If charts, graphs and calculators show beliefs and opinions wrong, how do you explain the differences between the beliefs and opinions on this blog and other blogs like Bonddad. There are no shortages of charts, graphs and calculations on Bonddad et al and yet there are extreme differences of opinion. Have you ever heard of the expression “lies, damn lies and statistics?”
ps I'm not talking about 'welfare moms' - rather political economic theory
I am suggesting that we have a job guarantee program - direct jobs program - one that will fill the gap between what private sector provides and Full Employment. This would not be a one time thing but a permanent policy.
I am all for a direct jobs program and pay people a living wage based on their area of the country and that would be much more effective than paying unemployment. But is that what you mean - because that would mean the government would be the employer?
So most of our tax drain comes from providing for those that do not provide for themselves.
Answer to your question: NO
First, middle class is not "footing the bill for wealthy". The issue is a matter of paying "fair share". If the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (much different than marginal tax rate) for someone making $1,000,000 or more is - 4% and someone making $75,000 is 20% - there is a problem. This NOT a matter of middle class "footing the bill for the wealthy". It is a matter of fairness.
As for "footing the bill for the rest", do you know what your "footing" for? Like I said the biggest federal budget items are military spending, social security, medicare. Even if you cut all of the "welfare programs" that you mention we still would have a federal deficit. Yes, there is a cost to these programs and yes these is a benefit to these programs. And yes, absent a good alternative, I believe these "welfare program" benefits outweigh the costs.
When I say that our current economic system redirects income upward to top income and corporations - this means more than just the tax code. It means globalization and government policies that have worked to suppress wage growth. It means federal spending cuts to programs the assist working class families (both lower and middle income) in order to "pay for" tax cuts to wealthy.
Why not just hire everyone at the same rate of pay and put them all to work rather than targeting only certain people and positions?
Now no one is out of work and we'll all be making plenty of money to pay the tax bill back. Seems to make sense to me based on whats being done right now.
You seem intent on proving the VALUE of such spending rather than answering yes it is or no it isn't. I never said there was no value in any of these programs did I anywhere?
Back to basics again. If the middle class is footing the bill unfairly for the wealthy aren't they by default right now footing the bill for the rest? This is not an essay question, a simple yes or no.
To answer your last question: who is paying for programs? Assuming, I believe they same way you think that gov't programs are financed (BTW, which is quite different than what you think), sure the "burden" for paying for whatever "welfare programs" are left to those who are paying more.
Again, assuming we think the same as to how government taxes and spends, it is cost but that actual cost should be weighted against not having such programs because there are social costs for eliminating those programs.
But like I said before, more and more families are ONE job away from the poor house and food stamps, sect. 8 housing, medicaid, SCHIP. This economy is not the same economy of my father's or my grandfather's (who were both union workers - meatcutters and steel workers union).
I would just add why if the private sector is not hiring then do we keep people on unemployment or cut their jobs and force them to go on unemployment because they have a government job.
and the crack about Welfare moms is a typical rant by conservatives and the "everybody is just misunderstood and entitled to a job" is a typical type of rant from liberals.
not that either of you actually said this, no way am I personally swimming through these comments to be thought police.
That said,
I'm saying this is clearly an argument and while I'm not involved I am site babysitter and rules enforcer.
I'm saying everyone must use statistics, graphs and that is the point of this site.
I find raw data, evidence keeps these arguments on low because facts have a tendency to do that.
I didn't say that a large part of Stimulus did not go to organized labor, it sure seems that way but I haven't read through the data and I also won't' tell you that illegal immigration, or say drug cartels taking over a city, won't do serious damage to a local economy.
I will not claim that because the statistics do not support it.
The point is this is an ECON blog and everytime it goes into belief or political spin on here, we get these threads.
I guess people love to do that but the site motto and rule is to when in doubt, use a calculator.
The graph says $319 billion for Social services, administration, TRANSFER PAYMENTS. So back out of $319:
1) Transfer payments in form of social security payments: $47 billion
2) "Social spending" - such as grants to local organization for job training programs: $70 billion
319-47-70 = 202 billion - is that close enough for you. CBO and WSJ numbers are close - could be some slight difference in classification. But certainly not 100% for public sector leeches.
Its also not a good idea to show the tax paying citizenry that the focus of the bailout is government jobs.
My stimulus this past year was $400. Lets look at that versus not laying off a $75,000 a year teacher (plus benefits) and who benefits from the work to pay credit. Who is benefiting the most from the stimulus spending? Now lets take an out of work employee who is getting barely enough money to get by on unemployment versus the $75,000 a year teacher who kept their job and benefits from the work to pay credit.
Has the stimulus been distributed equitably? No.
When the bill comes due will the union teacher pay more of it back? No. Are they destitute and poor? No.
Is the spending on benefit programs a burden on the middle class (aside from programs that the middle class are forced to pay into because by law they must participate in such as medicare and ss which taxpayers pay into their whole lives)?
That was the whole basis for my very first post which has been morphed into something akin to calling people lazy welfare mothers (I'm quoting Robert Oak here because I never said that).
After peaking in 1953, and largely leveling off afterward, union membership as a percentage of the private sector workforce began declining during the period of 1959 through 1970 largely due to the much faster growth of the non-unionized ranks of the private sector. Remarkably, this occurred even as the total number of private sector labor union jobs increased throughout this period. At its peak in 1970, the number of union jobs in the private sector nearly reached 17 million.
So you are right about overall numbers, but I'm spot on when it comes to percentages (which I think is more important). The peak percentage coincided almost exactly with the end of the Red Scare.
and that graph in WSJ article is somewhat helpful - according to graph: 288 billion/787 billion = 36.5% of stimulus is for tax cuts. My point was that it was not ALL going to "public sector leeches".
And again the CBO charts and charts in my post were re: the least/best "bang for buck" - which is NOT tax cuts.
But you haven't answered my question:
Do you think its a good idea to lay-off people even if they are in a public sector union when unemployment is over 20% in some states?
33% of the stimulus money has been spent according to the WSJ and according to your CBO information $200 billion has been spent on state budgets outside of transportation with mandates for education and healthcare spending.
Now you claimed that the majority has been spent on tax cuts.
Again my comment about not having state healthcare IS NOT saying that there should be no public healthcare.
You are desperate to paint a neat little picture of anyone who dares disagree with you view of the world it seems.
CBO states $200 million spent on state budgets outside of transportation projects (short term union jobs) which means
you were right my bullshit claim about all of it being spent on public unions was wrong. Thats only 77%.
That doesn't do much for your claims and charts and graphs though does it?
I have asked you to show me how money spent on the wealthy is a tax burden while money spent on the poor is not and since you have repeatedly dodged that question
Any question you asked I responded; and yes, I asked questions in return. Go back and read my responses.
You and Rebel are now both implying that I have said such things in this thread.
I have not said any such thing.
I have said that these debts contribute to the middle class burden and have been attacked for that. I have said that the stimulus has targeted public union labor and not done much for the private sector. Rebels own link has a paragraph which I used that states $200 billion of the stimulus was already spent on states much of it mandated for education and healthcare two heavily unionized industries. They have ignored that.
Your original bullshit claim was that all $780 billion stimulus was going to public sector leeches. I showed were you were wrong. Then you said states were maintaining the status quo and not cutting. Again, I provided you a link that said that 44 states provided cuts.
So the fact that YOU don't have state healthcare - I guess nobody else should either - is that your reasoning? Let me ask a rhetorical question - are you on medicare?
Ignoring, the public sector leeches comment, do you think its a good idea when unemployment is as high as 20% in some states to be laying off even more people - even if they are in public sector unions?
If charts, graphs and calculators show beliefs and opinions wrong, how do you explain the differences between the beliefs and opinions on this blog and other blogs like Bonddad. There are no shortages of charts, graphs and calculations on Bonddad et al and yet there are extreme differences of opinion. Have you ever heard of the expression “lies, damn lies and statistics?”
ps I'm not talking about 'welfare moms' - rather political economic theory
I am suggesting that we have a job guarantee program - direct jobs program - one that will fill the gap between what private sector provides and Full Employment. This would not be a one time thing but a permanent policy.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I am saying that the government to be fair should just employ everyone.
Who needs a private sector just put everyone on the same page with the same paycheck.
I am all for a direct jobs program and pay people a living wage based on their area of the country and that would be much more effective than paying unemployment. But is that what you mean - because that would mean the government would be the employer?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Answer to your question: NO
First, middle class is not "footing the bill for wealthy". The issue is a matter of paying "fair share". If the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (much different than marginal tax rate) for someone making $1,000,000 or more is - 4% and someone making $75,000 is 20% - there is a problem. This NOT a matter of middle class "footing the bill for the wealthy". It is a matter of fairness.
As for "footing the bill for the rest", do you know what your "footing" for? Like I said the biggest federal budget items are military spending, social security, medicare. Even if you cut all of the "welfare programs" that you mention we still would have a federal deficit. Yes, there is a cost to these programs and yes these is a benefit to these programs. And yes, absent a good alternative, I believe these "welfare program" benefits outweigh the costs.
When I say that our current economic system redirects income upward to top income and corporations - this means more than just the tax code. It means globalization and government policies that have worked to suppress wage growth. It means federal spending cuts to programs the assist working class families (both lower and middle income) in order to "pay for" tax cuts to wealthy.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Why not just hire everyone at the same rate of pay and put them all to work rather than targeting only certain people and positions?
Now no one is out of work and we'll all be making plenty of money to pay the tax bill back. Seems to make sense to me based on whats being done right now.
You seem intent on proving the VALUE of such spending rather than answering yes it is or no it isn't. I never said there was no value in any of these programs did I anywhere?
Back to basics again. If the middle class is footing the bill unfairly for the wealthy aren't they by default right now footing the bill for the rest? This is not an essay question, a simple yes or no.
I said:
Again, assuming we think the same as to how government taxes and spends, it is cost but that actual cost should be weighted against not having such programs because there are social costs for eliminating those programs.
But like I said before, more and more families are ONE job away from the poor house and food stamps, sect. 8 housing, medicaid, SCHIP. This economy is not the same economy of my father's or my grandfather's (who were both union workers - meatcutters and steel workers union).
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I would just add why if the private sector is not hiring then do we keep people on unemployment or cut their jobs and force them to go on unemployment because they have a government job.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
and the crack about Welfare moms is a typical rant by conservatives and the "everybody is just misunderstood and entitled to a job" is a typical type of rant from liberals.
not that either of you actually said this, no way am I personally swimming through these comments to be thought police.
That said,
I'm saying this is clearly an argument and while I'm not involved I am site babysitter and rules enforcer.
I'm saying everyone must use statistics, graphs and that is the point of this site.
I find raw data, evidence keeps these arguments on low because facts have a tendency to do that.
I didn't say that a large part of Stimulus did not go to organized labor, it sure seems that way but I haven't read through the data and I also won't' tell you that illegal immigration, or say drug cartels taking over a city, won't do serious damage to a local economy.
I will not claim that because the statistics do not support it.
The point is this is an ECON blog and everytime it goes into belief or political spin on here, we get these threads.
I guess people love to do that but the site motto and rule is to when in doubt, use a calculator.
The graph says $319 billion for Social services, administration, TRANSFER PAYMENTS. So back out of $319:
1) Transfer payments in form of social security payments: $47 billion
2) "Social spending" - such as grants to local organization for job training programs: $70 billion
319-47-70 = 202 billion - is that close enough for you. CBO and WSJ numbers are close - could be some slight difference in classification. But certainly not 100% for public sector leeches.
So, what is your answer to my question?
Its also not a good idea to show the tax paying citizenry that the focus of the bailout is government jobs.
My stimulus this past year was $400. Lets look at that versus not laying off a $75,000 a year teacher (plus benefits) and who benefits from the work to pay credit. Who is benefiting the most from the stimulus spending? Now lets take an out of work employee who is getting barely enough money to get by on unemployment versus the $75,000 a year teacher who kept their job and benefits from the work to pay credit.
Has the stimulus been distributed equitably? No.
When the bill comes due will the union teacher pay more of it back? No. Are they destitute and poor? No.
Is the spending on benefit programs a burden on the middle class (aside from programs that the middle class are forced to pay into because by law they must participate in such as medicare and ss which taxpayers pay into their whole lives)?
That was the whole basis for my very first post which has been morphed into something akin to calling people lazy welfare mothers (I'm quoting Robert Oak here because I never said that).
I found this (with chart):
So you are right about overall numbers, but I'm spot on when it comes to percentages (which I think is more important). The peak percentage coincided almost exactly with the end of the Red Scare.
The CBO report you linked to stated that $200 billion has already been spent on state budgets.
This is a separate post so one part cannot be answered and the rest ignored.
and that graph in WSJ article is somewhat helpful - according to graph: 288 billion/787 billion = 36.5% of stimulus is for tax cuts. My point was that it was not ALL going to "public sector leeches".
And again the CBO charts and charts in my post were re: the least/best "bang for buck" - which is NOT tax cuts.
But you haven't answered my question:
Do you think its a good idea to lay-off people even if they are in a public sector union when unemployment is over 20% in some states?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
33% of the stimulus money has been spent according to the WSJ and according to your CBO information $200 billion has been spent on state budgets outside of transportation with mandates for education and healthcare spending.
Now you claimed that the majority has been spent on tax cuts.
Again my comment about not having state healthcare IS NOT saying that there should be no public healthcare.
You are desperate to paint a neat little picture of anyone who dares disagree with you view of the world it seems.
Here I'll use a calculator.
$780 million.
33% of that equals $257.4 million (WSJ).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870480420457506977216789783...
CBO states $200 million spent on state budgets outside of transportation projects (short term union jobs) which means
you were right my bullshit claim about all of it being spent on public unions was wrong. Thats only 77%.
That doesn't do much for your claims and charts and graphs though does it?
Any question you asked I responded; and yes, I asked questions in return. Go back and read my responses.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
You and Rebel are now both implying that I have said such things in this thread.
I have not said any such thing.
I have said that these debts contribute to the middle class burden and have been attacked for that. I have said that the stimulus has targeted public union labor and not done much for the private sector. Rebels own link has a paragraph which I used that states $200 billion of the stimulus was already spent on states much of it mandated for education and healthcare two heavily unionized industries. They have ignored that.
Is there a problem here?
Your original bullshit claim was that all $780 billion stimulus was going to public sector leeches. I showed were you were wrong. Then you said states were maintaining the status quo and not cutting. Again, I provided you a link that said that 44 states provided cuts.
So the fact that YOU don't have state healthcare - I guess nobody else should either - is that your reasoning? Let me ask a rhetorical question - are you on medicare?
Ignoring, the public sector leeches comment, do you think its a good idea when unemployment is as high as 20% in some states to be laying off even more people - even if they are in public sector unions?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Pages