Great Depression of 2016

[Dwkuska]

SNIP

When welfare pays better than 40 hours a week at minimum wage, the problem isn't that welfare is available. The problem is that the minimum wage is too low.
Your logic isnt realistic. This nonsense about raising minimum wage is all rhetoric. Prices in your area from rent to food are based off of local incomes. If Federal minimum wage is raised to say... $12/hr then de facto the cost of goods/services/rent will increase to match. This happens every time the federal wage goes up. I live near SeaTac where this whole nonesense started when they demanded $15/hr wage for the city. Now parking is astronomical and the Hotels are ridicuously priced.
And considering that CEO bonuses don't seem to feel the effects of the recession to nearly the same degree as the jobs lower down, it's all the more appalling that corporations "unable to compete" without subsidies and tax credits keep paying them -- while also claiming the need to make cutbacks to maintain profit. The real "welfare queens" have 7+ figure annual incomes, and pay lower average tax rates than the working class.
Those CEOs are heads of "public" corporations like Boeing!!! Which ironically is majority owned by its own employees(the ones complaining loudest). Shareholders dont like to see revenue loss as it results in speculators de-valuing its share worth. If you dont like the corporation then hate the shareholders not the CEO they elected.

Yet so many of the struggling continue to vote against their own self-interests, favoring politicians promising tax breaks for the "job creators." Those "job creators" have been getting successive tax breaks for over 30 years. Where are the jobs? Unless, of course, the jobs you anticipate them "creating" are domestic help for their multiple homes.
I can only speak for myself when I say that living in one of the 5 MOST taxed states that tax breaks bring jobs. For example Bucknife wanted to build 2 factories in Spokane WA, bringing with it an estimated 3,000 jobs. Spokane said they wouldnt offer a **** thing. So Buck Knife built their plant in Idaho instead.

I think it's time to go back to bottom-up economics -- it worked splendidly before.
When? I have never seen bottom up economics work unless you believe the Peoples Republic of China media outlets. I would be interested if you could provide an example.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Rosa, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Please define the corporate welfare that you find objectionable. If it is something we can pin down, we could address the issue with our senators and representatives in Washington. Crying about it on this website will do nothing. But we need to be specific.

Remember, those corporations provide the goods and services we need. Destroying or crippling that supply network can have unintended effects.

I read a blog you may find interesting. It is "Generacion Y." It is translated by a member of the exile community. Look for it as "Generation Y." It is written by a young woman in Cuba. She writes by necessity in a circumspect manner, but you will get the idea.

Do you want specifics for each? That would take some tracking down. But as for "crying about it on this website" -- isn't that what everyone else has been doing on this thread already?

Those corporations which would feel "crippled" without the tax breaks and subsidies would be replaced by others which could "figure out" how to do it without them -- after all, in capitalism, if a demand for goods exists, competition will ensue among producers to meet that demand. It seems strange that people espousing capitalism and booing regulation that "gets in the way" seem to have no problem with "helping" producers -- with tax breaks and/or subsidies -- who would be "crippled" without it. If a corporation "needs help" to produce, then it isn't doing it efficiently. And looking at the disproportionate rise in CEO salaries with respect to the average employee within that company (over several decades), it seems that that "inefficiency" lies there. In effect, the subsidies and tax breaks don't go toward making things cheaper for consumers -- they go toward ever increasing pay for those running the companies.

And why did this occur? When tax rates for the highest incomes keep getting lowered, there's less tempering of greed at the top. In essence, the companies are being robbed from within, money channeled upward, wages lower down remaining stagnant. That negatively affects consumer power, and producers are forced to seek "new markets" abroad with better consumer power. Middle class wages have barely kept up with inflation, while the upper class has increased its wealth exponentially.

In the end, the best bet for Americans to get ahead again is through innovation. If manufacturing isn't as promising anymore, the best prospects are in science and technology. Young minds are our greatest natural resource. When we wanted to "outcompete the Communists" we pushed for education in science, engineering, mathematics, etc. We launched the space program, and while solving problems along the way, we made many discoveries with other "at-home" applications. The education opportunities still exist in this country, even if they have become more expensive. This is our "home advantage" and it must not be squandered or hindered. If some people "object" to what goes on in the science classroom, they should be viewed as obstacles to progress and advancement. Perhaps they'd prefer you stay poor because they think that way you'll be more loyal. Do you?

 

[Rosa moschata]

 

[hemet dennis]

Yeah, good luck with that. Take a look at the "red" states most often accusing the federal government of "robbing" them through federal taxes. Then look at the states receiving the most in federal funding. More often than not, they are the same. And much of the southeast receives 2-3X as much federal funding as they collect in federal taxes. On their own, they'd be our third-world neighbors. The data is out there if you look for it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sta...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Being in a net-contributing "blue" state, if some of you get your "red" states to "leave" the union, the union would probably be better off for it. But we want all our states to stay together, like the big, crazy, dysfunctional family we are. Everyone's got their own version of "crazy cousin Cleetus" and we all learn to ignore his rants and keep inviting him to Thanksgiving dinner every year, anyway -- even if we get hit up for yet another loan in the process.

This chart will surprise some of you.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_fam_percap-caseloads-total-families-per-capita

It doesn't have the payouts for SS, that a lot of people pay into in blue states and then move to lower tax red states when they retire, or for the military that the federal government stations more per capita in red states.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
Can you explain why corporate profits are taxed twice ? If you wish to cut corporate welfare then do away with corporate taxes.

 

[rufus]

Rosa, we are not crying about the situation; we are looking for a survival technique.

Dennis, that graph was for 2003. We have had some real changes in the economy since then.

 

[newfoundland]

I think Rosa makes an excellent point about innovation. I believe we all know this is the only way to go. Along these lines, here in UK this week the secretary for education has announced yet more reforms of the system, to introduce more rigour into the school system, which here is nationally applied in every school. He made no bones about the fact that if we are to compete internationally in science and technology we must adopt some of the ways of other countries. Most interestingly all the countries he named were far eastern countries ! He said, in order to meet targets not just intellectual but physical, children would likely be in school for 10 hours a day! A bit daunting I think but probably it will go that way.

 

[Dwkuska]

Rosa, we are not crying about the situation; we are looking for a survival technique.

Dennis, that graph was for 2003. We have had some real changes in the economy since then.

+1 yep just a few changes...

I think Rosa makes an excellent point about innovation. I believe we all know this is the only way to go. Along these lines, here in UK this week the secretary for education has announced yet more reforms of the system, to introduce more rigour into the school system, which here is nationally applied in every school. He made no bones about the fact that if we are to compete internationally in science and technology we must adopt some of the ways of other countries. Most interestingly all the countries he named were far eastern countries ! He said, in order to meet targets not just intellectual but physical, children would likely be in school for 10 hours a day! A bit daunting I think but probably it will go that way.

cant speak for the UK but I know the US is vastly depleted in the brains department. The US school system is a joke. I fully support Charter schools. I think the Dept. of Education has yet to produce a solid education system to produce higher learning. Time to let the private sector have a hack at it. I cant find the link but I read in Japan private schooling/tutors are said to be more effective then the general school system at large. When I consider in Japan they have to have a lottery amongst the 4.0 students to see who gets to go to college... makes the US seem rather pathetic. Maybe thats why the US is hosed... we just shove kids through school now our govt. is full of folks who think as long as their are checks they can keep spending!

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Rosa, enjoying your posts on the type of thread I don't often find enjoyable or meaningful. Thanks!

 

[Dwkuska]

Rosa, enjoying your posts on the type of thread I don't often find enjoyable or meaningful. Thanks!

I think Punk is suggesting he/she doesn't like intellectual debates.