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.
First and foremost, raising or lowering taxes on the 1% isn't going to fix anything, because the economic struggles of the 99% are seated in the current structure of our economy, which moved from an historically sound manufacturing based model, to a services based one. That, along with the unholy alliance between government and the international gangsters at the Federal Reserve, and the government's out of control borrowing and spending and debt creating, is where are true problems reside.
Exactly.
Quote:
While it is a common tactic of the Democrats to insinuate that all of our economic woes are directly related to wealthy folks who arent paying their fair share ...this is just another appeal to the emotions of an unsophisticated group of Democrat supporters who are absolutely clueless.
Again, 100% correct.
Quote:
The reason why Democrats are so disastrous to economic growth, is because they think you can tax and spend your way to prosperity, and they cannot bring themselves to tell the truth about anything. Not that the Republicans are much different, or more honest.
That's how a Ponzi scheme works......except when caught the guilty parties are usually prosecuted. Angelo Mozilo was far guiltier than Madoff. As is Lloyd Blankfein.
Enter Obama and his nominee for US Attorney General, Eric Holder...
The surprising part is that Bernie Sanders voted to CONFIRM Holder. He's either blatantly lying about his campaign platform, or he's a clueless old man. I tend to think it's the latter.
I agree in principle that both parties are responsible, but claiming the CRA was a factor in the financial crisis is an inherently partisan argument.
I disagree. It led directly to the GSEs' lowering of lending standards. The GSEs, being the single largest source of mortgage financing in the US, set lending policy for the entire US mortgage market.
The surprising part is that Bernie Sanders voted to CONFIRM Holder. He's either blatantly lying about his campaign platform, or he's a clueless old man. I tend to think it's the latter.
As much as Holder was voting for Geithner. Unfortunately a president gets their picks confirmed unless there is something blatant.
Not paying your taxes should have been a disqualifier.
Agreed. I think most Countries tend to try to develop/implement economic policies to address the following areas:
•Growth - Increasing production of product & services to improve living standards.
•Employment - Opportunities available or created for the people.
•Economic efficiency - Improve productivity by utilizing resources, allowing manufacturers to sell their products & services at lower prices.
•Price level stability
•Equitable distribution of Income
•Economic security
•Balance of trade
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeusAV
The underlying culprit was the globalism/free trade that promoted outsourcing of jobs. It's likely too late to reverse those policies now that they're in place (those who benefit from them control those in Washington). I think the biggest fallacy was the belief that those who own the means of production and in turn reap the majority of the benefits of outsourcing, would give or "trickle down" their newfound wealth to the average American out of the goodness of their hearts. If I'm running a company and find myself with an extra 10% in annual profits due to lower labor costs in China, then I'm putting that extra 10% into my pocket, not increasing American wages. The lack of growth in wages is a result of decades of those policies coming to a head which were promoted by Dems and Republicans. They sold the idea to the common worker with the promise of cheaper goods but eventually the common worker won't be able to buy most of those goods.
I agree with much of what you've said here also. The policies you've mentioned here used to be commonly referred to as the Washington Consensus & were (sacred cow) economic policy prescriptions. One would be considered a 'heretic' to even call into question the dogma.
Very few seemed to question how feasible it was to consider replacing the role of manufacturing in the US with its increasing financialization.
The time period between 1947 & 2009 showed a continuing decrease in Manufacturing along with a marked increase in the FIRE Sector. The sharpest decline in manufacturing occurred in the 1980s & continues right up to present day. While the sharpest incline in the FIRE sector occurred during the same time period (& continues). In round terms for that time period, Manufacturing decreased by 50% while the FIRE sector increased by 50%. It doesn’t seem reasonable to expect these changes would not have lasting effects on the US economy.
It’s also worth considering the number of people employed in both sectors. It also doesn’t seem reasonable to expect the decrease (by half) in one sector would be replaced by the increase (by half) in the other without having an appreciable effect on the nation’s employment. It seems the 1980s ushered in the coming of a second (or third, depending how you're counting it) Gilded Age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeusAV
The 2007-2009 Recession didn't help either as it trained workers to accept lower wages from employers and be thankful just to have a job.
Agreed here too. Perhaps the newer phase of the 'trickle down' economy should be more realistically called the 'golden showers' phase.
The surprising part is that Bernie Sanders voted to CONFIRM Holder. He's either blatantly lying about his campaign platform, or he's a clueless old man. I tend to think it's the latter.
As much as Holder was voting for Geithner. Unfortunately a president gets their picks confirmed unless there is something blatant.
How is advocating letting banking and Wall Street criminals go unprosecuted (Eric Holder) and not paying one's taxes (Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner) not blatant? The former ESPECIALLY immediately after the 2008 financial crisis?
I think the biggest fallacy was the belief that those who own the means of production and in turn reap the majority of the benefits of outsourcing, would give or "trickle down" their newfound wealth to the average American out of the goodness of their hearts.
I've never heard anyone say that. Companies exist to make a profit for their shareholders, not to have a good heart.
On the other hand, putting more money in the pockets of shareholders is a very good thing.
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.
