U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-29-2019, 06:02 PM
 
2,762 posts, read 1,602,841 times
Reputation: 5973

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
Yes to the emboldened above.

However, we have gone past the tipping point where we can back up the gravy train. The number of people gaming the system has gotten out of hand and the politicians who appeal to the masses who benefit more by working less is growing.
I take issue with your work hour claim.

In the 80s the average for hours worked in a year was 1638. Today it's 1811.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foo...-works-pe.aspx

The idea the population is working less and getting fat on these voted benefits it's incorrect.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2019, 07:04 PM
 
360 posts, read 158,021 times
Reputation: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
I take issue with your work hour claim.

In the 80s the average for hours worked in a year was 1638. Today it's 1811.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foo...-works-pe.aspx

The idea the population is working less and getting fat on these voted benefits it's incorrect.
I'm sure that Teak can speak for himself, but I'm also sure that his reference wasn't to "work hours per week for the average employee." He was likely referring to the people who don't work at all and don't even seek work... therefore, they are not counted among the unemployed which makes your referenced link irrelevant.

Yet another reason your link is irrelevant is because it doesn't address the issue of paying taxes or balancing the federal budget. As I mentioned above, about 50% of the US households pay zero federal income tax even if they have a job. Nice try though.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2019, 10:55 PM
 
2,762 posts, read 1,602,841 times
Reputation: 5973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863 View Post
I'm sure that Teak can speak for himself, but I'm also sure that his reference wasn't to "work hours per week for the average employee." He was likely referring to the people who don't work at all and don't even seek work... therefore, they are not counted among the unemployed which makes your referenced link irrelevant.

Yet another reason your link is irrelevant is because it doesn't address the issue of paying taxes or balancing the federal budget. As I mentioned above, about 50% of the US households pay zero federal income tax even if they have a job. Nice try though.
There are people that stay at home, I'm one of them. I'm 42, was in business and no longer need to work. Others stay at home, LWP or otherwise do side jobs, are disabled etc.

I'm not worried so much about poor people paying federal income tax. They pay a decent chunk already in Social Security, property taxes and sales tax while seeing the lowest gains from the expansion.

If you want them to pay more, support paying them more so they can get off the welfare rolls and earn a decent wage. Tough stuff to grasp, I know, but the government subsidizing low wages isn't something you can ***** about when you don't support anything to get those wages up. Fact is a significant percentage of people simply don't have the grey matter to do anything but simple work. You want them off the government tit, then support them getting some more money. At least enough to cover inflation since the 70's. Seems like a pretty low bar yet you don't support that because why? **** the poor?

We can balance the budget (at least get the deficit under control) in other areas without having to place a burden on the poor who are already struggling. People like Mister Buffet who pays a lower actual tax rate than is secretary are lower hanging fruit IMO and could pay a little more. There are tax loop holes like carried interest that need to be closed as well as other certain aspects of employee stock options in addition to some other aggressive means to avoid or lower taxes.

Starters, we can stop shoveling money into the war pig's mouth every time it farts. Then stop cutting taxes for people already at peak demand.

BTW, don't pretend you give a **** about deficits. Well you will when a democrat gets back into the White House but anyone paying attention knows you really don't give a ****.

I'm all for cutting spending, start where the fruit is low and work on harder things down the road. I'm not going to take food away from someone when we are spending trillions on killing brown people in the desert for decades now.

Funny thing is, I'm a Republican. I'm just not bat **** crazy like most of my fellow voters with an (R) next to their name. I can see that the poor have kind of been ****ed the last 40 years or so and haven't seen wages keep up nearly the pace of inflation. I recognize that this is where most of our potential, dormant demand is and if we want to see some organic economic growth and not just the government pissing away tons of money and adding to its balance sheet we need to give a boost to the people that folks like you look down on.

Last edited by aridon; 12-29-2019 at 11:14 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2019, 11:50 PM
 
1,480 posts, read 540,616 times
Reputation: 4772
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Fiscal conservative here.... Atheist libertarian would also be an accurate descriptor as well.
Me too.
But the OP title is CLICKBAIT used to open a discussion about hypocrite politicians.
They ALL want 'out go' > 'in come' so deficit spending is here to stay.
What else is new?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
7,551 posts, read 7,039,615 times
Reputation: 8323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863 View Post
It's easy to criticize, but much harder to present a WORKABLE solution. I guarantee that if congress passed a law next year that would cut spending and raise taxes such as to balance the budget, that we would quickly see a recession that rivaled the Great Depression.

That would lead to huge job losses and greatly decrease the income that the government received in the form of taxes due to all the unemployment and reduced personal spending. This would then require even greater tax increases to make up for the deficit and this would further spiral our economy downward.

Now if someone would design a bill that would gradually balance the budget over 10 to 15 years and then stick to it, that might have a chance of working without economic calamity, but the problem would be in selling the idea to everyone who doesn't want their ox to get gored.

I'm confident that there would be far more people on the left of the political spectrum who would oppose such a plan than those on the right. We already have about half of the entire US population paying ZERO income taxes and demanding even more freebies. It's hard to believe that they are going to go along with some reduction in their bennies in order to balance some budget that they're contributing nothing to in the first place. And we know that increasing taxes alone without substantial cuts in spending is not going to solve the problem. So there you have it.

Once you can convince me that all those who are contributing nothing will support the idea of receiving less in benefits from those who are carrying the load, then I'll believe that we may be able to make a balanced budget a reality. Until then, you're just casting stones without providing any meaningful, workable solution.
I disagree with your premise that the left would be against a balanced budget more than the right.

The only disagreement would be where the cuts and revenue came from. If it came from cuts to defense and revenue from taxes on higher earners, the right would be up in arms and the vast majority of the left would be in favor.

If it came from cuts to social programs and revenue from middle/lower class taxes, the left would have a problem.

The left is not against balanced budgets. Clinton was the last president to have one. W Bush gave it away.

Last edited by SkyDog77; 12-30-2019 at 09:39 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 09:43 AM
 
360 posts, read 158,021 times
Reputation: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
There are people that stay at home, I'm one of them. I'm 42, was in business and no longer need to work. Others stay at home, LWP or otherwise do side jobs, are disabled etc.

I'm not worried so much about poor people paying federal income tax. They pay a decent chunk already in Social Security, property taxes and sales tax while seeing the lowest gains from the expansion.

If you want them to pay more, support paying them more so they can get off the welfare rolls and earn a decent wage. Tough stuff to grasp, I know, but the government subsidizing low wages isn't something you can ***** about when you don't support anything to get those wages up. Fact is a significant percentage of people simply don't have the grey matter to do anything but simple work. You want them off the government tit, then support them getting some more money. At least enough to cover inflation since the 70's. Seems like a pretty low bar yet you don't support that because why? **** the poor?

We can balance the budget (at least get the deficit under control) in other areas without having to place a burden on the poor who are already struggling. People like Mister Buffet who pays a lower actual tax rate than is secretary are lower hanging fruit IMO and could pay a little more. There are tax loop holes like carried interest that need to be closed as well as other certain aspects of employee stock options in addition to some other aggressive means to avoid or lower taxes.

Starters, we can stop shoveling money into the war pig's mouth every time it farts. Then stop cutting taxes for people already at peak demand.

BTW, don't pretend you give a **** about deficits. Well you will when a democrat gets back into the White House but anyone paying attention knows you really don't give a ****.

I'm all for cutting spending, start where the fruit is low and work on harder things down the road. I'm not going to take food away from someone when we are spending trillions on killing brown people in the desert for decades now.

Funny thing is, I'm a Republican. I'm just not bat **** crazy like most of my fellow voters with an (R) next to their name. I can see that the poor have kind of been ****ed the last 40 years or so and haven't seen wages keep up nearly the pace of inflation. I recognize that this is where most of our potential, dormant demand is and if we want to see some organic economic growth and not just the government pissing away tons of money and adding to its balance sheet we need to give a boost to the people that folks like you look down on.
I don't look down on poor people. At one time, I was one of them, but I did something about it. Others can too with the right attitude and approach.

And I'm not the one who started this thread about the huge deficits. I'm just the one who said that throwing stones at the current administration without proposing some workable solution is non-productive.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
4,133 posts, read 3,795,011 times
Reputation: 7692
Republicans are only fiscal conservatives when they're in the Opposition. Democrats are never fiscal conservatives.

So where does that leave us? The permanent bureaucracy is built by and for fiscal lunacy, and if you try to cut any part of the budget you're painted as being a hater of children, or minorities, or veterans, or national defense, or dozens of other special interests.

Good luck to anyone who cares to slice off one of the Hydra's heads.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 01:02 PM
 
8,990 posts, read 9,637,031 times
Reputation: 7609
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
There are people that stay at home, I'm one of them. I'm 42, was in business and no longer need to work. Others stay at home, LWP or otherwise do side jobs, are disabled etc.

I'm not worried so much about poor people paying federal income tax. They pay a decent chunk already in Social Security, property taxes and sales tax while seeing the lowest gains from the expansion.

If you want them to pay more, support paying them more so they can get off the welfare rolls and earn a decent wage. Tough stuff to grasp, I know, but the government subsidizing low wages isn't something you can ***** about when you don't support anything to get those wages up. Fact is a significant percentage of people simply don't have the grey matter to do anything but simple work. You want them off the government tit, then support them getting some more money. At least enough to cover inflation since the 70's. Seems like a pretty low bar yet you don't support that because why? **** the poor?

We can balance the budget (at least get the deficit under control) in other areas without having to place a burden on the poor who are already struggling. People like Mister Buffet who pays a lower actual tax rate than is secretary are lower hanging fruit IMO and could pay a little more. There are tax loop holes like carried interest that need to be closed as well as other certain aspects of employee stock options in addition to some other aggressive means to avoid or lower taxes.

Starters, we can stop shoveling money into the war pig's mouth every time it farts. Then stop cutting taxes for people already at peak demand.

BTW, don't pretend you give a **** about deficits. Well you will when a democrat gets back into the White House but anyone paying attention knows you really don't give a ****.

I'm all for cutting spending, start where the fruit is low and work on harder things down the road. I'm not going to take food away from someone when we are spending trillions on killing brown people in the desert for decades now.

Funny thing is, I'm a Republican. I'm just not bat **** crazy like most of my fellow voters with an (R) next to their name. I can see that the poor have kind of been ****ed the last 40 years or so and haven't seen wages keep up nearly the pace of inflation. I recognize that this is where most of our potential, dormant demand is and if we want to see some organic economic growth and not just the government pissing away tons of money and adding to its balance sheet we need to give a boost to the people that folks like you look down on.

There is literally nothing in your thesis that indicates you are a republican. The emotion and misplaced anger and especially the several DNC talking points - point hard the other direction.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 01:19 PM
 
3,670 posts, read 2,486,080 times
Reputation: 2882
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
I take issue with your work hour claim.

In the 80s the average for hours worked in a year was 1638. Today it's 1811.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foo...-works-pe.aspx

The idea the population is working less and getting fat on these voted benefits it's incorrect.
And in medieval Europe it was like 1200 hours, which makes you wonder how much "progress" we've really made since then.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2019, 01:27 PM
 
8,746 posts, read 5,452,421 times
Reputation: 14793
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
...There is little to no political support for true fiscal conservatism as it means cutting yourself off at the knees. If you truly want to solve our deficit issue one must attack our government spending which includes DOD, DOE, and entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment payments, welfare, federal/civilian retirements,etc...).
Indeed. Government spending may be wasteful and/or unjust, but it stimulates the economy. Cutting spending means attenuating stimulation. This might be the fiscally-responsible thing in the long run, but in the short run, it’s a strain on the economy. It’s bad for consumer health and it’s bad for the stock market.

To be a "fiscal conservative" means to attempt to improve the future, at the expense of grievous setback and suffering in the present. And whereas the future improvement is speculative and unclear, the present sacrifices are very clear. Not an attractive deal. And not something that most people would countenance, regardless of political stance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
...If you want to know if something is working or the right thing for American then it's a policy that equally pisses off Dems & repubs the elderly and the youth. If you've made everybody angry and made them feel the pain then you know it's the correct solution.
Not necessarily. Mandatory amputation of everyone’s right hand would probably **** everyone off (well, except for maybe some masochists or Sharia adherents). But it’s probably not the right policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863 View Post
It's easy to criticize, but much harder to present a WORKABLE solution. I guarantee that if congress passed a law next year that would cut spending and raise taxes such as to balance the budget, that we would quickly see a recession that rivaled the Great Depression.
Exactly. We can tinker around the margins, but true fiscal conservatism is attractive only in theory. In practice, it would be ruinous, even if it sounds fair and responsible.
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top