• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Economists say income gap hurts U.S. economy

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by JoyJuice, Dec 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican

    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.
     
  2. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,556
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  3. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,556
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  4. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +445
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  5. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +8,232
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  6. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,556
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  7. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +445
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  8. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +445
    Atheist
    Private
    because the economy is still improving inspite of what Obama is doing to it with excessive spending and obamacare.

    K
     
  9. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,556
    Christian
    Single
    That's in the future. The money in the economy "now" is much more than has to be back "now".
     
  10. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +445
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  11. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +8,232
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    You know the president doesn't create the budget or allocate the spending.
     
  12. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +445
    Atheist
    Private
    I'm talking about the trillions spent on Obamacare and the stimulus package. You telling me Obama had nothing to do with that?

    Ken
     
  13. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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?
     
  14. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,556
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  15. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  16. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    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...
     
  17. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  18. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    You say "probably", but others, who offer proof, say otherwise.

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

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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....
     
  19. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  20. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    +605
    Other Religion
    Married
    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.

    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?

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

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

    So you're saying the government can be effective.

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

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

    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?

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

    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....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...