Trickle Down?

[Little-Acorn]

The arm is that the top quintiles gets an ever increasing part of the country's wealth, whle the lowest quintiles see almost NO improvement in their standard of living.

The arm is that such trends are not sustainable in the long run, and that this type of large gap in wealth is one of the factors that is common in third world economy.

The arm is that the GOP wants to continue and increase that trend in order for the wealthy to keep more of their wealth while the middle class would be carrying the whole burden of "decreasing the deficit."

If we had a huge surplus instead of a huge deficit, I wouldn't mind what the top 10% makes. . .but we don't.

So, you are unable to name any particular harm done by the highest-income people, making the amount of money they do? Nothing but vague, unsupported generalities, implications that they somehow took something that the poor would have otherwise had, and the usual lies about what "the GOP wants"?

Now that we've established that there is no harm in upper-income people making lots of money legally, can you explain to me why you feel they should be penalized more than people who do not? And why so much of their property should be taken from them?

A famous bank robber, when asked why he kept robbing banks, replied "because that's where the money is!". I have never been able to find any motivation on the part of liberals for wanting to force upper-income people to give up more, other than the one that bank robber had. Nor can I find any difference in their morality. This is hardly the basis for good government.

In fact, isn't there some old document that says that when the government begins to abuse and violate our rights, we have a duty to alter or abolish it?

 

[BigRob]

Of course it wouldn't carry much weight because they are clearly biased as to what is good for their friends and for themselves. However they are the voters and that does carry a lot of weight as far as the direction of the country.

Surely you would not agree that it is a good thing that a group with no skin the game can impose their will on another? If the roles reverse, and the "rich" sought to impose their will on the "poor", I would wager we would be hearing a very different tune.

 

[BigRob]

I'm sorry but I don't see Arthur Brooks as an objective source of statistical information. He has the rightists view on tax policy. We all know that conservatives will cherry pick statistic sources that favor their views and liberals have a similar bias. The sources I try to cite are from government data which are hard numbers, and not from polls or blogs, etc.

What was wrong with his methodology, and how would that have changed the statistics?

 

[BigRob]

NO one is saying that a tax increase will solve ALL our problems! To solver our problems (not even all, and not in a blink of an eye!), it take a diversified approach.

And, I am willing to pay more taxes to help resolve this issue. Buffett is willing to pay more taxes to solve this issue. . .and among all the people who do believe we should increse taxes, there are many who would also be affected, probably not as much in numbers as the millionaires, but certainly just as much in the impact it would have on their monthly budget!

By the way, someplace you said that a study shows that Republicans are more "charitable" than Democrates.

I wonder IF this study took into account that "Church donations" and "Church tidings" fall under "charitable contributions, and that it is clear that Republicans are more likely to be overly religious than Democrats.

In the other hands, there are a LOT more Demcrats who forgoe making huge salaries in lucrative businesses, to care for the disenfranchised for much lower salaries (in social work, mental health, disabled care, nursing, non profit organizations, etc. . )

Once again, that study is biased, because it doesn't take the right element in consideration.

The study does account for church donations etc...and further argues that those donations do more to actually help the "poor" than say a donation to an art museum (something they indicate liberals are more likely to do).

I also think that attempting to argue that a study is bias because someone is a social worker and does not get paid much money is bogus. If a Democrat goes to school for social work, and then becomes a social worker, it is bogus to attempt to claim they would have otherwise had a large salary, and that needs to be accounted for in the survey. There is no basis for such an argument.

It is like arguing that if the sky was not blue, everyone would earn $5 million a year. There is no way to test for that, and it simply cannot be included in a study.

 

[Lagboltz]

Surely you would not agree that it is a good thing that a group with no skin the game can impose their will on another?

We do have skin in the game. We are in difficult times with few jobs and high debt and we see a real downhill slide in the country. Speaking for myself, I am very interested in seeing survival of my country which is slipping down by many measures, except for salaries of the rich. So, I believe a more progressive tax will help the US as a whole. Yes, I know your are a trickle downer and disagree.

If the roles reverse, and the "rich" sought to impose their will on the "poor", I would wager we would be hearing a very different tune.

You are absolutely correct.

I would argue that the rich are imposing their will on the poor right now. Lobbies and PAC contributions from rich individuals influence the elimination of social programs. And yes you are hearing a different tune and it is happening right now. People are calling for an increase in taxes.

 

[Lagboltz]

What was wrong with his methodology, and how would that have changed the statistics?

I'm not saying something in particular is wrong with his methodology, I'm just saying that I don't trust it because it came from a potentially biased person.

If you care to find statistics from a moderate source and quote them here, I would be willing to discuss it. But since the argument is "who has more empathy for the poor" it is an issue that I don't want to spend too much time with.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This comes from an article by Stephen Moore:

Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

Stephen Moore is a dick. His sense, of economics, is about as enlightening as his sophomoric/Jr. High-style humor.

If I'm lookin' for valid economic-input, I've gotta go with someone who's (actually) BEEN there.​

July 31, 2010​

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

Four Deformations Of The Apocalypse​

 

[BigRob]

Stephen Moore is a dick. His sense, of economics, is about as enlightening as his sophomoric/Jr. High-style humor.​

A B.A. and an M.A. in Economics, being the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, as well as a fellow at the Cato Institute, the senior economist of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, leader of various groups, and now on the WSJ editorial board makes him an idiot huh?​

 

[Openmind]

A B.A. and an M.A. in Economics, being the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, as well as a fellow at the Cato Institute, the senior economist of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, leader of various groups, and now on the WSJ editorial board makes him an idiot huh?

I think it's kind of embarrassing for him that he doesn't know more about economic if he had a BA AND an MA!

I guess, that's what happens when one refuses to consider learning any theory that doesn't match his "party needs!"

 

[Openmind]

The study does account for church donations etc...and further argues that those donations do more to actually help the "poor" than say a donation to an art museum (something they indicate liberals are more likely to do).

I also think that attempting to argue that a study is bias because someone is a social worker and does not get paid much money is bogus. If a Democrat goes to school for social work, and then becomes a social worker, it is bogus to attempt to claim they would have otherwise had a large salary, and that needs to be accounted for in the survey. There is no basis for such an argument.

It is like arguing that if the sky was not blue, everyone would earn $5 million a year. There is no way to test for that, and it simply cannot be included in a study.

Thanks for confirming my intuitive belief: Church goers give money to their church, and it is counted as "charity" money!

Social workers forgoe half of their potential income to take care of the disenfranchised, and it counted as "government give away!"


I do not believe that, even in a perfect world, everyone would be able to make the same amount of money or to keep it (which is even more unlikely!).

What I am saying is that, since we KNOW that some people will never be able to make a living that will allow them to pay for their own health care, to raise their children in "private schools," or to even send their kids to College. . .why are we still beating down on them?

Why are some people feeling it is unfair for those people who don't have the same intellectual/mental/physical advantage as most of us to receive assistance from people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, no obstacles to the best possible education (except. . .maybe intellectual limitations, but Bush proved that that could be overcome with enough money!), and not a day to worry about how to put food on the table!

But. . .It is perfectly "fair" that some CEO makes 500 X the income of his lower employee. . .but it is unfair if that CEO is asked to participate in the safety and survival of those who make LESS than 500X his income!

YOU KNOW that this is wrong!

And you KNOW that it is wrong for "Ministers" to make millions out of the "CHARITY" money given to his Church by his parishioners!

That "charity money" is partially intended to go to charity, but mostly it goes to "overhead" (like jets, and mansions!) and is used by the donors to "lower their tax bill!"

 

[BigRob]

I think it's kind of embarrassing for him that he doesn't know more about economic if he had a BA AND an MA!

I didn't see anything in that clip that showed he didn't know anything about economics.

I guess, that's what happens when one refuses to consider learning any theory that doesn't match his "party needs!"

Moore is a well respected economist and backs up his claims pretty well in my opinion. The fact that you disagree with his conclusions doesn't make him an idiot. President Obama is certainly not an idiot because I disagree with him on many things.

 

[BigRob]

Thanks for confirming my intuitive belief: Church goers give money to their church, and it is counted as "charity" money!

Social workers forgoe half of their potential income to take care of the disenfranchised, and it counted as "government give away!"

My point is what are you basing the idea on that a social worker is really worth double what they are being paid? Perhaps I feel that I am worth 10X what I make, so therefore any economic study about my group ought to reflect that...that is lunacy.

I do not believe that, even in a perfect world, everyone would be able to make the same amount of money or to keep it (which is even more unlikely!).

I agree....the market decides who earns what.

What I am saying is that, since we KNOW that some people will never be able to make a living that will allow them to pay for their own health care, to raise their children in "private schools," or to even send their kids to College. . .why are we still beating down on them?

No one is beating down on them...they can send their kids to public school, and take out loans for college...No one is entitled to live the life want unless they earn it.

Why are some people feeling it is unfair for those people who don't have the same intellectual/mental/physical advantage as most of us to receive assistance from people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, no obstacles to the best possible education (except. . .maybe intellectual limitations, but Bush proved that that could be overcome with enough money!), and not a day to worry about how to put food on the table!

I have no problem with programs in place for the mentally retarded etc, but you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that the majority of welfare spending is for that.

But. . .It is perfectly "fair" that some CEO makes 500 X the income of his lower employee. . .but it is unfair if that CEO is asked to participate in the safety and survival of those who make LESS than 500X his income!

Another false comparison..that CEO is already bearing the majority of the burden for the safety and survival of those making less than him. It is unfair to continually ask him to carry the weight.

YOU KNOW that this is wrong!

A CEO making a lot of money is by no means wrong.

And you KNOW that it is wrong for "Ministers" to make millions out of the "CHARITY" money given to his Church by his parishioners

I agree with this, but most ministers are not this way.

That "charity money" is partially intended to go to charity, but mostly it goes to "overhead" (like jets, and mansions!) and is used by the donors to "lower their tax bill!"

Again, most ministers are not this way...and yes there are charities that keep X% of the money for overhead etc, that is to be expected, but the majority of charities give out the majority of the money they bring to help whatever cause it is they are fighting.

 

[ProudLefty]

I worked with the United Way as a volunteer for a number of years. We learned a painful lesson. People give charity to the cute, not to the needy. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts set up a card table at the mall and the money pours in. A homeless woman in poor health, with torn clothes, and in need of dental work sets up a card table at the mall and she gets run off by mall security.

This much vaunted reverence for charity really means "I want to be in control, G-D it! I will give to whom I want to give to, and they better well kow tow and tell me how wonderful I am!!! By GOD!!!" "And keep those pathetic creatures away from me."

 

[Openmind]

My point is what are you basing the idea on that a social worker is really worth double what they are being paid? Perhaps I feel that I am worth 10X what I make, so therefore any economic study about my group ought to reflect that...that is lunacy. I agree....the market decides who earns what.

And do you ever wonder how the "market" decides? Do you know, for exemple, that a care giver for chimpanzees in a zoo is paid MORE per hour than a licenced child care worker? Did you know that the guy keeping the monkey fed and happy makes more money than the licenced child care worker taking care of YOUR child while you're at work? Do you know the length of study a social worker goes through to be able to practice her skills where SHE/HE has the direct responsibility of anywhere from 40 to 95 people's life?

I'm sorry if I sound emotional about this. The fact is that I graduated with a double major, in Economics and in Psychology. I had to make a choice what direction I wanted to go to for graduate studies. My husband (a businessman) pushed me to go to an MBA program. . .I did, but my heart wasn't in it. I completed my first year with a 3.8 average, but, since my husband's income was more than sufficient to allow me a non-economic choice, I decided to follow my heart and my conscience and to transfer to the Master of Social Work program in the same university. . .obviously, I had to start at year one of the graduate program again!

After 4 years of undergraduate degree, two bachelors degrees both with honors, college honors, Phi Beta Kappa, one year of MBA, and two years of Social work (including an average of 20 hours per week of internship in addition to the graduate course load), I obtained the job of my dream: Case manager for people with developmental disability (Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, Autism, etc. ). I was very lucky to be hired in an agency that "payed its social worker well," at a beginning salary of $40,000 a year. . .I made it to $51,000 after 7 years there!

And, NO Rob, with all due respect. . .you may MAKE 10X what I made each year, but as good as a guy as I believe you are, I do NOT believe you are worse 10X more than I do! And I do not believe that your work is worse 10X more to society than the work I did with the close to 200 disabled people and their families I served during that time!

You know what they say: If you are having a party, and your toilet backs up in your mansion. . .you might value a plumber at least as much as your favorite guest. . .the brain surgeon!

No one is beating down on them...they can send their kids to public school, and take out loans for college...No one is entitled to live the life want unless they earn it.

Funny you should say that!
You are obviously well aware of one of the most well liked charity: Easter Seals! So cute all those developmentally kids running in the special olympics, makes you feel so good when you send money to "Jerry's kids" so they can go to camp. . .right? Because, obviously, without your "charity money" those poor kids would have no means of going to camp, righ?

Well, think again. I worked for many years as a case manager (master in social work) for people with developmental disabilities, in a large state agency. We worked closely (obviously) with Easter Seals. . .and many of my clients went to Summer camp through Eater Seals. Sounds good, right. . .nice to see your charity dollars in action, right? That is the proof that we don't need government to provide for those kids, right?

WRONG! About 3 months prior to the start of the Summer Camp, I would get a notice from Easter Seal of the dates and THE COST of those camps. The notice also included a warning: "Payment must be received at least 30 days before the beginning of the camp, or the camper will not be allowed to attend." A mistake?
NOT AT ALL! Parents called, told me their person with disability wanted to attend a specific session of Easter Seal's camp, and "I," as a case manager for that person, and as an employee of the agency that contracted with the State completed the paper work necessary for THE AGENCY to pay Easter Seals PRIOR to the person being allowed to be counted as a participant in that session of the camp! And the paper work AND PAYMENT had to be received by Easter Seals early enough, or they just cancelled the reserved spot for my client. . .without telling me. . .without telling the family, who had made plan during that ONLY annual week without having the charge of their disabled person to go across the US to attend the wedding of another of their children!

Oh, and, guess what. . .all those "volunteers" at Easter Seals, well. . . They were well intended, but, if my clients were disabled enough to need assistance with grooming, or eating, or a feeding tube, or whatever else. . .it met that my agency (with the funding from the State) had to NOT ONLY pay for the Summer camp, but ALSO provide a 1:1 assistant to that specific client!. . Evidently, we also paid for transportation to and from that camp!
I am still, to this day, wondering where all that charity money gather for "Jerry's kids" goes!

Funny, isn't it. . .the things we don't know about "charity!"

I have no problem with programs in place for the mentally retarded etc, but you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that the majority of welfare spending is for that

.

Again, funny ou should say that! I had many clients with autism...mostly teenagers, although the rest of my case load were mostly adults.
One of my favorite client was a 16 year old teenager with severe autism. He was 6'2" and weigh 230lbs. He had a history of severe violence. . .his room had to be padded, his window was made of unbreakable plexiglass. . .he had broken too many windows, and he had opened his heads beating it against the walls.

He had an endearing habit: He loved to take people by the neck in the elbow of his one arm, while he rubbed his knuckes on top of their heads. . .once he got you, it took 3 men to make him let go. What complicated everything was that, you never knew if he reached out to take you by the neck to love you. . .or to punish you. It was anyone's guess!

So, this otherwise loveable young man (very handsome too!) was a real danger to both himself and others. He needed 24 hours AWAKE care (3 shifts of 1:1 helper, in addition of the two other attendants in the house at all time). He couldn't share the house he lived in with more than 2 other kids. . . who were also "high risks," although they were smaller, and not deadly.

This young man cost the agency $12,000 a MONTH at the age of 16 (in 1998). In 2003, he cost the agency (therefore the tax payers) $19,000 a month. He was healthy as a horse, probably will live for another 60 or 70 years.

This is ONE of the 200 people who depended on me to organize their life, to keep them safe, to keep others safe from him. And you wonder why it costs so much in entitlements? I know you don't want us to just euthanize this young, healthy, but severely autistic man. So what? Release him on the street? Let a car run over him and kill him. . .or let him kill someone and send him to a criminally insane state Prison?

What's your solution?

Another false comparison..that CEO is already bearing the majority of the burden for the safety and survival of those making less than him. It is unfair to continually ask him to carry the weight.

Sure, we saw that with the last oil spill, right? They were sure worry about the safety of those workers on the platform!

A CEO making a lot of money is by no means wrong.

No, nothing wrong. . .if his companies makes money, and if his employees are not laid off to make more money in the stock market.
"big money" also doesn't have to be obscene! If a CEO makes 250 to 350 times what his lower employee makes, that IS big money. If he makes 500 + time what his lower employee makes. . .that is obscene!

Again, most ministers are not this way...and yes there are charities that keep X% of the money for overhead etc, that is to be expected, but the majority of charities give out the majority of the money they bring to help whatever cause it is they are fighting.

Wrong again, at least in if you talk about "the majority!". Did you check on United way? Even on the Red Cross. . . and as I said earlier. . .did you check on Ester Seals?

 

[Openmind]

And do you ever wonder how the "market" decides? Do you know, for exemple, that a care giver for chimpanzees in a zoo is paid MORE per hour than a licenced child care worker? Did you know that the guy keeping the monkey fed and happy makes more money than the licenced child care worker taking care of YOUR child while you're at work? Do you know the length of study a social worker goes through to be able to practice her skills where SHE/HE has the direct responsibility of anywhere from 40 to 95 people's life?

I'm sorry if I sound emotional about this. The fact is that I graduated with a double major, in Economics and in Psychology. I had to make a choice what direction I wanted to go to for graduate studies. My husband (a businessman) pushed me to go to an MBA program. . .I did, but my heart wasn't in it. I completed my first year with a 3.8 average, but, since my husband's income was more than sufficient to allow me a non-economic choice, I decided to follow my heart and my conscience and to transfer to the Master of Social Work program in the same university. . .obviously, I had to start at year one of the graduate program again!

After 4 years of undergraduate degree, two bachelors degrees both with honors, college honors, Phi Beta Kappa, one year of MBA, and two years of Social work (including an average of 20 hours per week of internship in addition to the graduate course load), I obtained the job of my dream: Case manager for people with developmental disability (Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, Autism, etc. ). I was very lucky to be hired in an agency that "payed its social worker well," at a beginning salary of $40,000 a year. . .I made it to $51,000 after 7 years there!

And, NO Rob, with all due respect. . .you may MAKE 10X what I made each year, but as good as a guy as I believe you are, I do NOT believe you are worse 10X more than I do! And I do not believe that your work is worse 10X more to society than the work I did with the close to 200 disabled people and their families I served during that time!

You know what they say: If you are having a party, and your toilet backs up in your mansion. . .you might value a plumber at least as much as your favorite guest. . .the brain surgeon!




Funny you should say that!
You are obviously well aware of one of the most well liked charity: Easter Seals! So cute all those developmentally kids running in the special olympics, makes you feel so good when you send money to "Jerry's kids" so they can go to camp. . .right? Because, obviously, without your "charity money" those poor kids would have no means of going to camp, righ?

Well, think again. I worked for many years as a case manager (master in social work) for people with developmental disabilities, in a large state agency. We worked closely (obviously) with Easter Seals. . .and many of my clients went to Summer camp through Eater Seals. Sounds good, right. . .nice to see your charity dollars in action, right? That is the proof that we don't need government to provide for those kids, right?

WRONG! About 3 months prior to the start of the Summer Camp, I would get a notice from Easter Seal of the dates and THE COST of those camps. The notice also included a warning: "Payment must be received at least 30 days before the beginning of the camp, or the camper will not be allowed to attend." A mistake?
NOT AT ALL! Parents called, told me their person with disability wanted to attend a specific session of Easter Seal's camp, and "I," as a case manager for that person, and as an employee of the agency that contracted with the State completed the paper work necessary for THE AGENCY to pay Easter Seals PRIOR to the person being allowed to be counted as a participant in that session of the camp! And the paper work AND PAYMENT had to be received by Easter Seals early enough, or they just cancelled the reserved spot for my client. . .without telling me. . .without telling the family, who had made plan during that ONLY annual week without having the charge of their disabled person to go across the US to attend the wedding of another of their children!

Oh, and, guess what. . .all those "volunteers" at Easter Seals, well. . . They were well intended, but, if my clients were disabled enough to need assistance with grooming, or eating, or a feeding tube, or whatever else. . .it met that my agency (with the funding from the State) had to NOT ONLY pay for the Summer camp, but ALSO provide a 1:1 assistant to that specific client!. . Evidently, we also paid for transportation to and from that camp!
I am still, to this day, wondering where all that charity money gather for "Jerry's kids" goes!

Funny, isn't it. . .the things we don't know about "charity!"

.

Again, funny ou should say that! I had many clients with autism...mostly teenagers, although the rest of my case load were mostly adults.
One of my favorite client was a 16 year old teenager with severe autism. He was 6'2" and weigh 230lbs. He had a history of severe violence. . .his room had to be padded, his window was made of unbreakable plexiglass. . .he had broken too many windows, and he had opened his heads beating it against the walls.

He had an endearing habit: He loved to take people by the neck in the elbow of his one arm, while he rubbed his knuckes on top of their heads. . .once he got you, it took 3 men to make him let go. What complicated everything was that, you never knew if he reached out to take you by the neck to love you. . .or to punish you. It was anyone's guess!

So, this otherwise loveable young man (very handsome too!) was a real danger to both himself and others. He needed 24 hours AWAKE care (3 shifts of 1:1 helper, in addition of the two other attendants in the house at all time). He couldn't share the house he lived in with more than 2 other kids. . . who were also "high risks," although they were smaller, and not deadly.

This young man cost the agency $12,000 a MONTH at the age of 16 (in 1998). In 2003, he cost the agency (therefore the tax payers) $19,000 a month. He was healthy as a horse, probably will live for another 60 or 70 years.

This is ONE of the 200 people who depended on me to organize their life, to keep them safe, to keep others safe from him. And you wonder why it costs so much in entitlements? I know you don't want us to just euthanize this young, healthy, but severely autistic man. So what? Release him on the street? Let a car run over him and kill him. . .or let him kill someone and send him to a criminally insane state Prison?

What's your solution?




Sure, we saw that with the last oil spill, right? They were sure worry about the safety of those workers on the platform!




No, nothing wrong. . .if his companies makes money, and if his employees are not laid off to make more money in the stock market.
"big money" also doesn't have to be obscene! If a CEO makes 250 to 350 times what his lower employee makes, that IS big money. If he makes 500 + time what his lower employee makes. . .that is obscene!




Wrong again, at least in if you talk about "the majority!". Did you check on United way? Even on the Red Cross. . . and as I said earlier. . .did you check on Ester Seals?

Very interesting! Not ONE answer. . .

Too hot to handle?