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.
I really can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse any more.
Money doesn't stay in poor neighborhoods. Mostly because - as I'm sure I've stated more than once in this thread - poor people tend to spend money. All their money. Hence, "poor".
So if you arrange the tax code to provide me an extra $500, I'll probably find a way to save it or most of it. I don't have an urgent need for an extra $500 worth of goods and services. Whereas, if you instead give two people in the bottom 20% $250 each, chances are they'll have motivation, sound or otherwise, to spend the heck out of that money. They're much more likely to have bald tires or a tooth that needs attention or - let's face it - a vice or two. The difference is that they'll get those five Benjamins out there.
And the owner of the tire shop, the dentist or the liquor store owner don't live next door to them.
It's not a value statement, again - it's empirical. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their money.
poor american people dont spend money. poor american people waste money.
i was once poor-- when i came here. more so than most american ghetto poor.
poor french people could live on what you throw away.
I really can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse any more.
Money doesn't stay in poor neighborhoods. Mostly because - as I'm sure I've stated more than once in this thread - poor people tend to spend money. All their money. Hence, "poor".
So if you arrange the tax code to provide me an extra $500, I'll probably find a way to save it or most of it. I don't have an urgent need for an extra $500 worth of goods and services. Whereas, if you instead give two people in the bottom 20% $250 each, chances are they'll have motivation, sound or otherwise, to spend the heck out of that money. They're much more likely to have bald tires or a tooth that needs attention or - let's face it - a vice or two. The difference is that they'll get those five Benjamins out there.
And the owner of the tire shop, the dentist or the liquor store owner don't live next door to them.
It's not a value statement, again - it's empirical. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their money.
So what you're saying is that spending money on welfare, doesnt really solve anything, since the money leaves those areas that so desperately need it the most..
yes I've known this for decades.. one day you'll admit it.
I really can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse any more.
Money doesn't stay in poor neighborhoods. Mostly because - as I'm sure I've stated more than once in this thread - poor people tend to spend money. All their money. Hence, "poor".
So if you arrange the tax code to provide me an extra $500, I'll probably find a way to save it or most of it. I don't have an urgent need for an extra $500 worth of goods and services. Whereas, if you instead give two people in the bottom 20% $250 each, chances are they'll have motivation, sound or otherwise, to spend the heck out of that money. They're much more likely to have bald tires or a tooth that needs attention or - let's face it - a vice or two. The difference is that they'll get those five Benjamins out there.
And the owner of the tire shop, the dentist or the liquor store owner don't live next door to them.
It's not a value statement, again - it's empirical. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their money.
The poor don't invest.
Sure they spend it as soon as they get it.
So your Walmart, your Dollar Store, your McDonald's maintain revenue and JPM gets their cut.
But after 7 years even that is not working as Walmart and McDonald's have reported lower sales for a number of months now.
EBT can't keep up with inflation unless we give the EBT crowd a "living wage" raise as well.
Means tested programs cost nearly $1 trillion dollars a year (Fed + State).
It can't go on indefinitely and it's dragging the middle class down with them.
Spending bills originate in the House, which has been under GOP control for four years now. When are they going to start dealing with this?
They have dealt with this. Of course with your massively liberal bias it's no surprise really that you would "conveniently" forget the huge budget battles of a few years ago where Obama threatened to veto and Harry Reid refused to bring to a vote any of the budgetary proposals that the House made.
That's the standard operating procedure for Democrats. They block whatever Republicans want to do, then go on camera and blame Republicans for doing nothing. They've been doing this for years now. And they away with it because of the legions of liberals out there who are either too stupid to understand to too unethical to care.
Quote:
I suppose there is not enough time to actually govern when you only work 113 days a year. Especially when a majority of the little time they are in session is taken up voting to defund the ACA 60 times. No time for anything else.
And meanwhile the Democrat controlled Senate went half a decade without passing a budget, which they are required to do by the constitution. But of course you don't mention that, thus reinforcing what I said about the entirely worthless nature of your comments due to your willingness to ignore truth and fact when it suits your partisan desires.
They have dealt with this. Of course with your massively liberal bias it's no surprise really that you would "conveniently" forget the huge budget battles of a few years ago where Obama threatened to veto and Harry Reid refused to bring to a vote any of the budgetary proposals that the House made.
This is the same budget battle that the Senate passed the huge spending bill and then sent it onto the House to sign, (which they did) but still years later, liberals run around proclaiming the Senate cant pass spending bills, which is an outright lie.
The ONLY reason we run the way we do is because we are the reserve currency. Take that away and the Great Recession will look like a walk in the park. No other country on the planet can run deficits and print money. Not a single one.
Please point out where I stated we should be running deficits or printing money? Let me save you the trouble I never have because I am against doing both of them. We need to get control on our spending but we need to do it in a rational way, one that does not simply kick the feet out from under many services and agencies. There are rational ways to do it, it simply requires that we put forth the effort to do it. And there in lies the problem, we have a House and Senate that are not doing any such thing, if you have not realized that then you are part of the problem and not the solution.
You don't seem to understand that government spending stimulates the economy; stimulus vs austerity, stimulus is always preferable.
Austerity doesn't produce a net loss. Government spending very frequently produces a net loss:
Quote:
"In its 2009 assessment of the job effects of the stimulus plan, the incoming Obama administration used a multiplier estimate of approximately 1.5 for government spending for most quarters. This would mean that for every dollar of government stimulus spending, GDP would increase by one and a half dollars. In practice, however, unproductive government spending is likely to have a smaller multiplier effect. In a September 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimated that the multiplier from government defense spending reaches 1.0 at high levels of unemployment but is less than 1.0 at lower unemployment rates. Non-defense spending may have an even smaller multiplier effect.
Another recent study corroborates this finding. NBER economist Valerie A. Ramey estimates a spending multiplier range from 0.6 to 1.1. Barro and Ramey's multiplier figures, far lower than the Obama administration estimates, indicate that government spending may actually decrease economic growth, possibly due to inefficient use of money."
Lower class people spend more on the domestic economy than rich people do. That's a fact; now, the wealthy private sector people don't do much redistribution of wealth, but the government does.
Who do you think buys municipal bonds, etc., enabling public entity capital improvement projects?
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.
