Milestone: More private sector jobs today than when Obama took office.

Sure. I don't believe that a person's right to participate in a democracy should depend on how much they make or taxes they pay.

We already have a problem with the rich having far too much influence in Govt.

 

Sure. I don't believe that a person's right to participate in a democracy should depend on how much they make or taxes they pay.

We already have a problem with the rich having far too much influence in Govt.

But every one who works is paying federal taxes.

 

I am going to preface my comment by saying I am a libertarian. I do not want to get into any nonsensical right vs left argument. That being said, If you owned a business and have slowed growth or losses, would you take out huge loans so that you can keep employees that you dont need or to hire more jobs? We have an economy that has been propped up with borrowed money and inflated dollars. The real, underlying economic problems of long term debts and poor production have not changed. All we accomplished is now we owe a lot more money. Hardly much to cheer about.

 

Good point about the business. I wouldn't take out that loan, unless I thought there was demand for my products.

And that is the problem today. Despite trillions of dollars sitting in business' accounts and the offshore accounts of the 1%, insufficient demand.

Which really should be no surprise. The middle classes are the great engines of spending. And over the past thirty years, our "trickle down" policies have redistributed the growth of wealth and income of this country from the middle classes to the 1%.



And so now we have trillions of dollars to spend on production and no one to buy it because the middle classes are tapped out.
.
We need to reverse the trickle down redistribution policies and focus on rebuilding the middle class, not pandering even more to the 1%.

 

What I'd really like to see is real middle-class wages increase; people will be able to buy more stuff, and they'd even be able to start paying fed income tax. I truly believe this would help everyone: rich, poor, and the government

 

We have had real income increases in this country. It's just that the bulk of it has be redistributed to the 1% over the past 30 years thanks to "trickle down" policies that trickled the money into offshore bank accounts of the 1% and not the middle class.

If you want to increase middle class incomes, we need to reverse trickle down policies. Cut FICA taxes for the middle class. Raise taxes them on the richest. Strengthen unions to have the power to unionize places like Wal-mart so that they can leverage higher wages for workers. Increase the minimum wage. Stop taking speculative investment income and less than half the rate as earned income from production. Strengthen Govt programs that give the middle class the tools to advance. Eliminate the SS tax cap. Use tax money from those trillions sitting in offshore accounts and use it to rebuild infrastructure and create more jobs.

Giving the 1% even *more* tax cuts so they can stick more trillions into offshore accounts isn't going to do the trick, folks.

 

You can blame the government and the Federal Reserve. When they do quantitative easing, it hurts everyone except those that invest.



Median incomes have crashed during the "recovery".

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/10/chart-of-the-day-median-income-edition/

 

Unfortunately there is no evidence that redistributing money to the middle class will help anything if they just go spend it all we will be back in the very same situation. The 2000's was a decade of much credit abuse. People need to start living within their means. I remember when I was younger people didn't go eat out at restaurants every single night, buy all sorts of electronics regularly, etc. Our consuming has gotten out of control and it is a large factor in the wealth disparity.

 

Yes all of those jobs. So what types of jobs? What types of pay? Full of part time?

The report is (*)(*)(*)(*)!

 

FTR I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my 2 cents. I want real wages to go up but I'm not sure what exactly is the best way to do it. But I like a lot of what you have to say!

 

That's exactly what we want and need. More spending. More spending means more production means more folks hired and more spending, greater revenues, and more profits.

The trillions we redistributed to the 1% that is sitting in the offshore bank accounts isn't doing the economy much good.

People have been living within their means. That is a big reason why the recovery is so anemic. The middle classes don't have the means they should. It's been redistributed to the 1% who are sitting on it.

 

I'm certainly open to additional ideas.

 

The problem is that for many years our economy was built on people living above their means. This created an inflated economy built mostly on credit. It was a great boom for the people who invested during that time, but so many people defaulted on those debts that companies had to make it harder to borrow money. They have tightened restrictions and increased interest rates, which has caused people to be unable to borrow as much. Not borrowing as much keeps people from amplifying their spending and inflating the economy. Unless credit restrictions get loosened, the economic growth will be much slower than it was before.

 

commmon sense doesnt work on commies

only in fantasy land of governmetn can you do things like counterfeit money and claim it helps the poor

if so why dont we legalize it for individuals?

 

more government spending means less people hired and inflation and money going down drain
governmetn doesnt produce
it only wastes
if a governmetn project liek a road were done privatly it would cost 30x less
only those insane things private biz cant amke money on does gov do
and the losses are huge
dont forget the democrat game is to make a goal to help poor, then tax them and rest of us, then pocket most of the loot and calim ti failed due to not enuf money

keyenes was hired by politicians to help them in this game
all univeristy econ dept promote keyens cuz they all gov paid
all school is gov paid grants or public
end public school and wow see hgue improvement economically
video net etc private amrket for education be huge
replace laaywers with automated logic software
private trains powred by atomic electric pwoer built up

this si kinda stuff we would already have without union and governemtn basatrds sucking blood

remember union hurt poor more than almsot anything

40 hour work week resutled from capital and eqipemnt and supluses of capitalism buuilding up extra on top of bare subsistance not some dumb unioni mobster

 

Actually, the money companies that received stimulus and mostly banks have been sitting on is printed and borrowed money. If they suddenly decided to flood the market with it, it would make inflation explode thanks to the Federal Reserve and the government.

As far as taking out of one pocket and putting in another does nothing to spur spending unless you think that buying more Chinese products helps because except for food, the "poor" mainly buy Chinese products from Walmart, Target and Dollar Stores.

 

I agree with the exception that interest rates have been kept low to spur investment but there is no visible horizon to the good times so companies are being cautious with investments and banks have to be better capitalized and will be more cautious lending. Another thing that is better for consumers is to make sure they have a cushion for the bad times, which means saving, which means that the credit card culture that made the good times the last few decades is over.

 

Interest rates on things that require underwriting are low. Things like mortgages or business loans. These are the ones that are harder to get now. No longer does it take a promise and a welfare check. Credit forms that don't require underwriting, such as credit cards, are very high right now. A decade ago dozens of cards offered 5%-8% interest rates for people with good credit. Now you are lucky if you can find one with a rate under 10% no matter how good your credit is.

Regardless, more people are being responsible now than they were during the credit boom of the 80s and 90s, so they are saving and investing instead of borrowing and spending. The people who are still irresponsible are having trouble borrowing money and aren't able to borrow as much, so they aren't bringing an economic boom either. If this continues, it will be a very long time before the economy recovers, but when it does it will be stronger and more stable than before.

 

The middle class lived above their means because for the past 30 years, their "means" has been redistributed to the 1%.

We need a government to focus on the middle classes, not pander even more to the 1%

 

Totally the opposite. Govt spending means more people are hired.

Sure it does.

Baseless nonesense.

Private companies won't do it.

Is that what Rush told you? I think you have it down pretty good.

 

The rent they pay is not going to China. The food they eat is not going to China. The health care they need is not going to China. Some of the material things they buy may be, but even that creates jobs for importers wholesalers and retailers.

 

Sorry but for the most part any disposable income that is not put into a car or home ends up leaving the country. Yeah rent? What gets bought with the monies paid to a realty agency? So look at layers here. The monies are not stimulating our economy as they are meant to.

And as I posted earlier: What types of jobs were created? Part time low pay? So that cuts into revenue right there and increases expenditures as well.

 

Our imports from China are only about 3% GDP.

Feel free to prove that "most part any disposable income that is not put into a car or home ends up leaving the country"

 

Please break down GDP.

Please look at the trade deficit.

Look around your home and see what is not manufactured in ASIA.

You can play the numbers game all you want but the fact is more and more items we buy are made in China. Electronics are a big thing these days you know.

Textiles going to Asia and central-south america are a killer as well.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/2011-annual-trade-deficit-37-us-gdp-china-goods-2-us-gdp

Now just because you see that little 3.x percent you think it is fine but what does that equate to in lost revenues? Do you actually have a GDP breakdown?

GDP would be much higher, revenues would be higher and expenditures lower if there were more domestic manufacturing.

 

2011
-295 billion. Net trade balance with China. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2011
15,094 billion. GDP. BEA.gov.
1.95%. Net Chinese imports as a percentage of GDP

Even smaller than I initially estimated.

That's your "proof"?

What the 1.95% means is that our of total gross domestic production of over $15 trillion, net Chinese imports are 1.95% of that number, which IMO very much contradicts your claim that most of what folks spends ends up going to China.