First, I don't know why you think I'm trying to defend Obama. I'm also not defending any other democrat, so don't assume I am. I'm not an Obama fan, and quite frankly I think he's doing a lot of things half-assed. (granted that's opposed to the quarter-ass stuff republicans would do in his situation, but that's something else.) I consider myself a staunch independent. I agree with whoever is right about something, period. If they aren't right I don't agree with them, simple. If anything that's my ideology. The ideology of looking at each situation with as much objectiveness and common sense as possible and finding the best, most efficient, fairest, most moral and ethical solution out of that, that helps the absolute greatest number of people possible. Most of the people I know are more or less independent. They view life more on a common sense level, and from a perspective about what they see in real life and how things work in the real world not some philosophy that people only hope will work. Also, for the record I've never set foot inside a coffee shop in my life.
I finally made it to New York last night and was in meetings all day.
Damn! This mutha is longer than the Magna Carta, I'll try to respond but I see this will take an equally long post to do so.
I did not intend to have to prepare a brief tonight.
I will say this. it seems to me that for someone that is a independent thinker, you sure seem to fall on the side of leftist philosophy more times than not. But I will take you at your word on this first paragraph.
Now for a little education of my own.
The problem that trickle down economics have is that while the people that came up with it like to claim that rising waters raise all ships, in fact it raises only yachts. There is much to be considered in any economic situation. How many people are employed, what type of job do they have, what type of benefits do they have, how much does each household have to work for that, how is the assets and total economic resources of our country spit, how much power does groups or individual economic power give them compared to normal people. You also said how was it possible for the rich to take money from the poor, and the answer is simple, the tax code (Reagan also wrote many new tax loopholes into the tax code, but that is something for another time.). Every bit of money that would have gone to the middle class or the poor that doesn’t and instead is funneled into the wealth of the rich takes what they would have had away. It’s not that hard of a concept.
The working poor don't pay income tax. When considering EIC and other credits. The top 1 percent pay over 40% of the income tax. Again, you are espousing taking money from the rich and giving it away in entitlements and government programs. I said take "wealth" from the poor. Your words, not mine. I did not say "take money" from the poor.
As for the "only raises yachts" comment, part of the American dream is for individuals to create and maintain wealth. You are advocating power sharing? This is socialism at it's core. The CEO of a corporation that employs people and increases a company's bottom line deserves to earn whatever the market or it's board members dictate. How in the hell with a straight face can you say that wealthy people that are not paying 70% of their income to the government for wealth redistribution and bigger government do not effect the economy, and create jobs by reinvesting into the private sector what isn't being snatched from their hands?
A wealthy person does not invest money to help the middle class or poor. They do it to make more money. The benefits to the average working American is an effect of that action. Not a set purpose. I bet you think that a rising government raises more ships. But, the government doesn't have any money to open the floodgates with if it doesn't get it from the people.
In your argument, you just want to see the government own the marina.
What also has to be keep in mind is that it isn’t like poor people (as in poorer than the rich) having more money would mean they wouldn’t spend it. Quite the contrary. Do to their circumstances almost every extra dollar they are given is probably going to be spent just out of necessity, something that’s not going to happen with the rich. That alone pretty much negates the whole supply side theory of where it feels giving more wealth to the rich is going to somehow funnel economic growth better than anything else. Not only that but when you give so few people so much wealth it allows them to manipulate it in ways that just can’t be done by the poorer sections of the population, like hording it, using tax loopholes, using it to make them gain even more wealth, using if for “financial engineering”, and using it for dramatically increased privilege within the halls of lawmakers. Who do you think has more say so to somebody in congress, a multi-millionaire that owns a lot of businesses or some average Joe?
Most members of congress are wealthy. They have much more in common with Joe Millionaire and they are ok with that.
If a person earns their living honestly they can do what they hell they want to do with their money. If the rich want to "horde it" then that is their right. it is not anyone's place to take away from them just to make the playing field level. Most millionaires are millionaires for a reason. Either they have a marketable talent, ability or an inventive mind. But most of them do reinvest their money and don't squirrel it away. There are always exceptions
Anyhow, only in the most technical of senses did the economy under that system “grow”. The strength of money in the economy is relative. Whenever there is an influx of new cash whether by government borrowing or decreases for taxes for everybody like there was there, each dollar is worth less. In the case where we had the meager tax reductions for the majority of Americans and had the rich receive DRASTIC tax cuts what everybody else got hardly made up for the lack of strength of the money they now had. In effect the pie was artificially made larger do to smoke and mirrors, but only a tiny fraction of Americas benefited (this will be a common theme here in more than just this part.) Worse it gives everybody else a sense they are somehow better off when they aren’t.
Lets look even farther at that. After the war time boom and America’s rise as an unprecedented world economic juggernaut in the 60s the wealth inequalities along with the income inequalities between the rich and the poor either dropped or pretty much stabilized. While it did start to change some time during the mid to late 70’s it was when Reagan came about that the wealth and income inequalities between the rich and everybody else exploded.
Again, it is not the government's job to make people rich, or comfortable and it is heresy to take it from those that earn it honestly no matter how much they make, with the intent of distributing it to the less fortunate.
Since the very early 70s. The real adjusted income and buying power of almost every household in the country has gone nowhere, and keep in mind that there are much more “two income households” now. (Something that will also be stated more in this to show it‘s even worse than statistics indicate.) From 1970 to 2001 the American economy doubled adjusted for inflation. The total value of our country even outpaced population. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, not really. 4 out of 5 American households had more at that time because they worked more. (Remember two income households) Today American households do over 20 hours more work than they did in 1975. (Well we did until the economy plummeted, again) That was one of the main reasons for America’s economic growth During Reagan and afterworlds, not the Trickle Down. However that also disguise bad things also. Like the fact that adjusted wages for high school graduates dropped after that. People with a 4 year degree saw their real wage stagnate. People under the age of 25 made less adjusted money than the same people from the early 1970s.
Like you said, there are more households with more than one bread winner now. That in itself equals more working hours as an average.
Poor people don't sign paychecks. If productivity and economic output increases, it most certainly does indicate that somebody of means is doing something that causes them to have to hire people, These jobs don't appear out of thin air.
Another reason college educated people have seen a decrease in wages is because a lot of these jobs have moved overseas. They are taking up other careers and it may not be employment that they hoped to find when they were securing their degrees. In 1950, if you became an engineer, you were pretty certain that your employer would be an American company, based in America. Not the case today, but that is a whole different thread.
Lets see how the rich turned out.
In 1977 the richest 1% of Americans made as much money as the bottom 49 million. In 1999 they has as much as the bottom 100 million. (And, yes it’s even more unequal now) The top 1% saw their income more than double during that time, even after taxes. During that time the bottom fifth of households saw their incomes go from 10,000 dollars to 8,800, and keep in mind the raise in two income households and inflation into that also. So it’s even worse than it seems. From 1977 to 2001 the top 5 percent saw their share of Americas income jump from 16.6% to 22.4%. But that also doesn’t tell the whole story. If you divide it further the people between 95 and 99% of all national income saw their income increase during that time by 19.5% The top 1% of Americans saw their incomes grow to the point they were receiving more than a fifth of all the income in the country. The bottom half of the very top percent saw their share of all income grow by 47% of what they were making before. The share of the top 99.5 to 99.9% of Americans grew their income by 90%. The top from 99.9% to 99.99% of all Americans saw their share of American’s income grow by 227% during that time. Finally, the richest .01 percent of the country saw their share of America’s total income grow by 412%. The top .01 saw their share of all Americas income go from 1% in 1970 to 5% in 2000. That top .01 saw their income grow 1000 times faster than even the people in the 90%-95% of share in America’s income. In case your wondering the bottom 90% saw their share of America’s total income decline. If you were lucky enough to be within the 90% to 95% you saw your share only stay the same. (Remember that these are slightly dated statistics and things are even worse and disproportional now.)
If that doesn’t show just how much bullshit Reaganomics/Trickle Down Economics/or Supply Side Economics for those who wan to give it a fluffy name is I don’t know what is. GROWING THE ECONOMY LIKE REAGAN DID DOESN’T MEAN SHIT, WHEN IT BENEFITS SO LITTLE PEOPLE. Sure he increased economic output, and promptly gave it all to a small number of people in this country, at the same time he even decreased the value of what the others had left.
I can tell you how the rich turned out. The top 1 percent of wage earners pay over 40% of the income tax. Something you failed to mention as it doesn't bode well for your argument of "Me, Me , Me... rich people.
But wait there’s more.
Despite since the beginning when our country implemented income taxes where people thought the ethical and moral thing to do was to be progressing and tax people more based on how much they earned on the basis that they could more easily pay for it and it was less of a burden, it brought about something else, a for all practical purposes flat tax. Many people will like to tell you of how the rich pay so much more than the rest of us in income tax (Also keep in mind that the rich have a lot less portion of their total assets coming in as income as we have it. They have a lot greater percentage of stocks and other things which are taxed very low comparatively), which at it’s more absolutely technical sense is true, but it’s also deeply deceptive. A tax is a tax is a tax, and whatever way you take money from or give money to somebody the net effect ends up the same no matter the method. Creating a system where the non-rich people in this country never see money or services in the first place as they go to fund the rich is not any different on a realistic level than taking it from them when they have it to give to the rich.
If all taxes are counted including things like sales taxes, state taxes, social security payments, taxes on gas, among other taxes and not just income the richest Americans pay less in taxes per dollar than almost anybody else except for the people in very poor conditions some of which are in extreme poverty and can’t even make anything to tax in the first place. That destroys the whole system that people have though is fair for a long time where the rich pay more in taxes than everybody else and as one moves up the income ladder they pay more. Hell, Warren Buffet has even admitted that he pays less in taxes per dollar than his secretary.
You know why rich people make things? or provide services? So that poor or middle class people can have a job, and buy or consume what they produce. I never said they were saints. What goes around comes around.
But wait there’s more.
I said before that income as assets of America grew a lot since the 1970s. I’ll also admit that at least in a smoke and mirrors sort of way post 1982 Reagan did have the economy grow, even if it benefited almost nobody but a small number of people. While it’s true that in 1982 the economy did seem to grow there is also some things indicating it might have been either a one shot thing, do a lot to random fluctuation, or an anomaly that didn’t have anything to do with giving the rich more money. When Reagan and Bush Sr. went on to cut taxes for the rich growth fell to negative levels in the 1991. Two of the three biggest years of economic growth we have were during the 50’s when the highest tax rate was 91%. If you look at the correlations with income growth you see similar things where there is poor correlation between jumps in income of the overwhelming majorities of Americans and tax breaks for the rich. There is just nothing indicating it happens or is anymore than randomness of the system.
Now lets look at what I said about Reagan raiding social security. It was the early 1980s and the government had run up a debt for a while already. In 1981 the government borrowed 125 billion dollars. That was more than one in ten dollars it spent that year. People supporting Reagan argued that lower tax rates would mean more investments, more jobs, and more income for the government,…but things didn’t work out that way. It didn’t happen. The next few years the deficit ballooned to triple, and Reagan was spending so a third of what the government spent out it borrowed, and he was getting into some deep crap. Government wasn’t taking in any more money, unemployment was still height, and he was running up huge deficits. (Wow, who know that when you cut taxes like that the government would take in a lot less money.) So what did he do, he raised taxes. When he signed them into law he referred to them as “revenue enhancements”. (It looks like Bush Sr. had a good teacher when it came to being deceptive about raising taxes when you indicate otherwise.) They didn’t raise the income tax rate, as they were increases in excise taxes, that of course, hurt the poor much more than the rich. They also didn’t solve the problem.
Anyway the government was taking in less money and by 1983 social security was thought to be in trouble with people saying it would run out in thirty years and other things. It was running a small deficit before but with unemployment it started to get worse. Whether there was really that big of a problem or not or if it would have gotten better once unemployment went down they started slowly raising the tax on social security, and over the years it has just went up. There was a big problem with that and with taxing people for something decades in the future. The American people were lead to believe that the increase in social security taxes would be for social security, and would be saved and invested for that. Of course they weren’t. Remember there was a lot of red ink with Reagan. So what happened, that money went to help fund the rest of the government. Why were they used to fund the rest of government? Because, the taxes that were being paid by the rich were no longer there. So in essence, not only were taxes raised on social security, not only were they not used and saved as they were essentially promised, they ended up subsidizing huge tax cuts for the richest people. Remember how I was asked how it was possible to take money from the poor and give it to the rich, this is just another example of manipulating the tax code to do it.
What’s funny is that republicans and libertarians like to bitch all the time about income redistribution, and socialism. Yet, that what’s been happening for decades now and Reagan had a bigger hand in that than anybody. They have no problem implementing a system that does what they only say not to like if it funnels money to their select chosen. It’s almost a system that’s malefic enough yet at the same time deceptive enough to make the Devil proud. In a sick twisted version of it we have been living in a system that makes income flow up. For decades the poorer people have been subsidizing the huge wealth of the rich. The sad thing is getting just a trickle would be an improvement for most of us. Heck, I didn’t even start to get into things that happened during his watch the like the massive upsurge in outsourcing, and policies that helped it. I didn’t even bring up his multiple moments of scorn or total disconnect with the poor or average American in this country.
I’ve tried to be a seeker of the truth my whole live. I never blindly follow ideology. I’ve never even blindly followed religion even though I’m religious. I don’t dislike Reagan and what he did to the economy because I’m a democrat, which I’m not, or because it doesn’t follow a narrow set of principles that were drilled into my head by my parents or some politician somewhere because that’s the way it has to be. I dislike them because if anybody with a little bit of commons sense just peals back the outer layers and sees the truth they should be able to tell it was nothing but a but of bullshit. Me, as a fan of common sense and being a seeker of truth, am not very big on that. Trying to tell blind Reagan lovers the truth about the real “benefits” we were given can get to be like trying to tell an adult that still believes in Santa Clause that he’s not real even if there is real world obvious evidence that easy to see to the contrary.
I will make you a deal. Your way is being implemented as I type this. Let's compare notes in 4 years. The Reagan way vs the Obama way.
I will make a 1000 dollar donation to the charity of your choice, in your name if this democratic plan works and produces results anywhere near what Reagan achieved. Whether you think it was "smoke and mirrors" or not.
