View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whether it is my decision, mandated by the labor market, or required by the gov., the economics of hiring decisions are exactly the same.
If the gov. does it there can be a huge benefit for me in the long run.
My clients would have more money to spend. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | My clients would have more money to spend. |
That may be true if the majority of your clients are minimum wage workers. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you put millions in the hands of low wage consumers, they spend it.
The store where they buy concentrates that money and turns around and buys more stuff. That ten dollar bill is spent dozens of times moving from hand to hand.
The middle class benefits and buys my products and services.
Trickle down my ass. Money moves up from consumers and aggregates.
Reducing taxes on the 1% puts money in the hands of rich people.
This just adds to the pile they have in overseas accounts with no discernible effect on us down in the trenches. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kc, your assumption/theory only works if the needy have no debt. Most have debt, serious debt, so that money goes to where you didn't consider, paying back the man, IOW, most of it goes *poof*. But don't worry, your are not alone in that thinking. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even when you are in debt to the store, the economics are exactly the same.
Putting money in the hands of consumers to pay bills is an economic boost.
The money is spent by the debt holders in the same way.
I deal with welfare folks and they mostly do not qualify for credit.
I investigate their histories before I consider them as clients. I have seen perhaps a thousand. They all owed several hundred sums in more than one place,but not thousands.
Their big debts are usually medical bills.
Americans with big debts are mainly in the middle class because they can get credit and loans .
I look at their financial reports too both as a landlord and because I finance the lots I sell.
I have middle class friends with debts far beyond those a welfare person would be allowed to run up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
keycocker wrote: | Trickle down my ass. . |
Dude, that's gross! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
nitwit30 wrote: | kc, your assumption/theory only works if the needy have no debt. Most have debt, serious debt, so that money goes to where you didn't consider, paying back the man, IOW, most of it goes *poof*. But don't worry, your are not alone in that thinking. |
You really think that?
You think that a mother with crying, hungry kids, who all of a sudden has $100 in hand, will pay a debt instead of buying food for the family?
If you think that, then your crazy bubble is full of hallucinogenic right-wing gas. You're light-years away from reality.
Study Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Low end dollars cycle through the economy at a very high rate. Whereas high end tax cuts, like the 2003 variety usually benefit the investor class. The hedge fund industry currently has $2.7 TR in assets, an all time high. Once again NW is dead wrong, Marc Zandi has written on welfare multiplier being at 1.5x...high end tax cuts at .3x. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And from today's news--Paul Ryan puts out a budget that would cut $5.1 trillion from Federal spending. Balance the budget by cutting benefits for the poor. The same Paul Ryan whose family made money on government road contracts.
War on the poor? Not really, just making sure that the rich keep paying for your campaigns. The poor don't vote as often. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | And from today's news--Paul Ryan puts out a budget that would cut $5.1 trillion from Federal spending. Balance the budget by cutting benefits for the poor. The same Paul Ryan whose family made money on government road contracts.
War on the poor? Not really, just making sure that the rich keep paying for your campaigns. The poor don't vote as often. |
And Sarah Palin said that PR's budget was "a joke."
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|