Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consumer demand's aren't that strong when consumers have a lot of debt, stagnating wages, and less employment.....
How has Obama fixed any of that?
Quote:
The math is certainly refutable. Change the equation and variables and see what happens.
The equation is immutable. It's a standard equation for population growth projection. The question is... How would you change the variables, which are the birth rates of those receiving public assistance, and those who don't?
"Assuming that GDP will increase between 3.6% ad (sic) 5.0% during the year 2013, we calculate GDP in current US Dollar to be between 16,246.03 and 16,465.58 for the year 2013. Please note that these numbers are expectations only and will likely to be different from actual GDP growth in 2013."
That's why you have to read what you copy and paste.
Again..... now what? What is the significance of your response Mr. Critical Thinker?
GDP grew despite our employment situation and stagnant wages. Private sector profits have never been higher..... Why hasn't this growth produced more jobs and better wages in America?
Take a look at the 2nd graph shown in the article, which plots GDP growth against redistribution. Does this not clearly show that nations get far MORE GDP growth with LESS redistribution?
The last 6 years has seen a massive amount of money being pumped into the markets overwhelmingly benefiting the upper classes and jobs are not being created.
You like others I've pointed this out to are not interested in wealth inequality, you are only interested in your extreme form of partisanship.
And prior to that Bush slashed taxes--no jobs created and a big economic crash. Clinton and Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed and many, many jobs were created. As you have pointed out, you are only interested in your extreme form of partisanship.
Not seeing where it says "Taking[/b] from some to give to others who haven't earned it.". It talks a lot about using taxes and the government to redistribute wealth but nothing about if it was earned or not.....I think you don't get it.
Quote:
How has Obama fixed any of that?
Obama has fixed it. Neither has any president in the 3-4 decades. Don't think presidents are powerful enough to do it....
Quote:
The equation is immutable. It's a standard equation for population growth projection. The question is... How would you change the variables, which are the birth rates of those receiving public assistance, and those who don't?
Yes for population growth..... You are using an equation to track at risk youth and turning it to track welfare recipients. The link you provided wasn't intended to be used as you are using it. But let's just play along....
If the economy did pick up in a meaningful way that produced better job growth and better wages then we would see less spending on welfare.....
You don't need your equation to understand welfare is correlated to the state of the economy.
That's what happens in a capitalist system. We have decided we aren't going to use child labor and pay people a dollar a day and not dump toxic waste in our water supply..... Therefore, the private sector is investing moreso in places that do that in order to keep costs down and profits high....
FAIL..
The fact that we arent using child labor, blah blah blah, would reduce the demand for welfare, because those position would be open up for adults..
Take a look at the 2nd graph shown in the article, which plots GDP growth against redistribution. Does this not clearly show that nations get far MORE GDP growth with LESS redistribution?
Which is exactly why Obama got it wrong, despite the OP's original claim that he was completely accurate.
And prior to that Bush slashed taxes--no jobs created and a big economic crash. Clinton and Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed and many, many jobs were created. As you have pointed out, you are only interested in your extreme form of partisanship.
Take a look at the 2nd graph shown in the article, which plots GDP growth against redistribution. Does this not clearly show that nations get far MORE GDP growth with LESS redistribution?
It doesn't. The only graph that shows far more growth is when there is less inequality. The second graph is essentially flat.
The fact that we arent using child labor, blah blah blah, would reduce the demand for welfare, because those position would be open up for adults..
Huh? I'll give you another chance to write something that makes sense.... Try not using "blah,blah,blah".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
