I didn't say they weren't spending, I said they weren't reinvesting. Investing the money in jobs/equipment is far more valuable than the lowest 10% buying groceries.

And I said nothing of entrepreneurs starting out on their quest for the American dream......I'm talking about the super rich that employ a large portion of Americans (50% ???). Allow them to reinvest in America and bring jobs back. Why do you want people living off welfare instead of having a job? Why do you want them collecting from the government instead of paying taxes TO the government? Half the country doesn't pay taxes yet you want the rich, more successful Americans to pay for them to live.

Jesus, they just extended unemployment ANOTHER 13 MONTHS. I could take three years off from work for the fuck of it right now. But that's not me, I don't take advantage of the system like so many of my brethren here in the states.

And for the 1,287th time on these forums.......I don't watch Fox News. I don't listen to NPR. And all of you should stop watching CNN and MSNBC.

"Do not confused this with saying the government shouldn't protect success, it should, but it should also protect those who are not successful, yet, from those who are successful."

I don't have a problem supporting those the wish to succeed. My problem is that there is a large number of people that don't care to succeed and would rather live off the government. These people should be given nothing.

the = that

My only contribution to this thread is stating that FoxNews changed the dynamic of cable news and is the best news outlet at pushing its agenda. Anyone thinking I am saying more than that is being obtuse.

I always thought you were kind of acute Sammy...

Thraxle:

Monopolies do not succeed at the expense of others unless they can price disciminate (set different prices unrelated to differences in costs) and they can't price discriminate unless they can prevent side transactions by force.

Star atheletes command a high price because people want to watch them play. They aren't being forced to watch. So why object to something that makes both parties better off.

Price discrimination is common in smaller businesses because the social cost of preventing the extraction of income of one party from the other is greater than the extracted income. Antitrust tends to focus on larger companies where the volume of income extracted is bigger than the prevention costs.

Thraxle I won't respond to that until you quote my retorts point by point, because honestly there's no point in having a serious debate unless you identify my argument point by point rather than strawmanning me and just arguing against one thing I 'might have sort of said'.

"I don't have a problem supporting those that* wish to succeed. My problem is that there is a large number of people that don't care to succeed and would rather live off the government. These people should be given nothing."
Thraxle I don't think there is anyone that doesn't wish to be prosperous, that is the American dream, and aside from slaves, everyone who came to this country came for the prospect of a better more prosperous life for themselves or their descendants. Now certainly there are some people that have given up and I would argue those people AREN'T the people that had jobs and then lost them. So unemployment benefits aren't the problem. And by the way I find it novel that you could "take three years off from work for the fuck of it." People don't like lowering their standard of life and I doubt you're an exception to that rule, so you wouldn't quit your job just because you can. And the same goes for people that are receiving unemployment benefits. By the way since there seems to be confusion as to how the "unemployment rate" is calculated: it's calculated by counting people who are unemployed but still searching for work. That is to say unless you are searching for a job you are not counted as unemployed and consequently can't receive unemployment benefits. Welfare on the other hand is a different type of aid and it is directly handed out by the government for a certain period of time (depending on the state).

What you don't understand Rob, and most other fanatical Republicans, is that welfare ultimately benefits you. The people that receive welfare on the aggregate spend 100% of that money and that ultimately boosts the economy, as well as achieving the morally right goal of taking care of the poor. Win win.

Anyway, like you said Rob the rich aren't spending their money and regardless of the reason (it isn't fear, it's the lack of available credit) so it is the government's duty to take this money that the rich clearly aren't using and don't need to better society as a whole and eventually allow our future millionaires and billionaires to achieve success. You want your descendants to achieve their full potential right Rob?

A cursory analysis of the fiscal left and right (not extremes) nets you this Rob: The left is concerned with protecting the path to wealth while the right is concerned with maintaining the currently wealthy. Nobody is trying to take anyone's hard earned money, some people just want to aid those in less fortunate positions also achieve success, because ultimately this will allow the best and brightest to rise-- and isn't that what capitalism is all about?

"Thirdly, you guys call Obama socialist"
nope. never did that. Nor did Rob.

@wish
I'm pretty sure people were discussing Fox because it was 'first' to have an overt slant.

Of course the true unemployment rate is much higher- I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 18%. 'Discouraged workers' don't count in the government's measure. I would expect that the number of unemployed people who do not collect benefits are underestimated as well (though not by a lot- they use a huge sample).

I was trying to make the same point about Obama- he is not God. He can make mistakes. Bush made mistakes, and people blamed Bush for those mistakes. I feel like a good portion of the arguments supporting Obama are things like "he inherited a very weak economy."

Back to veta- need some quotes? here you go.
"Keep in mind the debate has always been if we keep the tax cuts for the highest marginal tax rate, not the lower marginal tax rates. Aspiring entrepreneurs are not scared of starting businesses because they *might* end up very successful and then have to pay higher taxes."
Rob's point wasn't about people starting new businesses now... it was about businesses that are already successful not reinvesting the cash they now have on hand into more employees, equipment, or facilities because of uncertainty of what will happen to their taxes and they may need that cash on hand if tax rates go up.

Bullshit on 9/11 having little effect on the economy.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=9%2F11%27s+effect+on+the+economy
Do some research. Also dear god stop copy pasting and just type in the response box it is not that difficult.

"When you give the poor more money, or take less money from them, they spend it."
This is true... but if you stop taking money from the wealthy they're likely to spend that too.
"The rich, as you just said it yourself, aren't spending money."
Successful businesses aren't reinvesting. Not the same thing.

"A better argument is that those who are successful became successful at the expense of those around them. It is reasonable to assume that those who are successful will do whatever they can to remain so, at the expense of others. The government's job is to foster an environment where everyone can be successful, as opposed to preserve the power/success of those that are currently successful."
A different argument. Better is a matter of opinion. Also, I'm pretty sure the government's job is keeping us all safe and maintaining some sort of order.

"Thraxle I don't think there is anyone that doesn't wish to be prosperous"
Sure. That wasn't really Rob's point though. His point was that it is far too easy to live off of money the government will give you.

"since there seems to be confusion as to how the "unemployment rate" is calculated"
Where was there confusion? You seem more confused than I am. There's no 'counting' involved. The BLS surveys about 100k people a month and extrapolates that data to cover the entire population.

"What you don't understand Rob, and most other fanatical Republicans, is that welfare ultimately benefits you. The people that receive welfare on the aggregate spend 100% of that money and that ultimately boosts the economy, as well as achieving the morally right goal of taking care of the poor. Win win."
I wouldn't mind helping take care of the poor. I mind that the government makes it way too easy to get benefits, on more than just the federal level. Twenty five percent of students from my high school were on free and reduced lunch prices while I was there. Median income in this geographical area at that time was the second (and sixth, because this district covers more than one city/county) highest in the nation. Very very few people from my high school had a cell phone- so why were so many people getting free/especially cheap food?

"like you said Rob the rich aren't spending their money and regardless of the reason (it isn't fear, it's the lack of available credit) so it is the government's duty to take this money that the rich clearly aren't using and don't need to better society as a whole and eventually allow our future millionaires and billionaires to achieve success."
As I said before, BUSINESSES are not REINVESTING money, which, as Rob mentioned, is far more valuable than the poor spending money.

"The left is concerned with protecting the path to wealth while the right is concerned with maintaining the currently wealthy. Nobody is trying to take anyone's hard earned money, some people just want to aid those in less fortunate positions also achieve success, because ultimately this will allow the best and brightest to rise-- and isn't that what capitalism is all about?"
My cursory analysis says the left is concerned with giving away money to whoever can get some and the right is concerned with the government not stealing too much from those who are not poor. I have no issues with raising taxes, under certain conditions. Government spending needs to be cut back somewhere, and entitlements need to be more difficult to get. As in my previous link, it's possible for someone making minimum wage to have more disposable income than someone making 60k a year. The fact that this is POSSIBLE disturbs me. Like I said, I don't have a problem giving money to those who need it- "those who need it" being the operative phrase.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31617.pdf


"Thirdly, you guys call Obama socialist"
“nope. never did that. Nor did Rob.”
But Yodel called his ideas, which are my ideas socialist, twice. Furthermore Rob has called Obama socialist before in other threads.


“Of course the true unemployment rate is much higher- I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 18%. 'Discouraged workers' don't count in the government's measure. I would expect that the number of unemployed people who do not collect benefits are underestimated as well (though not by a lot- they use a huge sample).”
No one disagrees with that, the point is Bush took us from a relatively good place to a relatively bad place. Whereas Obama saved us from going to a very very bad place.

“I was trying to make the same point about Obama- he is not God. He can make mistakes. Bush made mistakes, and people blamed Bush for those mistakes. I feel like a good portion of the arguments supporting Obama are things like "he inherited a very weak economy." “
I’m still waiting for you to point out mistakes he made. You still haven’t named any. I could name a few Bush made if you’d like.

“Rob's point wasn't about people starting new businesses now... it was about businesses that are already successful not reinvesting the cash they now have on hand into more employees, equipment, or facilities because of uncertainty of what will happen to their taxes and they may need that cash on hand if tax rates go up. “
Actually it was about new business, it was about new businesses and old businesses expanding (i.e. what you do when you’re not a recession). My point was that jobs aren’t being created because we are in a recession. I will direct you obviously didn’t read very thoroughly:
“Furthermore a *successful* business is going to make the decision to expand or downsize in an effort to become more viable regardless of a 4% change in income tax. Fixing our economy by taxing the rich and spending money is the only way to get us back on the right track. And once we’re on the right track our economy will begin to boom again and jobs will be created.”



“Bullshit on 9/11 having little effect on the economy.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=9%2F11%27s+effect+on+the+economy
Do some research. Also dear god stop copy pasting and just type in the response box it is not that difficult. “
You have to be kidding me right? Just because something affects the economy it doesn’t mean it has macroscopic effects which is what we’re talking about. Read this: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31617.pdf then talk to me. Obviously 9/11 affected things, did it have a lasting impact on our national GDP, an educated person on the matter would say no. We were heading into a recession in 2001 before 9/11, why don’t YOU do some research.

"When you give the poor more money, or take less money from them, they spend it."
This is true... but if you stop taking money from the wealthy they're likely to spend that too.
Actually no, that’s not true because we haven’t been taking their money for the past 9 years and they still aren’t spending it. I don’t understand what’s so hard about reading my posts?

"The rich, as you just said it yourself, aren't spending money."
Successful businesses aren't reinvesting. Not the same thing.
That’s not what I was referring to sweetey, I was referring to people that argue the rich will spend the tax cut they’re getting. If they aren’t spending the money they’re getting from these tax cuts now what makes anyone think they will do it after we extend the cuts? And once again you wouldn’t even have said this if you just read my post.


“A different argument. Better is a matter of opinion. Also, I'm pretty sure the government's job is keeping us all safe and maintaining some sort of order. “
Well my dear, I guess we disagree here. I think the government’s job in the modern world is to allow all people equal opportunities to become successful… i.e. education, protection from prejudices, etc. For some reason I think it’s a good idea that we don’t allow the gap between the rich and poor to continue to increase. But I guess that’s fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives are just more selfish.


“Sure. That wasn't really Rob's point though. His point was that it is far too easy to live off of money the government will give you. “

Thanks Chloe, my point in stating that was that obviously people who are in the position of needing welfare to get by didn’t get there because they wanted to. Nobody wants to live off an income that’s below what you need to a decent standard of living. As far as free riders are concerned, most states limit welfare to a certain amount of time. I don’t think people that don’t need welfare are getting it.


I wouldn't mind helping take care of the poor. I mind that the government makes it way too easy to get benefits, on more than just the federal level. Twenty five percent of students from my high school were on free and reduced lunch prices while I was there. Median income in this geographical area at that time was the second (and sixth, because this district covers more than one city/county) highest in the nation. Very very few people from my high school had a cell phone- so why were so many people getting free/especially cheap food?
I don’t see what you’re disagreeing with Chloe, if there’s an issue of efficacy then that can be resolved but it seems to me like you agree with the leftist notion of subsidizing the poor.

“As I said before, BUSINESSES are not REINVESTING money, which, as Rob mentioned, is far more valuable than the poor spending money.”
Rob mentioned both as I noted above. But reinvestment isn’t happening for the reason I mentioned above, the confidence these companies and wealthy owners of capital have in our economy and fiscal institutions isn’t high and that’s why they aren’t reinvesting. For some reason I keep thinking you and Rob skipped class the day your teacher taught you about Keynes in high school. So I decided I would help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Read the first paragraph. This is the basis of fiscal responsibility for governments today, you should probably know it before you talk about anything involving the government and economics

Perhaps you should use a different text editor in order to not get the converted special character nonsense?

Just a thought.