as time elapses. The same is true of dollars.

So why wouldn't one believe that someone with more dollars will then grow their dollars at a rate commensurate with everything else which grows in life?

The lowest classes have a rate of growth reflected by their point on that curve. They are to the left.

Following proper habits, however (saving/investing/improving their market value) dictates how quickly they move to the right. Once they've ARRIVED at the right end of the curve, their wealth grows exponentially more quickly than those who are just getting started.

Why should the left be allowed to artificially alter that natural path?

Even Sexual Prowess ... wow ... my best day are Cumming :laugh:

Sorry ... that was Tee'd Up and had to smack it

Scerab
11-09-2016, 01:18 PM
The Keynesian economics are what brought America out of the Great Depression and saved capitalism as we know it. On the other hand, Reaganomics Increased the national debt and significantly increased the percentage of poverty in America.
For the sake of argument, if all the wealth keeps shifting to the right, then what effect will that have on the middle class, on consumption, on the children of poor families?

Chris
11-09-2016, 01:22 PM
'murica is purple.

Income inequality being discussed here is a statistical abstraction. Individuals rise and fall. Even the abstraction is changing with more and more moving up. As someone said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

No, it's not going to be Trump who accomplishes that, nor would it have been Clinton. Look to the people.

Chris
11-09-2016, 01:24 PM
The Keynesian economics are what brought America out of the Great Depression and saved capitalism as we know it. On the other hand, Reaganomics Increased the national debt and significantly increased the percentage of poverty in America.
For the sake of argument, if all the wealth keeps shifting to the right, then what effect will that have on the middle class, on consumption, on the children of poor families?


"Reganomics" were Keynesian. Economic theories don't make economies rise or fall any more than politicians do. Except maybe spending us into a debt so deep we cannot recover.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 01:33 PM
I was not referring to the reds winning the White House but rather the grand picture of them winning all three houses.
What will they do to the safety net programs that feed those left behind by the income inequality that is rampant in America.
No one really tackled my questions.
will the new red majority government try to superset the food stamp bill from the agricultural bill, making the primer more susceptible to cuts?
Are we heading towards a second Great Depression?

Scerab
11-09-2016, 01:43 PM
The national debt is the result of deep divide in our three houses of government. Both Bush and Obama contributed to the national debt. Bush added 5.8 trillion and left obama to deal with the Great Recession. And Obama increased the national debt by 7 trillion. Bush senior, Clinton and Reagan all added about 1.5 trillion each to the national debt.
But the question is, can the trillions added to the national debt during the Obama era be blamed on him? Or was it caused by the Bush administration? The two wars, the real estate bubble and the Great Recession.

Chris
11-09-2016, 01:55 PM
The Constitutional branches of our government doesn't cause debt. It was designed to limited the government's power. It comes from Congressional spending, overspending, out of control spending.

Subdermal
11-09-2016, 02:30 PM
The Keynesian economics are what brought America out of the Great Depression and saved capitalism as we know it.

How do you know that?

How do you know that constricting the M1 35% - as happened, right before the onset of the Great Depression - wasn't the cause? If you remove from circulation a third of currency, wouldn't you believe such an act devastates currency velocity, and instigates a crash?

I reject your claim. To the contrary, Keynesian Monetarism was the cause of the Great Depression - and the Central Bankers who control the policy created the crash, both for political and economic gain.


On the other hand, Reaganomics Increased the national debt and significantly increased the percentage of poverty in America.

Same tired bullsht, again offered without a shred of evidence. How could Reaganomics be responsible for increasing the National Debt when Reaganomics increased the take to Treasury by well beyond the pace of inflation?

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Reagan%20tax%20cuts%20and%20revenue.jpg

And how can you make the claim that Reagan "increased poverty" when the opposite is true?

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Historical-US-Income-Inequality-Current-Dollars-2.jpg

You see a chart like this, and wail that those on the lowest line are - somehow - disadvantaged. You're looking at it incorrectly: it is merely an affirmation of my premise. What matters is class mobility. How fast was a citizen able to progress from the lowest quintile into higher quintiles?

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/lahontan-valley/under-reagan-income-mobility-trumped-income-inequality/

Read that to understand economic mobility, and lend insight into why your positions are absolutely incorrect.


For the sake of argument, if all the wealth keeps shifting to the right, then what effect will that have on the middle class, on consumption, on the children of poor families?

There are far more complex factors, and you're attempting to oversimplify it to support a narrative. To start, I reject the assertion: wealth isn't "shifting" to the right. It's merely growing faster on the right end of the exponential chart than it elsewhere, and that is as natural as gravity, and has always been. To accept the notion that there is a 'shift of wealth', one would have to believe that Mark Zuckerberg becoming a Billionaire had to happen at the expense of someone else's wealth.

Wealth can be created from nothing more than an idea, and that idea doesn't have to destroy the wealth of others in order to take place.

Beyond that, what those who have proven capable to acquire and growth wealth do not do so in a vacuum. By definition, the activities in which they engage necessarily involves the rest of the social caste. They invest, build, grow, and it is unavoidable that others partake, and set about their own path towards the right of that posted curve.

Stop promulgating class envy.

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 02:49 PM
I was not referring to the reds winning the White House but rather the grand picture of them winning all three houses.
What will they do to the safety net programs that feed those left behind by the income inequality that is rampant in America.
No one really tackled my questions.
will the new red majority government try to superset the food stamp bill from the agricultural bill, making the primer more susceptible to cuts?
Are we heading towards a second Great Depression?
Your trying to tackle too many disparate topics at once.

What will they do to the safety net programs that feed those left behind by the income inequality that is rampant in America.

Nothing

Bethere
11-09-2016, 02:54 PM
"Reganomics" were Keynesian. Economic theories don't make economies rise or fall any more than politicians do. Except maybe spending us into a debt so deep we cannot recover.

You have no plan as a libertarian to get to point b from point a. A lot of people are about to get hurt.

There will be blood on libertarian hands.

Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 03:02 PM
Incoherent nonsense:


You have no plan as a libertarian to get to point b from point a. A lot of people are about to get hurt.
There will be blood on libertarian hands.
Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Bethere
11-09-2016, 03:02 PM
I reject your claim. To the contrary, Keynesian Monetarism was the cause of the Great Depression - and the Central Bankers who control the policy created the crash, both for political and economic gain.
Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money wasn't even written until a decade after the depression started.

Once again you are caught red handed lying.

I bet Putin and the KGB love you.

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 03:04 PM
Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money wasn't even written until a decade after the depression started.

Once again you are caught red handed lying.

I bet Putin and the KGB love you.
1933 (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_President_Roosevelt)

Bethere
11-09-2016, 03:05 PM
Incoherent nonsense:

You are walking into a long term conversation.

Bethere
11-09-2016, 03:06 PM
1933 (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_President_Roosevelt)

1936.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

So without a time machine Keynes had nothing to do with starting the great depression.

Common Sense
11-09-2016, 03:10 PM
I expect increased income inequality. I also expect a rise in prison populations and welfare roles.

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 03:11 PM
1936.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Something having happened in '36 doesn't undo what happened in '33. Subdermal is right about Keynesian policies having turned a correction in to the Great Depression. BTW, Keynes doesn't have to have espoused them for them to have been implemented.

Bethere
11-09-2016, 03:14 PM
Something having happened in '36 doesn't undo what happened in '33. Subdermal is right about Keynesian policies having turned a correction in to the Great Depression. BTW, Keynes doesn't have to have espoused them for them to have been implemented.

Yours is an entirely different, but equally false claim.

Again, Keynes couldn't cause something to happen in either 1929 or 1933 by writing a book in 1936.

Finally, the great depression started in 1929, not 1933.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.history.com/topics/great-depression&ved=0ahUKEwj2nuPVvpzQAhVTgiYKHVqJB-AQFggnMAE&usg=AFQjCNEj5ISTuW6o9jPKBGu9OpmQClzhaw

Scerab
11-09-2016, 03:25 PM
Explain this figure
after Reagan, income inequality increased
https://s19.postimg.org/jik7hlodv/IMG_1584.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/v7o75kfcf/)image share (https://postimage.org/)

Common Sense
11-09-2016, 03:25 PM
Expect a huge rise in the deficit once these tax reforms are implemented.

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 03:28 PM
Yours is an entirely different, but equally false claim.

Again, Keynes couldn't cause something to happen in either 1929 or 1933 by writing a book in 1936.

Finally, the great depression started in 1929, not 1933.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.history.com/topics/great-depression&ved=0ahUKEwj2nuPVvpzQAhVTgiYKHVqJB-AQFggnMAE&usg=AFQjCNEj5ISTuW6o9jPKBGu9OpmQClzhaw

The Great Depression went on for at least 10 years.

Read the letter (http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes2.htm). Keynes complimented Roosevelt on policies he had already implemented, particularly the NIRA, a cluster of policies we now call "Keynesian", but urged Roosevelt too ramp them up, especially the spending of borrowed money.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 03:37 PM
Economists predict that both the deficit and the debt will increase under a trump administration.
He promised to bring back obsolete professions.
Currenty, all prominent economists predict an increase of 5.3 trillion to our national debt. This not considering the eminent Recession.

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 03:39 PM
Explain this figure
after Reagan, income inequality increased
http://thepoliticalforums.com/webkit-fake-url://4baa6d0e-edc5-4e40-8a47-ff9cd826f848/imagejpeg
If the standard of living in rising for everyone, why do you care about the difference between the income of one person and that of another?

Scerab
11-09-2016, 03:41 PM
FDR, unlike Hoover, promised a new deal for America. And he tackled the Great Depression with increased government spending, Alleviating the suffering of the American people. And when he tried to balance the budget by decreasing government spending, he caused the FDR recession.
During the Great Recession, taxes on the rich were increased to %63.

Chris
11-09-2016, 03:47 PM
More like FDR kept the US afloat by manufacturing for and then going to war. At the end of the war FDR's fellow travellers wanted to try to keep the economy on a war footing by centrally managing it. Congress said hell no, and the nation prospered.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 03:48 PM
Income inequality was best tackled by FDR using unions.
If more middle class families slip into the low income brackets, then how can the US maintain its consumer based economy.

Chris
11-09-2016, 04:02 PM
Income inequality was best tackled by FDR using unions.
If more middle class families slip into the low income brackets, then how can the US maintain its consumer based economy.


Middle class is rising and expanding...

https://i.snag.gy/6QFmnP.jpg

Axiomatic
11-09-2016, 04:06 PM
The downturn in '37 was the correction that paid the piper for the inflationary monetary policy from '33 to '37.

It was the end of a business cycle caused by unsustainable, inflationary monetary policy.

Subdermal
11-09-2016, 05:11 PM
Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money wasn't even written until a decade after the depression started.

Once again you are caught red handed lying.

I bet Putin and the KGB love you.

:facepalm:

Do you really think that the notions of fiat monetarism weren't keynesian in nature prior to the advent of John Maynard Keynes' proclamations - and that these manipulation themselves weren't in part intentionally implemented to institute the supposed need for monetary currency controls, and to take down the Gold Standard?

True or False:

The currency in circulation was constricted by ~35% just before the Great Depression.

This is a simple question. You will be graded on your answer.

Peter1469
11-09-2016, 05:32 PM
Expect a huge rise in the deficit once these tax reforms are implemented.


You can't say that without know what spending will be. Bush's tax cuts raised total federal revenues. But it didn't matter, because Congress spent far more than came in.

resister
11-09-2016, 05:44 PM
Income inequality will skyrocket under President Trump. The people who voted for him will be hurt most of all. All these deluded people thinking that manufacturing is coming back? It isn't. Sorry. No matter who you elect President. Except now they can be damned sure their benefits and economic assistance will be cut.
Weshall see ,when it is no longer profitable to out source jobs 2 a foreign market and he slaps there ass with a huge import tarrif like we the people want,As evidenced by the election

resister
11-09-2016, 05:54 PM
I notice all these predictors 48 hours ago predicted a Hillary landslide.Now they are economic policy experts

Scerab
11-09-2016, 06:04 PM
It is a fact that trump will NOT be able to accomplish half of his promises.
I don't believe that congress will approve such a measure.
mainly because of the billionaires who own the red congressmen, profit the most from outsourcing.

Chris
11-09-2016, 06:13 PM
It is a fact that trump will NOT be able to accomplish half of his promises.
I don't believe that congress will approve such a measure.
mainly because of the billionaires who own the red congressmen, profit the most from outsourcing.

They own the blues too.

The government sold us out long ago.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 06:18 PM
I actually knew that Hillary will lose. She had many obstacles against her. And she did not heed the calls of the seasoned democrates. Her arrogance was her undoing.
The DNC should have nominated joe Biden. furthermore, they were the sole victims of cyber attacks.
Truly this election was a testament to how raucous American politics really is.
It's been a flip flop between reds and blues over the past decades. America for now seems to be stuck in a two party system.
The Koch brothers and their ilk are shrewd and know where to invest their donations. Congress is the counties ATM. And that's what they want to control and never lose.
Will we ever empower the people or be forever leashed to the top %1.
Will we ever respect nature and invest, like other European counties, in renewables? Or are we to suffer the consequences of fossils fuel and other perishable energy sources. It will be interesting to see the consequences of trump dissolving the EPA.
I would also like to see if muslims will be required to wear identification tags, which is very unconstitutional. This reminds me of nazi Germany.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 06:20 PM
You are, unfortunately, correct.
People are sucked into this illusion of participating in the political process, but the candidates must fulfill their obligations, which they have promised, to their financiers.
Maybe bernie sanders was the exception, maybe not.

patrickt
11-09-2016, 08:32 PM
Liberals can't accept that working reduces income inequality. Welfare increases income inequality.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 09:45 PM
Liberals can't accept that working reduces income inequality. Welfare increases income inequality.

Statistics prove you wrong. Most of the recipients of food stamps for example are working minimum wage jobs. the minimum wage is simply not enough to subset a single person let alone a family.

Crepitus
11-09-2016, 10:16 PM
Income inequality will skyrocket under President Trump. The people who voted for him will be hurt most of all. All these deluded people thinking that manufacturing is coming back? It isn't. Sorry. No matter who you elect President. Except now they can be damned sure their benefits and economic assistance will be cut.

Along with education just to be sure that their kids stay poor too.

Scerab
11-09-2016, 10:45 PM
Along with education just to be sure that their kids stay poor too.
Leaving your kids with a brighter future is part of the American dream or dare I say drama?
Anyway, in today's America with rampent income inequality, it's harder for low income families to break out of their social status and get into the middle class.
What is interesting about trumps cabinet, he does not plan on appointing an educational secretary.
maybe he wants to do away with that part of government like the EPA?

patrickt
11-10-2016, 09:49 AM
Statistics prove you wrong. Most of the recipients of food stamps for example are working minimum wage jobs. the minimum wage is simply not enough to subset a single person let alone a family.

Bullshit. Most people working at minimum wage aren't supporting a family and won't stay on minimum wage unless, of course, they get enough welfare on top of minimum wage to make it pointless to move up.

Your saying, "Statistics prove you wrong" is almost as impressive as Barack Obama saying, "I'm a uniter not a divider."

Here are some statistics:
"In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 millionhad wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers."
Wow! Three million workers out of almost 400 million people.

"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth o fhourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less."

"Marital status. Of those paid an hourly wage, never married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (7 percent) than married workers (2 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less. (See table 8.)"
Married workers tend to have families, at least two people.
These statistics come from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
So, take the nonsense about the poor struggling family with trying to raise four children while one man works or even one single-mother works and peddle it to someone who can't read and has never worked at minimum wage. I have but since the liberals weren't in power I didn't stay at minimum wage.

A man working for me at far more than minimum wage whined that he had to be paid more because he had five kids. Maybe he should have thought of that before he chose to have five kids. I suggested he get a second job that required no skills, develop some skills that would justify a better job with higher pay, but we would not be raising his salary because his only established productive behavior involved making babies. I forgot to give him the sales pitch for the wonderful life of leisure on the dole.

Scerab
11-10-2016, 10:13 AM
Bull$#@!. Most people working at minimum wage aren't supporting a family and won't stay on minimum wage unless, of course, they get enough welfare on top of minimum wage to make it pointless to move up.

Your saying, "Statistics prove you wrong" is almost as impressive as Barack Obama saying, "I'm a uniter not a divider."

Here are some statistics:
"In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 millionhad wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers."
Wow! Three million workers out of almost 400 million people.

"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth o fhourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less."

"Marital status. Of those paid an hourly wage, never married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely (7 percent) than married workers (2 percent) to earn the federal minimum wage or less. (See table 8.)"
Married workers tend to have families, at least two people.
These statistics come from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
So, take the nonsense about the poor struggling family with trying to raise four children while one man works or even one single-mother works and peddle it to someone who can't read and has never worked at minimum wage. I have but since the liberals weren't in power I didn't stay at minimum wage.

A man working for me at far more than minimum wage whined that he had to be paid more because he had five kids. Maybe he should have thought of that before he chose to have five kids. I suggested he get a second job that required no skills, develop some skills that would justify a better job with higher pay, but we would not be raising his salary because his only established productive behavior involved making babies. I forgot to give him the sales pitch for the wonderful life of leisure on the dole.

https://s19.postimg.org/p31qpctkj/IMG_1586.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/fv9i8nmi7/)uploading images (https://postimage.org/)




https://s19.postimg.org/fl1zpb7w3/IMG_1587.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/4y86jvzqn/)free photo hosting (https://postimage.org/)

Axiomatic
11-10-2016, 11:38 AM
https://s19.postimg.org/p31qpctkj/IMG_1586.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/fv9i8nmi7/)uploading images (https://postimage.org/)




https://s19.postimg.org/fl1zpb7w3/IMG_1587.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/4y86jvzqn/)free photo hosting (https://postimage.org/)

Was this intended as some kind of rebuttal?