BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[GenSeneca]

Well, you certainly live in HappyVille. These are quotes from three articles in today's paper.

Your reply didn't address any of the points Dr.Who made in his post.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your reply didn't address any of the points Dr.Who made in his post.

The first article I cite applies to his first comment.

The second two articles show Dr. Who lives in HappyVille if he thinks the private sector is going to come even close to doing what he naively thinks it will.

The only point I didn't answer is his silly persistence that the constitution does not allow showering the poor with charity. I earlier said "of course not". Let me say it simply: There is nothing in the constitution that neither specifically allows it nor forbids welfare or food stamps, etc. So, that whole point is moot. As an analogy, there is nothing in the constitution that neither specifically allows nor forbids gov funds for building interstate highways, and many other examples.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, you certainly live in HappyVille. These are quotes from three articles in today's paper.

Many in U.S. slip from middle class, study finds
Nearly one in three Americans who grew up middle-class has slipped down the income ladder as an adult, according to a new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts.​

Angel Food Ministries suspends food deliveries for September
The Monroe-based nonprofit, which has faced legal and financial problems in recent years, said Wednesday it is suspending its food distribution for September -- the first time in 17 years. It's unclear when distribution will resume.​

Hunger danger levels still high
More than 17.2 million households had difficulty feeding family members at some point last year, as the rate of "food insecurity" in the United States continued to hover at near-record levels, according to a report released this week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.​

Everything is not happy.

I agree that people move from middle class to a less desirable class - one third. Which means that two thirds stay the same or move up. Clearly this is better than the reverse and also supports my position that there is a lot of movement and contradicts your position that there is not a lot of movement.

Ok, one charity went out of business. What does that mean for the country?

"Food security" is a bull way of making people think that there are lots of hungry people when in reality it is not a measure of starvation in any real sense. I have no doubt though that the bad economy has made it harder for people at all income levels including those who actually do have trouble feeding themselves - like the homeless, oh wait they don't have trouble feeding themselves because there are food stamps and soup kitchens and food pantries and handouts from people on the street. I hope we continue as a nation to feed those who need help. I just hope that we can do it without federal stealing.

 

[Dr.Who]

The second two articles show Dr. Who lives in HappyVille if he thinks the private sector is going to come even close to doing what he naively thinks it will.

Clearly the private sector has the resources to provide for the needs of every person who has needs. The private sector has all the money until it is taken from the private sector - there can't be an amount of money more than ALL of it. The question is not if the private sector can provide for needs but will it. Since the level of poverty and the wealth disparity has been consistent across all governments and all time periods clearly the gov has not provided the solution. Since it has not then lets maintain the highest level of freedom that we can and permit people to give as they will. The progressives claim to want to help and they have enough resources all by themselves to completely give enough without even going broke. Meanwhile they spend all their time trying to pry money from conservatives who actually do give more of their own money.

The only point I didn't answer is his silly persistence that the constitution does not allow showering the poor with charity. I earlier said "of course not". Let me say it simply: There is nothing in the constitution that neither specifically allows it nor forbids welfare or food stamps, etc. So, that whole point is moot. As an analogy, there is nothing in the constitution that neither specifically allows nor forbids gov funds for building interstate highways, and many other examples.

Since you yourself admit that it does not allow it then it must be true that congress has no authority to do it.

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree that people move from middle class to a less desirable class - one third. Which means that two thirds stay the same or move up. Clearly this is better than the reverse and also supports my position that there is a lot of movement and contradicts your position that there is not a lot of movement.

This is one measure of how the middle class is disappearing to the poorer classes. Your position is that there is a lot of movement to the lower class?? That is my position. You are not making any sense at all.

Ok, one charity went out of business. What does that mean for the country?

An example of the trend.

"Food security" is a bull way of making people think that there are lots of hungry people .....

It's a technical term. Look it up.

 

[Lagboltz]

Clearly the private sector has the resources to provide for the needs of every person who has needs. The private sector has all the money until it is taken from the private sector - there can't be an amount of money more than ALL of it. The question is not if the private sector can provide for needs but will it. Since the level of poverty and the wealth disparity has been consistent across all governments and all time periods clearly the gov has not provided the solution. Since it has not then lets maintain the highest level of freedom that we can and permit people to give as they will. The progressives claim to want to help and they have enough resources all by themselves to completely give enough without even going broke. Meanwhile they spend all their time trying to pry money from conservatives who actually do give more of their own money.

If you think that is realistic, you live in the United States of Utopia.

Since you yourself admit that it does not allow it then it must be true that congress has no authority to do it.

Didn't you understand my earlier post??? Reread post #152.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is one measure of how the middle class is disappearing to the poorer classes. Your position is that there is a lot of movement to the lower class?? That is my position. You are not making any sense at all.

It is your position that there is a lot of movement to the poorer classes. It is my position that there is a lot of movement. These are not the same. And in fact your own data shows that a minority of poeple move to the poorer classes while the majority of people either stay in the middle or upper class or move to a higher class. That does not support the notion that there is large downward mobility.

Is there more downward mobility than in 2007? Probably, we are in a recession after all. This is the cyclical nature of things.

An example of the trend.

The only reason a trend would exist, if it did, of charities going out of business would be because government usurps their role. For example in European socialism donations to charities total about 20B per year while in the US donations total about 150B. If you want charities to grow simply cut wasteful gov spending on things that charities should be doing to begin with and that fed gov does not have the constitutional authority to do.

Is it a trend? Giving FELL in 2008 and 2009 but ROSE in 2010. That looks like variation to me. Though I have no doubt that the variation is effected by recession.

[/QUOTE]It's a technical term. Look it up.[/QUOTE]

I am already familiar with it. It is a term that does not mean starving, does not mean poor, does not mean generally lacking in food, etc. It does mean that on a self report people said that they were hungry at least one day out of the month. But since it never asks why people experienced a day of hunger it could be because they forgot to pack a lunch that day or they were just on a diet.

The real truth of the matter is that starvation is not a problem in the US. 100% of people here have access to enough food.

 

[Dr.Who]

Didn't you understand my earlier post??? Reread post #152.

I understand your post. Do you?

You have admitted that congress does not have the authority to spend tax dollars on charity. Whether congress has the authority to spend money on roads or anything else is irrelevant. If it has the authority to spend on roads but not on charity then it should not spend on charity. But if it does not have the authority spend on roads and also not on charity then it should not spend on charity. Either way it should not spend on charity.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you think that is realistic, you live in the United States of Utopia.

.

OK we already know that all the money is in the private sector so there is enough money to completely cover all welfare needs.

Is it utopian to think that private charities would?

In 2010 total donation to private charity amounted to about 290 billion or about a third of a trillion.

In 2010 total gov spending on welfare amounted to .5 trillion.

Surely if the fed stopped removing the money from the private sector total donations to charity could grow from .29 billion to .79 billion pretty easily. An increase of 2.7 times.

In other words if people now give on average 290,000 million dollars and there are about 360 million of us that means we each give about .0027 million dollars ($2000) now and to take back that responsibility from the gov we would each need to give on average $5,448 (2.7 x 2000).

Knowing that wasteful and unconstitutional welfare were not in place the american people (rich and poor and citizens and businesses) would easily multiply our present giving by 2.7. Easily. Knowing that gov is not only wasteful but enables people to continue in bad choices rather than getting on their own two feet we would gladly accept a system in which poor people were encouraged to be productive thus lessening the amount of money needed.

That's not utopian at all.

But it would be crazy to abandon a system in which people gave freely and without coercion in favor of a system in which people were forced to give and which was wasteful but resulted in no less poverty than before.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is your position that there is a lot of movement to the poorer classes. It is my position that there is a lot of movement. These are not the same. And in fact your own data shows that a minority of poeple move to the poorer classes while the majority of people either stay in the middle or upper class or move to a higher class. That does not support the notion that there is large downward mobility.

Is there more downward mobility than in 2007? Probably, we are in a recession after all. This is the cyclical nature of things.

You have to know are wrong. It is well known that wage and wealth disparity has been getting worse for years. In simple terms the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is decreasing.

The only reason a trend would exist, if it did, of charities going out of business would be because government usurps their role.

I don't abide by gut feelings of conservatives.

I am already familiar with it. It is a term that does not mean starving, does not mean poor, does not mean generally lacking in food, etc. It does mean that on a self report people said that they were hungry at least one day out of the month. But since it never asks why people experienced a day of hunger it could be because they forgot to pack a lunch that day or they were just on a diet.

The real truth of the matter is that starvation is not a problem in the US. 100% of people here have access to enough food.

Thank heavens for government programs.

You have admitted that congress does not have the authority to spend tax dollars on charity. Whether congress has the authority to spend money on roads or anything else is irrelevant. If it has the authority to spend on roads but not on charity then it should not spend on charity. But if it does not have the authority spend on roads and also not on charity then it should not spend on charity. Either way it should not spend on charity.

That is screwy double-talk. I made a simple analogy. The gov still funds highway systems. Reread post #152 keeping that in mind.

OK we already know that all the money is in the private sector so there is enough money to completely cover all welfare needs.

Is it utopian to think that private charities would?

In 2010 total donation to private charity amounted to about 290 billion or about a third of a trillion.

In 2010 total gov spending on welfare amounted to .5 trillion.

Surely if the fed stopped removing the money from the private sector total donations to charity could grow from .29 billion to .79 billion pretty easily. An increase of 2.7 times.

In other words if people now give on average 290,000 million dollars and there are about 360 million of us that means we each give about .0027 million dollars ($2000) now and to take back that responsibility from the gov we would each need to give on average $5,448 (2.7 x 2000).

Knowing that wasteful and unconstitutional welfare were not in place the american people (rich and poor and citizens and businesses) would easily multiply our present giving by 2.7. Easily. Knowing that gov is not only wasteful but enables people to continue in bad choices rather than getting on their own two feet we would gladly accept a system in which poor people were encouraged to be productive thus lessening the amount of money needed.

That's not utopian at all.

But it would be crazy to abandon a system in which people gave freely and without coercion in favor of a system in which people were forced to give and which was wasteful but resulted in no less poverty than before.

You go ahead and dream about your utopia. I prefer to live in the real world.

 

[GenSeneca]

....wealth disparity has been getting worse for years.

So what?

In simple terms the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is decreasing.

Where did that famous leftist catchphrase originate?

According to Marx, capitalism will inevitably lead to ruin in accordance with certain laws of economic movement. These laws are "the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall," "the Law of Increasing Poverty," and "the Law of Centralization of Capital." Small capitalists go bankrupt, and their production means are absorbed by large capitalists. During the process of bankruptcy and absorption, capital is gradually centralized by a few large capitalists, and the entire middle class declines. Thus, two major classes, a small minority of large capitalists, and a large proletarian majority are formed.​

Thank heavens for government programs.

Where does the money come from to fund those programs?

You go ahead and dream about your utopia. I prefer to live in the real world.

In the "real world", our government is going bankrupt trying to expand and maintain all the welfare programs created to reach your utopian ideal.

 

[Lagboltz]

So what?

That was in response to a claim that Dr. Who made.

Where did that famous leftist catchphrase originate?

According to Marx, capitalism will inevitably lead to ruin in accordance with certain laws of economic movement. These laws are "the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall," "the Law of Increasing Poverty," and "the Law of Centralization of Capital." Small capitalists go bankrupt, and their production means are absorbed by large capitalists. During the process of bankruptcy and absorption, capital is gradually centralized by a few large capitalists, and the entire middle class declines. Thus, two major classes, a small minority of large capitalists, and a large proletarian majority are formed.​

So what? (It's my turn to say it. )

In the "real world", our government is going bankrupt trying to expand and maintain all the welfare programs created to reach your utopian ideal.

I certainly don't believe the real world is anywhere near a Utopian ideal. There are lots of ways of bringing down spending and increasing revenue, but the extreme animosity between the two parties in congress has to tone way down before anything can be accomplished.

 

[GenSeneca]

That was in response to a claim that Dr. Who made.

I'll take that to mean you aren't capable of explaining why "wealth gaps" are a bad thing.

So what? (It's my turn to say it. )

I just felt like pointing out the Marxist roots of Leftist rhetoric.

I certainly don't believe the real world is anywhere near a Utopian ideal.

Which is why you continue to push for the creation/expansion of government programs, in hopes of creating your Utopian ideal through higher taxes and bigger government.

There are lots of ways of bringing down spending and increasing revenue,

There is only one way to bring down spending, by spending less. And the only proven way to see an increase in revenue is through a booming economy, which is not something that can be manufactured by government.

but the extreme animosity between the two parties in congress has to tone way down before anything can be accomplished.

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'll take that to mean you aren't capable of explaining why "wealth gaps" are a bad thing.

Wealth gaps are to be expected and not a bad thing. However when the wealth gap gets too large as it is becoming here, it will lead to an oligarchy in a banana republic.

Which is why you continue to push for the creation/expansion of government programs, in hopes of creating your Utopian ideal through higher taxes and bigger government.

Just because I'm a lefty, you make banal assumptions. You refused to consider my prior posts on how I wanted to significantly reduce spending. Let me repeat: I do not want the creation nor expansion of government programs. I do not however want certain social programs to disappear. I have never said I want spending to increase.

There is only one way to bring down spending, by spending less.

I agree whole heartedly. Congress should do it.

And the only proven way to see an increase in revenue is through a booming economy, which is not something that can be manufactured by government.

Government can push, but I don't count on industry doing anything. Industrial leaders are primarily interested in their compensation, their own prosperity and not the prosperity of the country -- The Enron syndrome.

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

Status quo -- that is certainly the conservative point of view.

 

[Dr.Who]

Wealth gaps are to be expected and not a bad thing. However when the wealth gap gets too large as it is becoming here, it will lead to an oligarchy in a banana republic.

Has any admirable country ever lowered wealth gaps by more than a few percent? Don't all the European socialisms have large wealth gaps too?

Why? Because wealth gaps are caused by gaps in merit. Some people are more capable of becoming wealthy and they do. And wealth gaps are caused by luck: Sometimes situations change and wealth gaps vary in cyclical ways.

For example, "the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we’ve had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices. "
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

In other words the collapse of the housing bubble is causing the so-called wealth gap. In another ten years housing will recover and if stocks are failing the trend will appear to have reversed.

So is it bad if some people earn more than others? No. All people should earn just what they are worth just like all students should earn whatever grade they deserve. So is it bad that some investments do better than others? Only if the gov has been picking winners and losers by manipulating the markets. If it is random changes in markets then there will be winners and losers by chance. All the more reason to teach people to have balanced portfolios.