Why leftist hate economics so much?

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="Inuyasha"

Dot com bubble was President Clinton and popped about the time President Bush first took office. Inflation is caused by printing money like crazy and having nothing to back it, we could get hit with massive inflation thanks to them planning to flood the place with $600 billion in printed bills.

[/quote]

The economy was going into the tank, even before the year 2000 election. The Bush policies, particularly waging war without the necessary taxation to afford war made things worse, but the economy was going south anyway.

ruveyn

That is pointless hair splitting on semantics, and your statement agrees with mine.
The OP suggested a flat tax of 3%. Of course if the flat tax were high enough it would increase the overall tax revenue. But it would hurt low and middle income people tremendously.

The average welfare payment for a family of three is $455 a month. I don't know what your definition of paltry is, but I doubt you consider that substantial. The average food stamp payment is $21 a week. Section 8 housing is very hard to get. In NYC, to get section 8 one has to be homeless and have been living in shelters. No matter how you look at it, being on welfare sucks. yes, there are people whose options are so limited that welfare is the only option, but that does not in any way make them into "welfare queens" who are abusing the system.

That is the figure given by the federal government but it is inaccurate. For a more accurate analysis of military spending, which brings the amount to over 50%, click here: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

It appears that my original figures are accurate and that the OP remains delusional.

The cost figure you have put forward represents a dramatically skewed statistic.



This is based on the some assumptions

1) That there is no economic dividend from the provision of security.

2) That there is no provision made for government tax intake from the military industrial complex.

3) That the provision of security is not necessary for economic growth.

4) That 80% is an appropriate figure.

5) That global economic stability is not contingent on U.S. military power. (good luck arguing that a world of unprotected sea lanes would be would be productive)

Also I have no idea how the article decided to count 50% of the NASA budget towards the military. That would be very difficult to quantify.

The averages are pulled down by the fact that many people now get small amounts of welfare even though they are already above the poverty line and so presumably don't really need it. As for having to be homeless to get section 8 housing in New York, that's partly specific to New York, but it does seem reasonable that people who can get housing without needing assistance ... don't need housing assistance.


Your link omits spending on social security, medicare, medicaid, and various other entitlement programs, which total 60% of federal outlays. Do you think it's appropriate to eliminate all those programs entirely? If not, it's a misleading or delusional assessment of the federal budget to ignore 60% of it.

This is a very good point that no one likes to talk about. I've recently heard some whispers about a "means test" proposal, but it's unlikely that either the dems or the gop will have the balls to support it. It's political suicide. Considering the dismal situation we're in, I think it's more than fair to say to someone like Warren Buffet, "hey, you seem to be doing ok. You don't really need that social security check, do you?"

Before the righties start attcking, I first heard of this idea from a republican.

Part of the problem is politicians treated social security like their own private piggybank. It wouldn't be in such dire straights if the money hadn't been touched.

There aren't many people as rich as Warren Buffett, though.

While various forms of welfare are quite significant - medicaid is a significant fraction of that "medicare and medicaid" slice - the Tea Party organizations do actually want to cut medicare, for example by rolling back the Bush changes that made it so much more expensive. So yes, many conservatives are asking for retirees to take a hit. But yes, they want medicaid to take a hit along with medicare, as well.

Social security is a bit more touchy because right now the government receives more in social security taxes than they pay out in benefits. However, the Republicans have been advocating for decades that social security be shifted over from a "defined benefit" plan as it is now to a "defined contribution" plan like private industry is moving towards. There would probably need to be some rules to make sure it's invested in safe investments - say, government bonds - so people couldn't gamble it away and still end up needing welfare when they retire. While that wouldn't help in the very short term, it would prevent social security from becoming a major drag in 10-20 years.

Many small business owners are the ones that will be hit by the Obama tax hike because they make over $250,000 gross...



Part of Bush's changes made it less expensive though and actually cost less than was estimated.



Upside to the Republican's idea is the Government can't use Social Security as their private piggy bank because they don't have access to the money.

Downside, is markets can crash.

Agreed. That's why I split from the Republicans in thinking that some proportion - maybe the first X amount, or maybe 50% - should be required to be invested in safe investments like treasury bonds.

The way the Government is spending money, I'm not sure that treasury bonds are a safe investiment either.

Most people don't understand realism in economics - I'm not saying none of you do, I'm just saying the established courses in school aren't completely truthful and here's why.

The United States economic policy's are handed down through the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is funded by, and takes orders by corporations. These bailouts we see are not to free the housing market, jump start our economy .. but to be handed over to the banks to invest back into Wallstreet so it appears they have bigger gains then the reality of the situation. Doing this also inflates our currency, we owe China 2 trillion dollars and our Debt is over 14 trillion. We will be able to pay back the debt faster by doing this method, but only if the world reserve currency continues to be the US dollar.

All countries in the world who have resources the US needs, we acquire through trade and manipulation. Private firms are sent into the countries, convincing them to take out loans for big projects (like hydro plants, power plants, electrical grids , etc) - they go to the UN and get the loan with US dollars, and those contracts are sent to contractors like Haliburton,Bechtel,Stone and Webster . These projects don't benefit the people for the most part, but the wealthiest in their societies. 90% of the money goes back to the US corporations as they're contracted. That country then goes into enormous debt that they cannot possibility pay back so they refinance. For instance 50% of Ecuador's national budget goes back into paying the debt. If they have resources the US needs, they're bartered for and acquired to pay down their debts. If they refuse to pay the debt, then the CIA sanctioned "Jackals" are sent in. Like in Panama with Omar Torrijos or Ecuador with Hymn Rodos , Allende in Chile, Armas in Guatemala .. it's part of what Vietnam was about. When all else fails, they send in the military like we see in Iraq.

The United States, along with the UN and corrupted officials have successful created a empire without the use of military but through economic means. This is why it's so crucial for the world to be using the dollar as reserve currency. In the coming years (the next 20 to 30) it will probably no longer be the world currency but instead exchanged for a one world currency. Corporations, along with the wealthy elite control the world. We're indoctrinated by this 2 party, left - right paradigm, an dogmatic system that leaves us less educated. It's designed to look like we have choices while we sit here and argue with each other while the fact of the matter is the agenda is still the same. Lobbiest's, along with Wallstreet dictate government policies - it doesn't take a genius to understand that the US will continue to inflate the currency, and before the dollar is replaced by another it will pay off most of it's debt to be on a clean slate. Many of us live in the US so we don't see the destruction of what it's doing to the outside exporters. Many countries will be imposing a 50% tax on the dollar. This is what free enterprise capitalism is all about-- To me the most logical solution would be to impose 50% tariffs on foreign goods so our country keeps up, and so our jobs stay here but our country as much as you and me want to believe it does not have that power, the people who pull the strings do. If you are one of those zombies who watches Fox News, and CNN for their information .. I'd suggest you to read economic books instead and do independent research.

Social security, medicare, medicaid etc are listed under Human Resources.

"Human Resources?"

i suggest "Parasites"

No they are not: "The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes."

So that graph is only of stuff funded by the "income tax". But just because you invent a new name for a tax does not mean that it isn't a tax. Social Security is still taken out of your paycheck, that makes it an income tax (though a regressive one) in my book. That site is being intentionally misleading.

It includes federal spending for the Social Security administration, but not funds that are taxed separately from income tax, like Social Security taxes.

Rand-tards are parasites.