Economists say income gap hurts U.S. economy

Status
Not open for further replies.

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
LOL. It's the opposite. Without the stimulus package we would be experiencing somthing closer to the great depression.


Considering most of the money just went to Obama's cronies, I actually think we'd be in better shape if the spendulous package was never passed.
 
Upvote 0

Viren

Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
9,156
1,788
Seattle
✟38,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Considering most of the money just went to Obama's cronies, I actually think we'd be in better shape if the spendulous package was never passed.

You said "most". That means even by your standards some wen't to help the economy. That said, I don't think most went to help cronies anyway. If you believe otherwise provide evidence please.
 
Upvote 0

Viren

Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
9,156
1,788
Seattle
✟38,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's borrowed money that has to be paid back! Do you think it is a coincidence that as soon as he mis-spent all that money, the USA lost it's AAA credit rating?

Ken

What do you think effects people's spending habits more, money in their pocket or a credit rating? What matters is the amount of money in the economy right now.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What do you think effects people's spending habits more, money in their pocket or a credit rating? What matters is the amount of money in the economy right now.
What about all the money that is being taken out of the economy to pay back the borrowed money plus interest? Plus the lowered credit rating, means a higher interest rate on the money when we borrow it? No! adding $2 dollars to the economy under the conditions you have to take $3 dollars out when you pay it back is not a good idea. It would have been better had he just left things alone


Ken
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's borrowed money that has to be paid back! Do you think it is a coincidence that as soon as he mis-spent all that money, the USA lost it's AAA credit rating?

Ken
He who? The executive branch is obligated to pay the debts incurred, but the House nearly caused a default - that is when the bond rating got lowered. It has since been restored by Moody's and Fitch.

There is very little talk of the deficit these days. Do you know why?
 
Upvote 0

Viren

Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
9,156
1,788
Seattle
✟38,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What about all the money that is being taken out of the economy to pay back the borrowed money plus interest? Plus the lowered credit rating, means a higher interest rate on the money when we borrow it? No! adding $2 dollars to the economy under the conditions you have to take $3 dollars out when you pay it back is not a good idea. It would have been better had he just left things alone


Ken

The money being taken out of the economy to pay back the loan is a fraction of that which was borrowed and injected into the economy. If things had been left alone we would have experienced a much bigger decline.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The money being taken out of the economy to pay back the loan is a fraction of that which was borrowed and injected into the economy. If things had been left alone we would have experienced a much bigger decline.
How do you figure? The money that will be taken out of the Economy will be more than the money borrowed and injected into it because every penny has to be paid back plus interest!

Ken
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He who? The executive branch is obligated to pay the debts incurred, but the House nearly caused a default - that is when the bond rating got lowered. It has since been restored by Moody's and Fitch.

There is very little talk of the deficit these days. Do you know why?
because the economy is still improving inspite of what Obama is doing to it with excessive spending and obamacare.

K
 
Upvote 0

Viren

Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
9,156
1,788
Seattle
✟38,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How do you figure? The money that will be taken out of the Economy will be more than the money borrowed and injected into it because every penny has to be paid back plus interest!

Ken

That's in the future. The money in the economy "now" is much more than has to be back "now".
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's in the future. The money in the economy "now" is much more than has to be back "now".
They have been saying that for 50 years! We're still paying back money borrowed years ago and are still adding to that! There comes a time when the house of cards begins to crumble; we need to fix things now before that happens, and spending a trillion dollars as if it doesn't have to be paid back doesn't help

Ken
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
because the economy is still improving inspite of what Obama is doing to it with excessive spending and obamacare.

K
You know the president doesn't create the budget or allocate the spending.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know how these corporations run but there is probably a legitimate reason they feel a need to keep higher cash reserves today than they needed 35 years ago. Good thing Ford Motor Company had higher cash reserves approx 5 years ago huh?

I have no idea if their reasons are legitimate or not, my point simply is that the economy would benefit if they chose instead to pay all of their workers better wages.

Government regulations are a bigger problem today with corporations than they were 35 years ago. If the government cut back on regulations to the 1980's level, we would probably see a lot less outsourcing.

What regulations are you referring to? And please, be as specific as you can.

I'm not talking about improving your product to the point that your base is no longer to afford the product; I'm talking about an improvement that allows for a 2%-3% increase in price.

It'd still be useless if enough people can't afford to pay for it, price increase or no price increase.

Point being, of course, the economy grows more when more people have access to more money. Not less.

You keep saying income inequality is the problem, when I ask why you keep saying and providing links that show how the economy suffers when a large percentage of people cannot afford to buy stuff. That is a poor person problem.

Except I'm not only talking about the poor. When middle and working class people can't afford to buy stuff, the economy suffers. As it has been.

If nobody was poor and everybody could afford to buy what they needed, the economy would be better off and it wouldnt matter how much the rich had.

True enough. That's basically how things were in the 50s and 60s, when the economy was robust and growing. Wages were high, meaning more people could spend more money.

Now if you disagree, explain why it does matter how much the super rich has; assuming nobody is poor, and everybody can afford to buy what they want.

It matters because when the rich have such an overwhelming portion of the economic pie as they have now (about what they had back in the late 20s), there's less for everyone else.

sa3388a0bf0719i0006000057921020.png


For the rich to get richer, that money has to come from somewhere. Similarly, if the rest of us had more money, that would also have to come from somewhere.

-- A2SG, wanna take a guess where?
 
Upvote 0

Viren

Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
9,156
1,788
Seattle
✟38,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They have been saying that for 50 years! We're still paying back money borrowed years ago and are still adding to that! There comes a time when the house of cards begins to crumble; we need to fix things now before that happens, and spending a trillion dollars as if it doesn't have to be paid back doesn't help

Ken

Yes it does help! You seem to be saying that putting less money into the economy will help it. That is simply illogical.

To fix things more money needs to be circulating through the economy, but you are against this very thing.
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You know the president doesn't create the budget or allocate the spending.

The President is supposed to submit a budget (doesn't mean Congress has to go along with the President's budget proposal though).

Technically, the fact we couldn't pass a budget has more to do with Harry Reid and the Senate than the House of Representatives. Since Obama couldn't sign into law a budget or veto a budget while Harry Reid refused to have the Senate even address the issue, it could be argued that Obama largely isn't the one responsible for the lack of a budget.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The stimulus package DID help the economy. That's a fact. The problem with it was that not enough of the money spent went where it would do the most good.

But, it's a proven fact that putting money in the hands of working people during a recession helps the economy.

-- A2SG, which is where ALL of the stimulus money should have gone, despite certain states' governors feeling otherwise...
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The stimulus package DID help the economy. That's a fact. The problem with it was that not enough of the money spent went where it would do the most good.

But, it's a proven fact that putting money in the hands of working people during a recession helps the economy.

-- A2SG, which is where ALL of the stimulus money should have gone, despite certain states' governors feeling otherwise...

Despite what Obama supporters would like to believe, the stimulus probably didn't help the economy at all, and it could be argued it caused the situation to become worse.

The fact of the matter is that most people probably didn't spend the money they received due to spendulous, because they were afraid they wouldn't have a steady income. People are more prone to spend money if they have a job with a steady income, if they don't think they'll have a steady income they're more apt to try to pay off debt and/or sit on that money instead of spending.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Despite what Obama supporters would like to believe, the stimulus probably didn't help the economy at all, and it could be argued it caused the situation to become worse.

You say "probably", but others, who offer proof, say otherwise.

But feel free to offer whatever proof you have to refute them.

The fact of the matter is that most people probably didn't spend the money they received due to spendulous, because they were afraid they wouldn't have a steady income. People are more prone to spend money if they have a job with a steady income, if they don't think they'll have a steady income they're more apt to try to pay off debt and/or sit on that money instead of spending.

No argument that the stimulus could have helped more. Putting more people to work would help the economy more, that much is true.

Fact is, wages have been declining for 40 years or so:

20121204-graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline.png


The best way to fix the economy would be for employers to start paying better wages overall. That's something neither the President nor Congress can fix, employers have to do their part.

-- A2SG, at some point, Americans have to take responsibility for our own economy, and not expect the government to fix it for us....
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You say "probably", but others, who offer proof, say otherwise.

But feel free to offer whatever proof you have to refute them.

James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Why Obama's Deficit Spending Is Making Things Worse - US News

Why It’s So Hard to Figure Out What the Stimulus Did - Hit & Run : Reason.com

You also need to consider the fact that the "Saved Jobs" statistic is a completely made up number and one shouldn't consider it to have any validity.

No argument that the stimulus could have helped more. Putting more people to work would help the economy more, that much is true.

You mean like funding things like Solyndra? Seriously, the government is rather incompetitent in certain areas, and all spendulous did was spend money that we didn't have to run up more debt.

About the only thing that the government can do a decent job is when they spend money on military hardware, or if they actually tried to gear up to send an Astronaut back to the moon...

Fact is, wages have been declining for 40 years or so:

20121204-graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline.png

There is a serious flaw in the study, which I'll explain later in the post.

The best way to fix the economy would be for employers to start paying better wages overall. That's something neither the President nor Congress can fix, employers have to do their part.

That is assuming employers are underpaying people, which the study may not be giving an accurate assessment.

Fact of the matter is that different companies pay people different amounts based on the value of their work. Look, while I'd imagine someone whom works as a Sales Associate in Retail would like to get $15.00 an hour, the fact of the matter is that the work they contribute isn't exactly worth that amount.

I also wonder if this survey takes into account benefits that people may be getting from their companies. Companies in the past 40 years would offer workers healthcare benefits, retirement packages, vacation time, and other perks in the place of more dollars up front, since those benefits weren't necessarily taxed. So their paychecks might be smaller, but they get side benefits that don't show up on their paychecks.

-- A2SG, at some point, Americans have to take responsibility for our own economy, and not expect the government to fix it for us....

How so? If a company is providing side benefits like paying for an employee's health insurance, that would lessen the expenses an employee has to deal with, particularly if they have a family.

There is more to this issue than many people realize.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
7,437
2,362
Massachusetts
✟94,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

Precious few actual statistics here, or any kind of proof beyond opinion. He does admit the economy did improve, though: "The economy is growing (slowly) now and adding jobs (modestly) whereas neither was happening back in early 2009." But he blamed working people saving rather than spending and mismanagement of stimulus funds by state governors to say it didn't help at all.

Good points, I grant you, but not exactly proof.


Another opinion piece short of facts and proof, but long on theory. While I don't deny the stimulus could have been a heck of a lot more helpful, the fact remains: spending money to put people to work does help the economy in a recession. Case in point is the OPA and lend/lease during the 1930s and early 1940s, as well as war production during WWII.


Also an opinion piece that doesn't contain any actual proof, but the author does his level best to dismiss any and all statistics that try to prove how well the stimulus worked. Problem there is if you dismiss the figures, you're left with just as much proof for it as against it: none.

You also need to consider the fact that the "Saved Jobs" statistic is a completely made up number and one shouldn't consider it to have any validity.

I didn't cite it personally, but the fact remains that some of the stimulus money was specifically geared toward saving jobs, specifically public sector jobs like teachers, so to that extent at the very least, it clearly did save jobs.

Also, the CBO reported a couple of million jobs added, due to the stimulus. You gonna claim the CBO just makes stuff up?

You mean like funding things like Solyndra?

If you mean funding research into new technologies that may pay off in the future, yes.

Seriously, the government is rather incompetitent in certain areas, and all spendulous did was spend money that we didn't have to run up more debt.

No one ever claimed the government perfect at determining which investments fail or which succeed, certainly they're no better than anyone else.

About the only thing that the government can do a decent job is when they spend money on military hardware, or if they actually tried to gear up to send an Astronaut back to the moon...

So you're saying the government can be effective.

We, the people need to hold them to that standard and expect more.

There is a serious flaw in the study, which I'll explain later in the post.

That is assuming employers are underpaying people, which the study may not be giving an accurate assessment.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, you do realize that, right?

Fact of the matter is that different companies pay people different amounts based on the value of their work. Look, while I'd imagine someone whom works as a Sales Associate in Retail would like to get $15.00 an hour, the fact of the matter is that the work they contribute isn't exactly worth that amount.

I also wonder if this survey takes into account benefits that people may be getting from their companies. Companies in the past 40 years would offer workers healthcare benefits, retirement packages, vacation time, and other perks in the place of more dollars up front, since those benefits weren't necessarily taxed. So their paychecks might be smaller, but they get side benefits that don't show up on their paychecks.

None of which addresses my point.

The fact remains: if people got paid more, they could spend more. That's an incontrovertible fact.

If Corporate America wanted to help the economy, they'd pay people more money. Not like they can't afford it, since corporate profits are at record levels.

I guess the question is...does Corporate America want to help America?

How so? If a company is providing side benefits like paying for an employee's health insurance, that would lessen the expenses an employee has to deal with, particularly if they have a family.

Sure. And paying them more would help them even more!

There is more to this issue than many people realize.

Not really.

Fact: higher wages would increase consumer spending, and aid the economy.

Fact: corporations are making record profits.

There is a clear conclusion one could come to from these facts, and it all hinges on whether or not corporations want to help the US economy or not.

-- A2SG, the government can't legislate responsible economic behavior....
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.