The Most Important Chart in American Politics, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 42 times

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 10:58 PM by beezzer

reply to post by XPLodER

In reality, government should not be spending. Because once they do, they won't stop. They'll jjust justify further spending.

I would agree to tax raises on everyone IF

IF government truly cut spending and kept it cut. Real cuts, across the board. Not favouring the rich, the poor, the middle class.

But across the board REAL cuts.

Then, and only then, I would agree to tax increases in order to stabilize the nations debt.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 10:58 PM by tothetenthpower

reply to post by neo96

Yeah you can make that fluffy point Neo, that's fine and true.

But I don't have the resources that Monsanto does to pay lobbyists to be in DC everyday to harass and bribe politicians into voting a certain way.

I have nothing against lobbying your government, hell it's a right and should be the main part of civic duty for ANY citizen.

But the balance is broken. You can't honestly say that the average American has any say, or vote in matters of national importance.

Even at the state level things are becoming more and more disconnected.

The situation is simple and cannot be argued otherwise. We have a situation where our elected officials live in a vastly different reality than the rest of the nation. They need to be brought back down to our level.

ETA: On a side note, do you think that somebody who lives in an apartment should pay property or infrastructure tax? For a property they have no rights to at all?

~Tenth

edit on 2/5/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 10:59 PM by Kali74

reply to post by beezzer

Most people currently on employment or now 'welfare' because their unemployment benefits dried up... are unemployed because their job was outsourced or became obsolete/streamlined (this always happens it's nothing new, usually though there is something to transition to). Most people now on entitlement were once the backbone of the economy. It is plain and simply wrong to tell these people that they now have to live on the street or eat rationed out rice every week or any such scenario.

Once families become homeless the chances of them ever re-entering the work force become slim to none and then their children grow up in a compromised environment and it just begins a vicious cycle. The solutions cannot come from the people with the least to give or the most to lose. The problem came from the top and the solution must as well.

IMF Officials: We Were Wrong About Austerity

reply to post by neo96

Green products are corporate products that have been around for decades none match that most evil fossil fuel in productivity.

Or so you've been brai... told.

edit on 5-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:00 PM by neo96

YOU MUST UNDO THE BUSH TAX CUTS they are structurally damaging your economy.

For crying out loud what is destroying this economy is entitlement spending SS,medicare,medicaid, free homes,free education all the must haves.

They all destroy private wealth creation,job creation, and productivity for instance SS has collected over 11 trillion dollars since it was created.

That money put in other investment vehicles could have created and exponential revenue for both people and governrment revenue streams that create more jobs more wealth, and would decrease the need for social engineering..

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:03 PM by beezzer

reply to post by Kali74

The problem is that the government will use unemployment to justify further spending.

Cuts have to be made. Sure, get rid of the loopholes, make the wealthy pay SOMETHING! I have no problem with that.

Government created the problem that led to so many being unemployed.
Ironic in that it is government that is also the one to provide a solution.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:06 PM by neo96

reply to post by tothetenthpower

But I don't have the resources that Monsanto does to pay lobbyists to be in DC everyday to harass and bribe politicians into voting a certain way.

Everyone pays DC politicians

But the balance is broken. You can't honestly say that the average American has any say, or vote in matters of national importance.

Don't think we ever did have a say.

ven at the state level things are becoming more and more disconnected.

True

The situation is simple and cannot be argued otherwise. We have a situation where our elected officials live in a vastly different reality than the rest of the nation. They need to be brought back down to our level.

That is also true who is going to do it? As long as half this country gets that government check they are not going to do anything agianst the hand that feeds them perhaps all by design.

ETA: On a side note, do you think that somebody who lives in an apartment should pay property or infrastructure tax? For a property they have no rights to at all?

When people are making the issue out of infrastructure yeah I do instead of robbing from other state that will never get any benefit out of it.

But to reitterate they are local and state issues.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:08 PM by tothetenthpower

reply to post by neo96

You know for people on opposite sides of the spectrum, we agree an awful lot sometimes

I do agree that a lot of these issues are local/state issues and should be dealt with there.

If states were more financially secure the FED will follow suit, not out of wanting to, but not having a choice, as it would no longer have an excuse for all this spending.

~Tenth

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:09 PM by Kali74

reply to post by beezzer

Cuts cannot be made until we increase jobs. You're essentially saying... "Hey thanks for carrying us all those years, sorry but we don't need you anymore and nope you can't have foodstamps to feed your family until you figure something else out, jeeze you're lazy."

The cuts have to come from somewhere else. Military and Corporate tax loopholes or even better... tell all these Corporations that off shore everything but their Company name so that they can receive tax refunds and subsidies to gtfo. You want to be an American company? You keep everything in America, profits, labor, everything. If not, good-bye and make room for someone else.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:09 PM by XPLodER

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by XPLodER

In reality, government should not be spending. Because once they do, they won't stop. They'll jjust justify further spending.

I would agree to tax raises on everyone IF

IF government truly cut spending and kept it cut. Real cuts, across the board. Not favouring the rich, the poor, the middle class.

But across the board REAL cuts.

Then, and only then, I would agree to tax increases in order to stabilize the nations debt.

well then add corporate welfare (subsidies) into the mix and the numbers are starting to look like it would work.

i do need to clarify one point,
what do the poor have that can contribute, other than doing without the essentials to life?\

xploder

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:11 PM by beezzer

Back to my original point, supported by the OP's graph, we have a decade before America ceases to exist unless drastic measures are taken.

The conventional approaches cannot be used anymore.

We need radical changes if we are to survive as a nation.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:11 PM by hadriana

They told my husband they have to work at least 70 hours a week or be fired.
With no benefits, that means he doesn't even get a vacation, and health insurance seems to be some distant memory of something that used to come with a full time job....

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:11 PM by Happy1

reply to post by tothetenthpower

This is the graph of a communist country. The workers don't need income because the gov't provides what it thinks the workers need. There is no possibility of the worker making more than he needs, and the gov't will not allow the worker to build wealth.

No hope. The progressives have exactly what they want.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:12 PM by XPLodER

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by neo96

You know for people on opposite sides of the spectrum, we agree an awful lot sometimes

I do agree that a lot of these issues are local/state issues and should be dealt with there.

If states were more financially secure the FED will follow suit, not out of wanting to, but not having a choice, as it would no longer have an excuse for all this spending.

~Tenth

you are proposing "state infrastructure banks" like the bank of north Dakota.

the state suffered less in the down turn than any other state.

they fund themselves with a "respectable" banking programs that loan for infrastructure.

why be slaves to the federal gov?

xploder

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:15 PM by XPLodER

reply to post by beezzer

i gave your sig a silver spoon,
it is currently tunnelling its way to freedom.

the graph speaks loudly to me as i love math.
beezer is right in less than 10 years the structural imbalance will kill the rich too.

xploder

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 11:42 PM by ColCurious

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Austerity measure, NOW!

Yes.
Relentless, thorough, fiscal pragmatism is what you need.
Reason is what you need and reason commands austerity measures now.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

Austerity only hurts the middle class, in most cases. The government uses austerity as a means to ignore the larger economic issues on the table.

How are Greece and Spain handling all this austerity? I'm pretty sure the unemployment rate is hovering at like 20%?

Austerity is a process that comes in all forms and degrees, depending on what you're trying to achieve with it.
Being a tool, austerity can be used wrong.
Slashing the economic backbone (or anything that is of real value / produces revenue) would be wrong of course.
Too harsh and ill-directed austerity can be bad (see Greece), no austerity at all is even worse (see Greece pre GFC).

edit on 5-2-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 06:38 AM by wtbengineer

reply to post by Frogs

Ah, I guess I just skimmed the info and didn't notice that. Since I didn't see dates on the chart itself. So that's why I didn't see any difference between the mid '80s to the mid '90s. I really didn't notice the crunch until after 2001 though, that's when I realized that we were being crushed by steadily rising prices and flat income.

Thanks Frogs!!

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 07:18 AM by chasingbrahman

I've come to understand that this is the trajectory followed by every welfare state. At some point, the "producers" are completely outnumbered by those on welfare, and the top-heavy dynamic collapses as the producers fail to support those on welfare.

These are our days of bread and circuses. Creepy effing clowns.

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 07:51 AM by undo

during clinton, enlisted military started to qualify for welfare and food stamps because they hadn't had a raise in pay in decades, but the cost of living was starting to skyrocket. their wives jobs were being shipped off due to nafta, and things were starting to get ugly. military members were having to borrow from the aid societies just to survive, which just perpetuated the poverty and any time a "cut funding to the military" shout went out, they would cut it from the enlisted guys (enlisted means the poorest bracket, those who are not officers). no way are the guys who have to maintain respectable appearances for foreign dignitaries, going to take a cut in pay, especially when the peons below them are much more plentiful in number and therefore a greater source of expenditure.

so just realize, any time you call for a cut in military spending it wll not come out of the weapons budget or technology budget or officers budget or foreign bases budget, it comes right out of the pocket of the poorest members. this is unfortunately, how it works across the board. the cost is passed down to those least ability to absorb it, but who yet, are still required to go on missions they are likely to be maimed for life or even killed.

if you ask why they would even want to work there, consider the military has been one of the few places people could find jobs, for decades this has been true for the poorest parts of society.

edit on 6-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 08:40 AM by xedocodex

I love how everyone blames taxes for the household income not raising and they ignore the greedy corporate bastards.

So much easier to blame the other side because blaming the real proble, corporate profit greed, sounds too "socialist".

This graph was created about income given during the census. Most people don't report their income after taxes when asked their income...they report their base income.

To try to blame taxes is just playing politics with this issue and ignoring the real problem.

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 08:48 AM by xedocodex

I see a few members here have successfully derailed this thread from talking about HOUSEHOLD INCOME into talking about GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

The two aren't linked...just a convenient way to ignore talking about what actually is the biggest issue in this country (low wages) and turning it into their favorite Right Wing talking point.

It's a shame, because Household income is a huge issue, and if we would fix that, it would fix many other issues.