what are the best economic policies to slow or end poverty?

[actsnoblemartin]

I am an economic novice, but i know there are many smart people who can educate me on this :dance:

[red states rule]

I am an economic novice, but i know there are many smart people who can educate me on this :dance:

Ronald Reagan's economic policies were the best I ahve ever seen. He took over Pres peanut's economy and turned it around with across the board tax cuts

We had the largest peace time economic growth in US history

[actsnoblemartin]

yes, but what about those tax cuts work, I hear clinton, barrack other democrats say, raise taxes, the rich have it too easy.

what is your response to that?.


Ronald Reagan's economic policies were the best I ahve ever seen. He took over Pres peanut's economy and turned it around with across the board tax cuts

We had the largest peace time economic growth in US history

[red states rule]

yes, but what about those tax cuts work, I hear clinton, barrack other democrats say, raise taxes, the rich have it too easy.

what is your response to that?.

They are full of shit

The top 1% currently pay about 38% of all Federal income taxes - up from 36%. This is after a tax cut. The "rich" are now paying more in taxes AFTER a tax cut

The numbers get worse. The top 50% pay 97% of all Federal income taxes

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%

[actsnoblemartin]

I may be an idiot, some will happily agree, :laugh2: but how do tax cuts help the economy vs the government taking in more money.


They are full of shit

The top 1% currently pay about 38% of all Federal income taxes - up from 36%. This is after a tax cut. The "rich" are now paying more in taxes AFTER a tax cut

The numbers get worse. The top 50% pay 97% of all Federal income taxes

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%

[red states rule]

I may be an idiot,s ome will happily agree, :laugh2: but how do tax cuts help the economy vs the government taking in more money.

Martin, when you want to tax any activity you want to encourage that activity.

When taxes are cut you allow business and people to have more money to spend. Business will invest, buy equipment, hire workers, and increase the size of the business

Workers will have more money to spend. They will go out and buy things, thus their activity will go through the economy. To the factory that made the products, the the transporation company that shipped it, to the store that sold it

The amount of taxes will increase due to this increased economic activity. Right now, revenue to the US governemnt is at record levels. Revenues increased when JFK, Reagan, and Pres Bush cut taxes

Everyone wins when taxes are cut

[Joe Steel]

I am an economic novice, but i know there are many smart people who can educate me on this :dance:

Social democracy has been shown to produce the most equitable distribution of goods and services. This would include strict regulation of business, redistribution of income and fair trade policies

[PostmodernProphet]

anything that promotes full employment and productivity.....

[red states rule]

anything that promotes full employment and productivity.....

which means the more tax cuts the better

[Classact]

I am an economic novice, but i know there are many smart people who can educate me on this :dance:Stop immigration, expel illegal immigrants and end government support of persons able to work.

[red states rule]

Stop immigration, expel illegal immigrants and end government support of persons able to work.

It would be a great start

along with more tax cuts for workers and business

tried to rep you but I have to spread it around first. I owe you

[theHawk]

What I've never understood is why Democrats believe taxing people more and giving the government more money is somehow helping the economy. Can anyone explain how the government having a trillion more dollars is going to help businesses sell their products and services better, or make consumers spend more?

[red states rule]

What I've never understood is why Democrats believe taxing people more and giving the government more money is somehow helping the economy. Can anyone explain how the government having a trillion more dollars is going to help businesses sell their products and services better, or make consumers spend more?

Good question

I would like any lib expalin how tens of billions in new taxes on the oil companies will lower the price at the pump

Or how extending unemployment benfits will increase employment

[midcan5]

Poverty exists on different levels of society and the world, and sometimes the well to do end up poor, at least for a while. But what are the differences. I don't think there is one single cure. Imagine W if he were not born super rich and connected. He would be a drunk trailer park renter in my opinion, all his business ventures failed and his economic policy for the country are proving as disastrous as Reagan's were. Debt by the poor or by those in power is not a good thing. Keynesian policies have to be balanced.

It has to be obvious to most that 'trickle down' (now called supply side) does not work, a broader distribution of money means more people can buy and more people have purpose and see some light. That can only be done with jobs that pay a living wage. I will only provide a few links for thought but consider that unemployment only went down under Clinton of the last several presidents and he raised taxes. SS and LBJ did the most for abject poverty in the US.

>>> living wage

"In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations."

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.3/Graf.html

>>> world poverty

"We will not defeat terrorism unless we also tackle the causes of conflict and misgovernment in developing countries. And we will not defeat poverty so long as trade and investment in any major part of the world are inhibited by fear of violence or instability."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/05/jeffrey_sachs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200459/qid=1115162857/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7721859-9723904

>>> why it continues here

I bought the book below but haven't had time to read it yet.

The sting of poverty - What bees and dented cars can teach about what it means to be poor - and the flaws of economics

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/the_sting_of_poverty/?page=full



http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=the_persistence_of_poverty

http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2007/08/persistence-of-poverty.html
http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300120905

[red states rule]

The facts about the "poor" in America and how they live


The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

[Joe Steel]

What I've never understood is why Democrats believe taxing people more and giving the government more money is somehow helping the economy. Can anyone explain how the government having a trillion more dollars is going to help businesses sell their products and services better, or make consumers spend more?

Taxes provide revenue for cash payments to poor persons. This allows them to buy goods and services. Because the poor spend more of marginal income than the affluent, a dollar is more valuable to the economy in their hands. For example, if a rich man has $1,000 dollars, he might spend only $600. If we take that $1,000 from him and give it to a poor man, it very likely would generate $1,000 of economic activity because the poor need so much more than the rich.

[hjmick]

Why should I work hard, earn my salary, only to have it taken away and given to someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? I was not always in the position I find myself in today. I worked hard, earned my position, saved, took advantage of the opportunities I made, all without the benefit of a college education or a wealthy family, why should I pay for others who can not or will not do the same?

[Yurt]

Why should I work hard, earn my salary, only to have it taken away and given to someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? I was not always in the position I find myself in today. I worked hard, earned my position, saved, took advantage of the opportunities I made, all without the benefit of a college education or a wealthy family, why should I pay for others who can not or will not do the same?

because it "ain't fair" you have more than me. its not fair, so you should give up some in order that i can be more happy.

IMO, it all boils down to the it ain't fair mentality.

[LOki]

Social democracy has been shown to produce the most equitable distribution of goods and services. This would include strict regulation of business, redistribution of income and fair trade policies

In other words...theft for the benefit of the incompetent.

[Roomy]

Raise the tax thresholds so that the poorer don't pay tax.

[red states rule]

Raise the tax thresholds so that the poorer don't pay tax.

The bottom 50% now pay only 3% of all Federal Income taxes

It can't get much lower

[Roomy]

The bottom 50% now pay only 3% of all Federal Income taxes

It can't get much lower

So what? All that means to me is that there are a lot of poor, shitty waged workers in USA.

[red states rule]

So what? All that means to me is that there are a lot of poor, shitty waged workers in USA.

It means the Bush tax cuts workers. Millions were removed from the tax rolls under his tax cuts; and the bottom rate went from 15% to 10%

However Dems want to repeal the Bush tax cuts

[gabosaurus]

I am an economic novice, but i know there are many smart people who can educate me on this

The best way to slow or end poverty is to boot all the Republicans out of Congress. :)

[Missileman]

Why should I work hard, earn my salary, only to have it taken away and given to someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? I was not always in the position I find myself in today. I worked hard, earned my position, saved, took advantage of the opportunities I made, all without the benefit of a college education or a wealthy family, why should I pay for others who can not or will not do the same?

You got that shit RIGHT! If someone isn't smart enough or ambitious enough to pull themselves out of poverty...fuck em! It's the handouts that keep too many from improving their lot.

[midcan5]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."


http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

[red states rule]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."


http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

We had a top rate of 70% under Pres Peanut. We all know what a great economy he had. He was fired after 4 years by a huge margin - and Pres Reagan's across the board tax cuts gave the US economy the largest peace time growth in US history

[LOki]

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."


http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

This seems to say that under this plan many of the incompetent would be getting 3X what they deserve by stealing it from the "real owners" of wealth.

If it does, I'm pretty sure I'm as against this ponzi scheme, as I am against the current ponzi scheme.

Really, when it comes down to "moral grounds," we should not be forcibly confiscating the wealth earned by one set of folks for ANY reason...let alone giving it to those who did not earn it.

[red states rule]

This seems to say that under this plan many of the incompetent would be getting 3X what they deserve by stealing it from the "real owners" of wealth.

If it does, I'm pretty sure I'm as against this ponzi scheme, as I am against the current ponzi scheme.

Really, when it comes down to "moral grounds," we should not be forcibly confiscating the wealth earned by one set of folks for ANY reason...let alone giving it to those who did not earn it.

It is time for letting folks take care of their own retirement. Let people take the SS money and put it in mutal funds, or bonds.

People will have more money for retirement then they will get from SS

It is OUR money after all

[Joe Steel]

Why should I work hard, earn my salary, only to have it taken away and given to someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? I was not always in the position I find myself in today. I worked hard, earned my position, saved, took advantage of the opportunities I made, all without the benefit of a college education or a wealthy family, why should I pay for others who can not or will not do the same?

The U. S. Constitution, in Art. 1, Sec. 8, declares a virtually unlimited power of taxation for Congress and Congress has found some income redistribution to be supportive of the general welfare.