Middle and lower income populations are the "JOB CREATORS"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need. Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%, the middle class are being squeezed out, they would cut safety net programs like unemployment which will further reduce spending. No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for. Isn't the current bad economy enough to show that trickle down economics has failed.? Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ? Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money, its said they are the job creators, No they are not !!! DEMAND AND ORDERS FOR GOODS and SERVICES are the job creators in reality, Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    realifedad said Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need. Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%, the middle class are being squeezed out, they would cut safety net programs like unemployment which will further reduce spending. No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for. Isn't the current bad economy enough to show that trickle down economics has failed.? Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ? Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money, its said they are the job creators, No they are not !!! DEMAND AND ORDERS FOR GOODS and SERVICES are the job creators in reality, Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!
    Just to allay our resident right wing parrots..
    Several years ago I owned a helicopter training flight school.. The entire operation's (and we were considered a 'small business') annual gross income was about 1.2M.
    Now one would think that was alot of money.. except, and here's the caveat....after all gross expenditures, salaries (yes, we EMPLOYED people)accounts payable were paid, our 'small business' net INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES was 32 THOUSAND dollars....

    Do NOT buy into this republican BULLSHIT story about "small business" being hit so hard. Those TAX rates are for NET INCOME not GROSS. That's a HUGE difference. If I was 'netting' over 250G, I would not have needed the SBA loan the banks REFUSED to give us in 2007.. yes, I said 2007...... the beginning of the bank debacle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    Do NOT buy into this republican BULLSHIT story about "small business" being hit so hard. Those TAX rates are for NET INCOME not GROSS. That's a HUGE difference. If I was 'netting' over 250G, I would not have needed the SBA loan the banks REFUSED to give us in 2007.. yes, I said 2007...... the beginning of the bank debacle.


    How can you expect anyone who is informed on this issue to believe you when you mistakenly state that the cutoff for you would be $250,000 when, as a single, gay man, the top tax rate kicks in for you at $200,000?

    Or were you married at that time?

    You'll have to talk to the GOP talking heads ...... that's what they howled about for months... and you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.. we are discussing the 'small business' you know, the "mom and pops' that will "take the hit".

    Dont play dumb SB.............
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 6:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said
    southbeach1500 saidSo much to deal with here, so let's get started:

    realifedad said Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need.


    You're confusing creating demand with creating jobs. If there is an increase in demand for a particular company's product, that company may not necessarily expand its workforce to meet that demand. It may opt to increase the hours worked by their current employees or institute other productivity enhancements.
    Realife reply>>>> demand does create jobs, even if its just overtime or just increasing hours of employees, it still puts money to spend in the hands of the spending public, and thereby creates and expanding economy, that business having more money without demand and orders will not put money into the economy, it will sit.



    realifedad said
    Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%,


    For decades? Republicans haven't been in power "for decades."
    Realife reply>>> This began under Reagan, look at any graph of incomes and wealth, wealth has steadily gone in larger and ever larger shares to the top 2%



    realifedad said
    No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for.


    Correct.




    realifedad said
    Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ?


    The question is, though, who is doing the "putting" in terms of moving that money around. If the who is the government, then the results will be tepid at best as government is an extremely inefficient redistributor.
    Realife reply >>>>> We have to start somewhere and in this economy, Government can and should get the economic ball rolling then stand back as in how the government spent and brought about the end of the "hoover depression"



    realifedad said
    Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money


    The government isn't "giving" anybody any money simply by not confiscating (taxing) a particular person. You view it as the government's money to begin with. It is not.
    Realife reply>>>> Its not confiscating money from the rich to take tax rates back to the days of Clinton when we probably the best economy in our history. Remember it was republicans who made the lower tax rates "temporary" it was thought then in Bush's time that doing so would improve the economy, It didn't work did it ???


    realifedad said
    Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!


    I hope, after reading my comments, you will start to see which line of thinking is incorrect.
    Conservative redistribution of wealth to the top 2% didn't work


    Then we will respectfully continue to disagree on this matter.



    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 6:15 PM GMT
    "We're producing almost as much as we did before the recession, with 7.5 million less people," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute. "The difference is going into the productivity numbers and corporate profits."

    The latest reading on productivity, which measures the economic output of each hour Americans work during a quarter, was up 2.5% from a year ago in the third quarter, the Labor Department reported this week. It's the sixth straight quarter of gains of that level or higher.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 04, 2010 6:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.


    If that means anything not conforming to socialism or Marxism is misinformation, then I guess so.....

    THIS middle-of-the-road, slightly left leaning fed up former republican agrees with christian's accurate opinion of SB and his "tactics"

    . icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 6:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.


    If that means anything not conforming to socialism or Marxism is misinformation, then I guess so.....

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What in your opinion, about the government funding infrastructure projects to put people to work on projects that benifit everyone, is anymore "socialism" than the roads that you currently travel to work on ? Are you against, Roads, Stop lights, stop signs, bridges, and the like ? those are all here paid for by taxes for the good of all, improvements on all of those, or adding isn't socialism, nor would it be for government to do more which will help the economy. are you just throwing out those words Socialism and Marxism to inflame or do you really think this way ? No country can flourish without a government participating in social programs, like roads, an army, navy government buildings to govern in. What are you thinking? things done by governments for social good, does not equal socialism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 6:47 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.


    If that means anything not conforming to socialism or Marxism is misinformation, then I guess so.....

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What in your opinion, about the government funding infrastructure projects to put people to work on projects that benifit everyone, is anymore "socialism" than the roads that you currently travel to work on ? Are you against, Roads, Stop lights, stop signs, bridges, and the like ? those are all here paid for by taxes for the good of all, improvements on all of those, or adding isn't socialism, nor would it be for government to do more which will help the economy. are you just throwing out those words Socialism and Marxism to inflame or do you really think this way ? No country can flourish without a government participating in social programs, like roads, an army, navy government buildings to govern in. What are you thinking? things done by governments for social good, does not equal socialism.


    I was addressing my remarks at Christian who is a self-admitted socialist.

    More generally, to address your remarks above, looking at government to provide "stimulus" to "spend us out of the recession" does not work.

    Recent example:

    Cash for clunkers - great program - until the money spigot was turned off. Sales returned back to anemic levels.



    That's "democratic socialist."

    And, yes, when the gov't spends money to stimulate the economy the programs stop when the gov't stops spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 7:05 PM GMT
    rnch said THIS middle-of-the-road, slightly left leaning fed up former republican agrees with christian's accurate opinion of SB and his "tactics"

    . icon_exclaim.gif
    Ditto!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 7:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    More generally, to address your remarks above, looking at government to provide "stimulus" to "spend us out of the recession" does not work.

    Recent example:

    Cash for clunkers - great program - until the money spigot was turned off. Sales returned back to anemic levels.

    Wow... could it be that the "free market" didnt have any money to buy automobiles? and the upper tier didn't want to 'spend'...

    hmmmmm what were you saying about the "free market" revitalizing the economy? Didn't work too well did it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 7:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    Basically, it's economy on life-support.
    Gee.......... I guess the entire planet is wrong huh? What ' national economy' is doing well OFF life support?

    Realism isn't your strong suit is it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 7:12 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.


    If that means anything not conforming to socialism or Marxism is misinformation, then I guess so.....

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What in your opinion, about the government funding infrastructure projects to put people to work on projects that benifit everyone, is anymore "socialism" than the roads that you currently travel to work on ? Are you against, Roads, Stop lights, stop signs, bridges, and the like ? those are all here paid for by taxes for the good of all, improvements on all of those, or adding isn't socialism, nor would it be for government to do more which will help the economy. are you just throwing out those words Socialism and Marxism to inflame or do you really think this way ? No country can flourish without a government participating in social programs, like roads, an army, navy government buildings to govern in. What are you thinking? things done by governments for social good, does not equal socialism.


    I was addressing my remarks at Christian who is a self-admitted socialist.

    More generally, to address your remarks above, looking at government to provide "stimulus" to "spend us out of the recession" does not work.

    Recent example:

    Cash for clunkers - great program - until the money spigot was turned off. Sales returned back to anemic levels.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said, nor do I believe that its governments place to "spend us our of recession" I said it has a place to spend to 'start the ball rolling" to recovery. No Government is not the end all of this economic downturn but it has a responsibility to prod economic activity, to provide social safety nets which work together to promote the restart of economic activity. The only way to do it is to get money in the hands of workers who will then spend, creating demand and orders for goods, which kicks off the economy and capitalism's gears start moving again. Putting money in the hands of the wealthy while taking away the safety nets and holding back on infrastructure programs, will not move the economy into productivity. Government giving a push, isn't socialism. Money must trade hands among and from the masses for economies to be vibrant, this is where government can and should foster growth at least temporarily by spending, The wealthy have had plenty to do it, but it hasn't happened under Bushs transfer of wealth upwards now has it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 7:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad saidI never said, nor do I believe that its governments place to "spend us our of recession" I said it has a place to spend to 'start the ball rolling" to recovery. No Government is not the end all of this economic downturn but it has a responsibility to prod economic activity


    But we've already borrowed $3 trillion and done that... with not so spectacular results.


    The stimulus was under $1 trillion and 40% tax cuts, so you're using some pretty fuzzy math there. If nothing else, the stimulus and its 40% tax cuts proved that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate anything.

    Oddly, what does is taxing the rich and using that to create jobs for the not-so-rich.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 8:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad saidI never said, nor do I believe that its governments place to "spend us our of recession" I said it has a place to spend to 'start the ball rolling" to recovery. No Government is not the end all of this economic downturn but it has a responsibility to prod economic activity


    But we've already borrowed $3 trillion and done that... with not so spectacular results.


    The stimulus was under $1 trillion and 40% tax cuts, so you're using some pretty fuzzy math there.


    You forget the Fed printing press...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You forgot that the Bush debacle put the US in unknown territory economically which threatened the entire worlds economy, these expenditures of the Obama administration have been to try to halt the regression, and turn it back around. All stops have been pulled out to bring this economy around, again you republicans try to blame the dems for the mess you created, then diss whats gradually working. You can't have it both ways, so again, where do you place culpability on the republicans part in this?? Go ahead admit some, or your sure cutting into your credibility.
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 04, 2010 8:26 PM GMT
    "Cash for clunkers - great program - until the money spigot was turned off. Sales returned back to anemic levels."

    That's ignoring money saved on fuel and safety upgrades. $ sales aren't everything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 8:46 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said"We're producing almost as much as we did before the recession, with 7.5 million less people," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute. "The difference is going into the productivity numbers and corporate profits."

    The latest reading on productivity, which measures the economic output of each hour Americans work during a quarter, was up 2.5% from a year ago in the third quarter, the Labor Department reported this week. It's the sixth straight quarter of gains of that level or higher.


    I agree with you here. This very thing happened at my job. They laid-off and/or transferred 90 percent off the staff. They then had 10 people working. They realized that these ten were just as productive if not more because they were worried about their jobs and ten times more likely to come to work and work harder. This increased profits, but no raises for the staff.

    So like I said, why would the private sector hire more people when you can have people scared to take off of work or even take a break? If I can increase my profits and have the same productivity, why should I hire more people? As the people at my job said, "be lucky that you have a job."
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 04, 2010 9:04 PM GMT
    realifedad said Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need. Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%, the middle class are being squeezed out, they would cut safety net programs like unemployment which will further reduce spending. No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for. Isn't the current bad economy enough to show that trickle down economics has failed.? Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ? Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money, its said they are the job creators, No they are not !!! DEMAND AND ORDERS FOR GOODS and SERVICES are the job creators in reality, Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!




    Thank you.
    That was brilliant !
    And, just plain common sense.

    Rich people invest their money.
    Poor and middle class people spend their money, creating a demand for more employees.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 04, 2010 9:12 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Rather, you will continue to be incorrect and trying to push misinformation on the uninformed.


    If that means anything not conforming to socialism or Marxism is misinformation, then I guess so.....

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What in your opinion, about the government funding infrastructure projects to put people to work on projects that benifit everyone, is anymore "socialism" than the roads that you currently travel to work on ? Are you against, Roads, Stop lights, stop signs, bridges, and the like ? those are all here paid for by taxes for the good of all, improvements on all of those, or adding isn't socialism, nor would it be for government to do more which will help the economy. are you just throwing out those words Socialism and Marxism to inflame or do you really think this way ? No country can flourish without a government participating in social programs, like roads, an army, navy government buildings to govern in. What are you thinking? things done by governments for social good, does not equal socialism.


    I was addressing my remarks at Christian who is a self-admitted socialist.

    More generally, to address your remarks above, looking at government to provide "stimulus" to "spend us out of the recession" does not work.







    Bullshit.

    FDR + WPA = the end of the first Republican Great Depression.

    Not following that example, is Obama's huge mistake.
    And, it's allowing the second Republican Great Depression to go on and on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 9:35 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    realifedad said Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need. Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%, the middle class are being squeezed out, they would cut safety net programs like unemployment which will further reduce spending. No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for. Isn't the current bad economy enough to show that trickle down economics has failed.? Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ? Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money, its said they are the job creators, No they are not !!! DEMAND AND ORDERS FOR GOODS and SERVICES are the job creators in reality, Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!




    Thank you.
    That was brilliant !
    And, just plain common sense.

    Rich people invest their money.
    Poor and middle class people spend their money, creating a demand for more employees.
    BINGO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Webster666 said
    realifedad said Middle and Lower income populations represent approx. 98% of total population. This majority are the group who have many needs and when they have money they spend, creating demand/orders, which in turn creates the need for business to hire that very population to make the very things they need. Republicans have for decades redistributed money upwards to the top 2%, the middle class are being squeezed out, they would cut safety net programs like unemployment which will further reduce spending. No business will add employees to make things there are no demand or orders for. Isn't the current bad economy enough to show that trickle down economics has failed.? Why is it so hard to see that infrastructure spending and other programs putting money in the hands of the 98% is what will bring about a revitalization of our economy ? Not going further in debt to give millionairs more money, its said they are the job creators, No they are not !!! DEMAND AND ORDERS FOR GOODS and SERVICES are the job creators in reality, Who really believes that going further in debt to give tax breaks to the rich will create jobs ?? This thinking is totally backwards !!!




    Thank you.
    That was brilliant !
    And, just plain common sense.

    Rich people invest their money.
    Poor and middle class people spend their money, creating a demand for more employees.
    BINGO
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trouble is, how to convince the public who are so influenced by the big business bought and payed for "False News", "Rush Limbaugh" type Propaganda. This last election was largely payed for by the big business interprises and the rich, who gladly promote the TeaBaggers, Freedom Works, and multiple other groups. The big business/big money interests, don't mind a bit to throw in with far right social agendas and the like, in trade for those groups mouth peices, twisting a conservative montra to convince the duped public to vote against their own interests. The conservative congressmen/senators holler about social programs, unemployment and minimum wage laws, labeling them failed programs, government intervention and unecessarry drain on society and hurting employment. All the while voting in billions of dollars worth of deductions, subsidies and the like for the wealthy and big business. Big business and the wealthy get to laugh all the way to the bank, at the common wage earners own expense, and the merry go round keeps going round and round ever increasingly sinking the interests of the public for the few. Take a look at huge increases in wealth going to the few over the last decade if you don't believe me. This has got to get turned around or the Middle and lower income population will continue to suffer, extending the time between now and another more vibrant economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 12:38 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said This last election was largely payed for by the big business interprises and the rich, who gladly promote the TeaBaggers, Freedom Works, and multiple other groups.


    Such a shame Acorn isn't around anymore... and Soros chose to focus on influencing media instead of giving his money to the DNC this time.




    realifedad saidThe conservative congressmen/senators ... All the while voting in billions of dollars worth of deductions, subsidies and the like for the wealthy and big business.


    Huh? A few examples might be helpful.
    Realife examples >>>>>>>>>>>> ever heard of the subsidies to big oil companies for oil exploration, do you know of any repub. congressmen, senator voting against it?? do you think with record profits for several years in a row that they sitll need that subsidy at the expense of the tax payers ? there are multiple more where that came from so don't act like you didn't know.



    realifedad said Take a look at huge increases in wealth going to the few over the last decade if you don't believe me.


    Last decade? Try the last 200 years!
    realife >>>>>>>>>> look it up !!! there's a huge increase while the wealth and incomes of the middle and lower incomes have shrunk. the last 200 years weren't the problem the last decade or so has been a problem.



    realifedad saidThis has got to get turned around or the Middle and lower income population will continue to suffer, extending the time between now and another more vibrant economy.


    Well, if the Tea Party is successful in this next Congress, then things will turn around for the better for the middle and lower income citizens.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Realife >>>>>>>>>>>>>>if the TeaBaggers are voted in they'll take us back to about 1900. LOL !! and you'll be going back in the closet as a gay man, how do you like that idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 12:58 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said
    Realife examples >>>>>>>>>>>> ever heard of the subsidies to big oil companies for oil exploration, do you know of any repub. congressmen, senator voting against it?? do you think with record profits for several years in a row that they sitll need that subsidy at the expense of the tax payers ? there are multiple more where that came from so don't act like you didn't know.


    Come on, that's hardly substantial evidence. That's like me saying "Democrats are all tax and spend liberals" and leaving it at that.



    realifedad saidlook it up !!! there's a huge increase while the wealth and incomes of the middle and lower incomes have shrunk. the last 200 years weren't the problem the last decade or so has been a problem.


    Nope, this is a trend that is 200 years old.




    realifedad saidif the TeaBaggers are voted in they'll take us back to about 1900. LOL !! and you'll be going back in the closet as a gay man, how do you like that idea.



    Hahaha... now you're sounding like "Art_Deco".... icon_lol.gif
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>200 years my royal hind end. LOL !!!! your dodge can be seen through pretty easily. show us what your talking about and that there hasn't been a markedly increased rate of difference between the haves and have nots over the last decade, you'll probably see that its been occuring since the 70's , I'll take on the rest of what you've said after addressing this fallacy. There are only two other times in our US history that such widening gaps of wealth/income between the top 2% and the 98% of mass population, and thats just before the depression and back in the Robber Barron days in the late 1800's, both were bad times for the masses as with now. Prove me wrong !!! Trickly down economics have never worked, whenever the few hold most of the wealth the many suffer, along with the economy, unless of course your promoting going back to surfdom, is that what your promoting. ??
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 05, 2010 8:17 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said

    Bullshit.

    FDR + WPA = the end of the first Republican Great Depression.


    Incorrect Webster-the-Devil.

    World War II and the subsequent demand for American products after the war ended the Great Depression.




    What I should have said was that the WPA jobs were what got an awful lot of people through the first Republican Great Depression. That's what we need, today, instead of throwing money at businesses that have no intention of hiring anybody, nor a need to hire anybody, since millions of Americans are not spending money on anything besides the bare necessities.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 05, 2010 1:57 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said

    Bullshit.

    FDR + WPA = the end of the first Republican Great Depression.


    Incorrect Webster-the-Devil.

    World War II and the subsequent demand for American products after the war ended the Great Depression.




    What I should have said was that the WPA jobs were what got an awful lot of people through the first Republican Great Depression. That's what we need, today, instead of throwing money at businesses that have no intention of hiring anybody, nor a need to hire anybody, since millions of Americans are not spending money on anything besides the bare necessities.



    YES!!!
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 05, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
    The numbers are most often not what one would think. As you come up from the lower income brackets you slowly add disposable income. In the lower brackets the vast percentage of income goes to housing, food, and energy. This spending does not exactly fit the definition of "consumerism."

    I'll see if I can't dig some numbers out of the IMF board report for the U.S. and post them.