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.
The entire country was stimulated by increased welfare spending after the recession started; without welfare unemployment would have been even higher. Nobody is suggesting that the meager welfare we give people now should be enough to turn any town into a boomtown. But it's more than nothing. Or are you asserting that welfare recipients spend less money than they would if they had no money at all?
Edit: if Welfare recipients were receiving more than the average person's income, then yes those neighborhoods would be flush with jobs and so on. That's obvious. How come you haven't yet explained how any of your right-wing theories are supposed to work out in real life, except by way of unverifiable anecdotes?
You completely avoided the question.
Here, lets try it again.
Name a town which was lifted into economic prosperity due to welfare spending.
Welfare spending is local, not national. Person X spending their food stamps in Detroit, doesnt stimulate Florida..
List one town please that grew economically due to welfare increases...
See that part of your left wing kook theories that fail basic economics is that you completely ignore that the money must first be taken from person A, in order to give to person B.. and you cant ignore spending which would have taken place by person A and pretend that person B spending "stimulates", without being a fool..
Name a town which was lifted into economic prosperity due to welfare spending.
Welfare spending is local, not national. Person X spending their food stamps in Detroit, doesnt stimulate Florida..
List one town please that grew economically due to welfare increases...
See that part of your left wing kook theories that fail basic economics is that you completely ignore that the money must first be taken from person A, in order to give to person B.. and you cant ignore spending which would have taken place by person A and pretend that person B spending "stimulates", without being a fool..
Setting aside that, no, that's not how money works...
We don't spend enough on welfare to stimulate anyone into economic prosperity. We give people like $100 a week for a family of four. That does help the economy, but what you're saying is "I gave a poor guy a dollar and he didn't become a millionaire therefore MYTH BUSTED." When people lose their jobs and their income is replaced by a smaller income, the town suffers. When their income is replaced by no income, it suffers more. So the town is more prosperious with welfare than without. But for a town to be "lifted" by welfare, you would need to first have a town of people with no income and no welfare, and then introduce welfare.
Also the poor spend more of their income than the rich so obviously taking money from the the rich and giving it to the poor would stimulate the economy. That's basic math.
Edit: I did think of an obvious example: America in the 30s. The New Deal was basically new welfare programs, and it did boost the economy. So, there you go.
Setting aside that, no, that's not how money works...
We don't spend enough on welfare to stimulate anyone into economic prosperity. We give people like $100 a week for a family of four. That does help the economy, but what you're saying is "I gave a poor guy a dollar and he didn't become a millionaire therefore MYTH BUSTED." When people lose their jobs and their income is replaced by a smaller income, the town suffers. When their income is replaced by no income, it suffers more. So the town is more prosperious with welfare than without. But for a town to be "lifted" by welfare, you would need to first have a town of people with no income and no welfare, and then introduce welfare.
.
Why is the only option that it's replaced by no income. What happens is that too many welfare recipients go to their reduced income and refuse to take the step to another job therefore the reduced income stays the same while it would likely increase if they took the job and worked.
Tell me, Chad... why do you so consistently believe the left-wing's manipulations and lies?
Your source is not the IRS, your source is the taxfoundation.org. The "Tax Foundation" is a corporate think tank that fights for corporate and CEO tax cuts.
Look at all the manipulation your source uses in "Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2011."
They use (9) brackets to detail the top 50% of Americans. And they use (1) bracket to detail the bottom 50% of Americans.
They group the bottom 50% in (1) bracket, so the "high" tax paying middle class, gets averaged in with low income Americans who get tax credits.
Don't you find it strange how there is no detailed information on people making $50,000-$100,000 a year?
(But there is plenty of information on the richest 10% of Americans.)
Then they say "The Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes."
But there is no effective tax rate listed. This is a manipulation because if Bill Gates had a 1% tax rate, he would still send a larger check to the IRS, than 1,000 people making $80,000 a year paying a 20% tax rate.
I know several people who make $100,000-$250,000 a year, and trust me their tax rates are (much) higher than a CEO like Mitt Romney's tax rate.
Why is the only option that it's replaced by no income. What happens is that too many welfare recipients go to their reduced income and refuse to take the step to another job therefore the reduced income stays the same while it would likely increase if they took the job and worked.
That would only make sense if you think 2008 was the year that unemployment shot up because millions of Americans simultaneously decided they would rather be on welfare than work at their jobs, and there certainly wasn't a banking crisis or anything that forced people into unemployment involuntarily no siree!
Again: McDonald's had a job fair where they had a million applicants for fifty thousand jobs. Saying that people are unemployed because they don't want to work is completely baseless.
That would only make sense if you think 2008 was the year that unemployment shot up because millions of Americans simultaneously decided they would rather be on welfare than work at their jobs, and there certainly wasn't a banking crisis or anything that forced people into unemployment involuntarily no siree!
Again: McDonald's had a job fair where they had a million applicants for fifty thousand jobs. Saying that people are unemployed because they don't want to work is completely baseless.
It's not that they don't want to work. They choose the shorter term view of remaining on a welfare system versus the entry level job. I understand the decision, but it keeps you stuck which is the problem. This, by the way, is not baseless. It comes from my personal experience with people in the system and from the results of a study by the Cato Institute.
"Still, what is undeniable is that for many recipients in the most generous states — particularly those classified as long-term recipients — welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job.
By not working, welfare recipients may be responding rationally to the incentives our public policy makers have established.
And yet we know that over the long term, a job is better than welfare. Census figures show that only 2.6% of full-time workers are poor, compared with 23.9% of adults who do not work. "
You republicans claim to care about hard work and wealth, but thats BS.
Americans who are not CEO's, and worked damn hard to make $410,000+ a year are in a 39% tax bracket.
But CEO's who make millions of dollars a year are in a 17% tax bracket (because their personal income is taxed by capital gains.)
The CEO republican politicians like Mitt Romney say, they use their low tax rates to create jobs, but thats BS. Google search "Mitt Romney homes", cars, airplane, ex,ex,
Mitt Romney is using his tax cut money to buy luxury home's, luxury car's, and also to buy his 5 sons luxury items.
And think about how America's large corporations are moving their manufacturing facilities to Asia, and building US factories in Asia. Tax cuts like these are financing the building of those factories (and there are no regulations on how corporations and the rich must spend their tax cuts, they can spend them any way they want.)
But I keep my income low in order to avoid taxes. All of my income goes towards building of wealth...
I doubt that is true and I'm going to guess there is a reason employers don't think you're worth any more. Probably a very good reason since they all seem to agree.
You republicans claim to care about hard work and wealth, but thats BS.
Americans who are not CEO's, and worked damn hard to make $410,000+ a year are in a 39% tax bracket.
But CEO's who make millions of dollars a year are in a 17% tax bracket (because their personal income is taxed by capital gains.)
The CEO republican politicians like Mitt Romney say, they use their low tax rates to create jobs, but thats BS. Google search "Mitt Romney homes", cars, airplane, ex,ex,
Mitt Romney is using his tax cut money to buy luxury home's, luxury car's, and also to buy his 5 sons luxury items.
And think about how America's large corporations are moving their manufacturing facilities to Asia, and building US factories in Asia. Tax cuts like these are financing the building of those factories (and there are no regulations on how corporations and the rich must spend their tax cuts, they can spend them any way they want.)
(Plus all the tax cut money gets added to our deficits and national debt.)
Didn't all the things he bought help create jobs????
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.
