DougH

To keep everybody spending and contributing to the economy. Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more. GDP isn't a relative number. Telling me that a poor person spends more realtive to their income is dancing around the point. Who spends more? Who contributes more? You can mold a social program to keep poor people spending, or you can model it to promote social and economic mobility. Both result in spending. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Ok I will put aside my belief that these people are relatively poor, not the homeless hungry that most imagine Would their spending decrease if these programs actually lowered the level of poverty? Would their economic contribution decrease? If the programs are not intended to eliminate poverty, only to keep a level of spending, what exactly is the point? Who spends more, a poor person on social welfare programs, or a middle class person? Who contributes more to GDP? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I find it hilarious that you bitch about my sources, and then you break out a geocities hosted source. Didn't find anything on the local community college website to backup your claims. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Look, I don't care, but you made some personal implication.... move along, post data and other reference and quit the personalization; my feelings aren't hurt, I just hate to see people wiggle out of a debate over BS. Welcome to the world of objecctive data, I won't post some agendda site, hope that's ok. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm Here's a video tutorial of the L-curve. I like the last statement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU Here's a good graphic: http://markpalermo.tripod.com/id39.html Here's a cool 3D bar chart that depicts 5% from 95% taxes, population and wealth. Impressive, the first round of google results. I read those too. Maybe I should point out that the first source you deem independent has 20% of the population holding 84% of the wealth, not 96%. What backs up your claim of 96%? http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf I find it interested to look at the wealth distribution for the top 1% which holds 34% of wealth. 10% of that wealth is equity in their principle residence. Property taxes are one of the key areas that wealth is taxed, not income, arguably some of that wealth is likely sheltered by "working farmsteads" etc. But this is wealth that is hit with taxes to some extent every year. 5.1% is in liquid assets... bank acounts, csv of life insurance, money market fund. All wealth that is in the money supply. 26.9% is in corporate stock. 49% is in unincorporated business assets. I would argue that only the government can distribute wealth, so that 34% was earned. Some portion of it was taxed since this is an accumulation of earnings. It really appears to me, that the wealth of even the top 1% is active in the economy, and creating value and economic growth. Your problem seems to hinge on the fact that they still hold possesion to a good deal of the wealth that they earned. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Maybe a joke? A chutingstar patch was being advertised for 40 bucks at one point. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

If you don't like my sources please feel free to provide refuting data from the sites that you feel are independent. I provided a secondary source that was based on US census data on property ownership and living conditions for the relative poor that I thought was interesting and relevant. Can you please tell me what your definition of poor is? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I did bring something to the discussion, you made the claim that fiscal responsibility is not possible because of the distribution of wealth. 93% in the top 20%. What is the break down of that 93%? Where is that money residing? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Source: Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003 "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

So 93% of those funds are in 100% reserved bank accounts, and under extra plush California king mattresses. Totally out of circulation. The more I hear your arguments the more I think you are bitter and jealous toward others, especial others with more than you, because you fell on hard times "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

You hold a great deal more than other members of the human race. By your logic the rich deserve to fund these initiatives, with no expense to you because you are of a lower station in life. I think the actual poor of the world deserve some of your resources too, since you are in a much better position than they are. You don't see any irony of cheerleading social programs and tax increases, on some one elses dime? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

This is a tough question for me to anwser. I thought that she should be able to wear a tux if she wanted to. Then I thought about the reverse, that I wouldn't want a guy wearing a dress in his school picture for any reason. This is an obvious double standard. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

That would not be sufficient evidence to support your assertion. So the fact that poverty is still a problem isn't enough evidence to prove that the programs to eliminate it aren't effective? I'm sure we can get it spelled out in a neon sign for you if you'd like. 1969: ~12.5% 2007: ~12.5% I haven't seen the numbers for 08 and 09, but I'm willing to bet they're higher. So, at best, no change. At worst, the poverty rate is higher. I think it is important to note that we are talking about "relative poverty". You can have a car, a house, a tv, and food on the table and still be considered "poor". Most individuals that are considered poor in the U.S are living very well compared to the poor in less industrialized nations, and are living very well compared to the poor from several decades ago. Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm (based on census and other government primary sources). We should tax our poor, and give to the worse off in the world. In my opinion the worst off individuals in the "poor" category are in that condition because they have no individuals working (for what ever reason), or they have no father figure in the household. Damn evil corporations, enticing all of these scumbag men to leave these families. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

OK, what then is the impact of another 1 trillion of government spending on the overall economy? I would like to understand what your concept of its economic impact is if it is: A. Financed through additional international borrowing. B. Financed through government increase in the money supply. C. Financed through corporate and individual tax increases? If we are discussing the impact on a individual level please explain how most are insulated from all of the different economic impacts of the increased spending? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Ok, so that is your opinion, lets even say your respected opinion. This leaves me to wonder why. What is the negative effect of neon? The negative effect is that you sell less freebags and RPC's. Duh!! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I have a 4 year old LG phone that refuses to die. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

this is the big disconnect with a lot of people - your basics of how government work are not compatible with how individuals operate - but if you really feel this way, you should provide perspective: 1 - government doesn't cost anything - we can always print the money we need to do anything we want - or borrow it - it won't have any effect on the economy or on individuals 2 - any debt we accrue outside the nation doesn't have to be paid back 3 - taxes/fees/etc have zero financial implications and are strictly a means of social engineering 4 - money is meaningless seriously - the impression is that one of these is your starting point for most of your discussions. which one? or something else? If the government takes more money from you, can you really argue that you will jump less? etc less? etc? It is a complete disconnect from reality. Taxes and fees are real money, especially when they are coming from middle class citizens that work very hard to keep their head above water. Inflation is a real factor that impacts all the individuals in an economy. The value of your currency has a actual impact on your wealth. Money has to come from some where. If you borrow it you increase the federal defecit, which in the long have an impact all of the players in the economy, big and small. If you print it you further devalue the US dollar, and that has an impact on every person in the economy. Or you can take it from some one else, take it from the "rich". So who is rich? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Remind us what personal choices the four month old infant made. Don't be facitious, we all know that parents make choices for minors. These parent's made the choice to drop their employer's group health insurance plan because adding new member on the policy would increase their premiums by 40% or so. Now lets put aside the fact that a 40% increase due to an additional plan member, 3 plan members instead of 2, a 33% increase in the amount of individuals coveraged, sounds like a very reasonable increase. The parents would have to live with the financial impact that their choice of leaving a gap in coverage might result in. It was the parent's bad financial choice, and they would have financial reprecussions for the bad planning, but don't tell me for one minute that you actually beleive that this would result in a lack of care for this child. Stupid parents! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Please tell me for what period of time did Microsoft hold off on declaring dividends. There were no dividends, so E&P stayed with the company and didn't move, right? This is a seperate concept from the unrealized gain you have with an appreciated security which is realized when you sell it. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Hi Mr. Pot, care to contribute instead of resorting to personal attacks. I can't wait to hear how you also figured all the variables to this current economic cycle in such a short period of time.

I think you already said it earlier in this thread. Taxes and user fees are government revenue. As you have already pointed out, it is the governments revenue. Tax payers are not subsidizing private industry, they are providing tax revenue to the government, and all connection between the taxpayer and the ultimate destination is moot. Your opinion about how future revenue is spent is irrelevant. It is the government revenue, they should spend it as they see fit without regard to the opinions of the contributors. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I agree I am glad you agree that making everything partisan is stupid. Especially since one major cause of this partisan BS is half cocked threads by self proclaimed economists that have beat all the real economists to the finish line and have already figured out all of the cause and effects relationships of this economic cycle. You should sit on a school board. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Tell that to the shareholders of Microsoft. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

You must be an economic master, unmatched in your time, to be able to have this economic cycle figured out already. Please let me know in a few years if this was a jobless recovery or not when all the data is back. This rush to make everything partisan is beyond stupid! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I was talking about your claimed partisan economy that has operated completely free of democrat intervention or participation for all this time. And of course the alternate parallel economy that all of the democrats have been existing in while avoiding the evil other one. The correct term is bizzaro, but I supposed we could coin a new phrase and name it after you professor. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P