It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reason for the Economic Decline of America

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

That exactly is Macroeconomics just what the name implies

What in the world are you talking about.

When rich folks use huge amount of capital and order around their puppets they influence the MACRO( WHOLE) economy to benefit themselves to the detriment of the whole...


MACRO
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"




posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: NavyDoc

That exactly is Macroeconomics just what the name implies

What in the world are you talking about.

When rich folks use huge amount of capital and order around their puppets they influence the MACRO( WHOLE) economy to benefit themselves to the detriment of the whole...


MACRO
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"


But macro economics is not just about "rich people using capital" it is about the greater interaction of various economic forces and how they interact as a whole. For example, government regulations that increase the cost of doing business in the entire country is also an example of macroeconomics. In a global economy, no country is an island and understanding macroeconomics is essential to a good economy. We have to compete on a world stage and everything is a reflection of this. If one does not think "macro" but pushes "micro," one will fail.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I don't have to answer those aspects of the post because those are impediments to the Free Market. More proof you aren't familiar with economics AT ALL, and more than likely get your info from some left site like DailyKOS.

Your use of the term "Slave Wage Jobs" also shows a gross misunderstanding of most offshore jobs.

Developers, Customer care reps etc usually make far above their countries respective poverty line. Sure they may be slave wages in the USA, but those jobs aren't in the USA. Often, those jobs are doing far more for their country than they do for ours. That is globalization.

Granted, I am not talking about all off-shored jobs.
edit on 3-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Nothing will change until people stop considering themselves 'consumers' and start realizing they are 'citizens'.

This thread gives me some hope, people are not only waking up, they're almost as angry as I am.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nobody said macroeconomics had anything inherently to do with the rich.

I just said they negatively influence macroeconomics through their immense wealth.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: darkorange

Dude most Americans dont care at all about the deaths of foreigners unless they are our proven allies. Even with allies it's not a guarantee. I bet if France had a 9/11 a huge number of Americans would say "those froggies deserve it for being weak on Muslims and being such wusses in general".

They can't bring themselves to care about their neighbors let alone foreigners. Hell most people I know wouldn't even give their sibling a place to sleep if they lost everything. Most Americans are concerned with preserving their own little bubble of fantasy. That's why America is failing. A nation with no qualities besides selfishness and greed cannot survive long. Ayn Rand is the biggest joke in history and many still treat her as a Jesus figure.

It's a mad mad world.


I would say you need new friends if you believe what you wrote



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Actually I tend to agree with him.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Tell me this. Do you think we would have the innovation in technology we have today without these types of people or corporations?
edit on 3-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Certainly many of the industrial( wealthy) class have sponsored advancements to technology, science, advancements in disease prevention and other fields that should be recognized and supported and those who contribute in that way are worthy of praise.

I have no animosity to the industrious or rich. I am just reminding that some of them are too greedy and take advantage of their wealth to negatively influence society.

Nothing in life is all evil (or all good) so naturally there are people of wealth who are outstanding human beings and use their wealth for the good of humankind

Such people are the best amongst us.

They are not the ones who I criticize.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

“Rich policies” are when the politicians vote them tax cuts at the expense of the macro economy

When they have enough to feed the US army and more with one weeks pay

And the average American can hardly survive and the income levels of the MC and poor are steadily declining as well as good job opportunities, middle class jobs go overseas where the RICH send their business to countries where they can pay a dollar an hour

The senate passes a bill to stop that and the GOP votes the bill down

Those are “rich man” policies

When the politicians cater to the individual wealthy and not the macro economy.

The rich policy is to continue to coddle those who have too much

And let the poor die.

Like Christie cut Medicaid

It’s amazing that people don’t understand that rich people, while they shouldn’t be abused or treated unfairly, should nonetheless pay their fair share

Why are you so interested in defending them unless you yourself are one of them?
And if you are then why do you need so much to live.



While I agree with much of your sentiment, I really, really need you to give me some concrete definitions and numbers before I can agree to do a total wash-basket turn-over.
What is rich? I need a number here---not some vague "more than is needed" but an actual number. Is a it a million dollars in assets? Is it an income of a million dollars?
What is fair share? Again, I need a number here---how much is enough for me to be forced to give up? Is 50% of my income enough?
I have begged for these answers from politicians and political hacks for years. I've never been able to get an answer. Just how much of our income should be forcibly taken from us? What is the upper limit?
I hear all this complaining about "the rich" and yet nobody can give me a number of what constitutes "the rich."
In my world I am rich indeed because I no longer have to wonder if I'll be able to pay my bills at the beginning of each month. But I have a neighbor who is a multimillionaire due to having created a software company as a hobby that he sold for piles of money. Why should he have to pay a higher percentage of his income than me? He uses no more services than I do.
Another friend is retired from professional sports. Because he was particularly talented at his sport, he is a millionaire. Then there's the friend who made it big in Hollywood and is paid about a million dollars each time he walks in front of the camera.
Why should they have to give up a greater percentage of their income than those of us who haven't made millions?
I really struggle to understand why a lot of people are so fixated on "the rich" and yet can't define the very object of their fixation.
I'm with Augustus on the flat tax. To me that seems "fair" as "fair" was defined by my Mama when I was young.
I see the rabid consumerism and accumulation of debt due to that predilection has more to do with the condition of the middle class than anything the politicians have done.
My parents didn't crawl out of poverty using debt. I didn't crawl out of poverty by using debt. Somewhere along the way, the majority of the American public became convinced that they must bow to the bankers and go into debt for their morning coffee or a vacation. Politicians didn't make them take out a second mortgage to buy a SeaDoo.
So let me ask you this---how much are you willing to give up? What is your upper limit for how much of your income you are willing to hand over to the politicians to spend for you?
The decline of the middle class can be traced to the lax manner in which they have used credit over the past 30-40 years. The debt problem brings on another issue---because they are paying interest on a vacation they took last year on their credit card, they have no disposable income to contribute to a rainy day or retirement fund.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

He also seems to not know that the rich already pay far more in taxes than the poor and middle class combined...

The rich are defined as those with an income greater than 250k a year.

On average they pay a 36% effective tax rate compared to a 9% effective tax rate for middle income and 0% for low income.

The top 40% of earners in the USA pay ALL the taxes.

Edit: taxing more isn't the solution. Curbing government waste due to big government would do far more than more taxes would.
edit on 3-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

That's directly counter to everything I've ever read on the matter. Romney even said he pays less taxes than his secretary.

Please provide a source for your figures.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I've got news for you. The first President to drop tax rates from 90% was JFK, a DEMOCRAT.

JFK was responsible for a 20% drop in income tax on the rich. Sure, Reagan dropped it by a lot more, but he wouldn't have been able to do it without pointing out that 70% was okay, so 35% must be fine.

Reaganomics worked short term, but like all ridiculous Republican policies, was a disaster for long term economics in America.

Since World War 2, you would have done way better if you'd have invested $10,000 and kept it in the stock market only under Democrat Presidents, and withdrawn from the market under Republican ones. Also, Democratic Presidents have created over 5 times the number of jobs in their Presidencies.

Since World War 2, there have been only 2 Presidents who have managed to actually cut Government spending. Bill Clinton, and BARACK OBAMA.

Obama has cut deficit spending by 2/3, massively reduced the number of Govt employees, cut taxes, never once decided to go after guns, and done many other things that Republicans love to claim that he didn't.

Reagan raised taxes on the middle class several times, massively INCREASED the number of Govt employees, was pro gun control, and increased Government spending by 200% during his Presidency.

For Fiscal Conservatives to praise President Reagan makes absolutely no sense at all.

But hey, we all know Republicans and the far right are devoid of any facts.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

They praise Ayn Rand too. It's easy to put blinders on and cherry pick for your views



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I think your post was well thought out , however without adding in currency into the mix and the every 7 year cycles of intentional recessions since 1889, your post sounded like a political science class 101. As well one cannot forget about Nafta, Kafta and the paid removal of Americans infrastructure since Reagan. Finally, forgetting about oil and the lack their of_Bush, in having Americans produce their own oil resserves has decimated the U.S. to a near third world state. However i commend you on simple facts and text book accuracy's



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: raymundoko

That's directly counter to everything I've ever read on the matter. Romney even said he pays less taxes than his secretary.

Please provide a source for your figures.

If Romney said that he was referring to his income taxes, not that she pays more taxes than he does. There are lots of taxes that rich folks pay that I never have to worry about. He probably pays more in property taxes than she makes in a year.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

“Rich policies” are when the politicians vote them tax cuts at the expense of the macro economy

When they have enough to feed the US army and more with one weeks pay

And the average American can hardly survive and the income levels of the MC and poor are steadily declining as well as good job opportunities, middle class jobs go overseas where the RICH send their business to countries where they can pay a dollar an hour

The senate passes a bill to stop that and the GOP votes the bill down

Those are “rich man” policies

When the politicians cater to the individual wealthy and not the macro economy.

The rich policy is to continue to coddle those who have too much

And let the poor die.

Like Christie cut Medicaid

It’s amazing that people don’t understand that rich people, while they shouldn’t be abused or treated unfairly, should nonetheless pay their fair share

Why are you so interested in defending them unless you yourself are one of them?
And if you are then why do you need so much to live.



While I agree with much of your sentiment, I really, really need you to give me some concrete definitions and numbers before I can agree to do a total wash-basket turn-over.
What is rich? I need a number here---not some vague "more than is needed" but an actual number. Is a it a million dollars in assets? Is it an income of a million dollars?
What is fair share? Again, I need a number here---how much is enough for me to be forced to give up? Is 50% of my income enough?
I have begged for these answers from politicians and political hacks for years. I've never been able to get an answer. Just how much of our income should be forcibly taken from us? What is the upper limit?
I hear all this complaining about "the rich" and yet nobody can give me a number of what constitutes "the rich."
In my world I am rich indeed because I no longer have to wonder if I'll be able to pay my bills at the beginning of each month. But I have a neighbor who is a multimillionaire due to having created a software company as a hobby that he sold for piles of money. Why should he have to pay a higher percentage of his income than me? He uses no more services than I do.
Another friend is retired from professional sports. Because he was particularly talented at his sport, he is a millionaire. Then there's the friend who made it big in Hollywood and is paid about a million dollars each time he walks in front of the camera.
Why should they have to give up a greater percentage of their income than those of us who haven't made millions?
I really struggle to understand why a lot of people are so fixated on "the rich" and yet can't define the very object of their fixation.
I'm with Augustus on the flat tax. To me that seems "fair" as "fair" was defined by my Mama when I was young.
I see the rabid consumerism and accumulation of debt due to that predilection has more to do with the condition of the middle class than anything the politicians have done.
My parents didn't crawl out of poverty using debt. I didn't crawl out of poverty by using debt. Somewhere along the way, the majority of the American public became convinced that they must bow to the bankers and go into debt for their morning coffee or a vacation. Politicians didn't make them take out a second mortgage to buy a SeaDoo.
So let me ask you this---how much are you willing to give up? What is your upper limit for how much of your income you are willing to hand over to the politicians to spend for you?
The decline of the middle class can be traced to the lax manner in which they have used credit over the past 30-40 years. The debt problem brings on another issue---because they are paying interest on a vacation they took last year on their credit card, they have no disposable income to contribute to a rainy day or retirement fund.


Gordon Gekko: I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

Romney only makes income off of interest and investment growth. That money is taxed at 15%. There is no effective tax rate, it's just 15%. It's called capital gains tax.

His secretary was taxed at 24%, but her effective tax rate was 7%. You see how that works?

If Romney actually had income his effective tax rate would have been 35+% PLUS the 15% capital gains on his investment income.

Please research how taxes work.

Also, Romney donated a huge chunk of his income to charity, which also lowers his effective tax rate.
edit on 4-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Wow, I'm gonna need you to source that....

Obama has increased spending each year:

Source

Source



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nobody said macroeconomics had anything inherently to do with the rich.

I just said they negatively influence macroeconomics through their immense wealth.


That may be what you meant, but that's not what you said. That's okay, sometimes intent gets lost in internet posting. It happens to all of us.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join