Why does the United States need "the biggest jobs program since World War II"?

[homersapien 12,172]

52 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You lack BASIC comprehension skills. 

That doesn't say very much for Auburn University.  

[AURaptor 1,137]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

That doesn't say very much for Auburn University.  

Says much about my i-phone posting. But to the point, if Obama was so awesome with this 2 terms of recovery, we'd not NEED a massive, biggest since WW2 jobs program, now would we ?

And you DO comprehend W H Y the US was so kick ass in the j-o-b-s department, after WW2, right ? 

Japan was obliterated. Europe was rubble. Russia was razed to the ground. Every potential , former and conceivable world power was destroyed. 

 

Save for one - The USA.  It was a no-lose scenario ! The US was the ONLY game in town, industrially speaking . 

 

So, what in the hell is Hillary trying to say ? 

[homersapien 12,172]

Keynesian economics

A school of economic thought founded by the UK economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and developed by his followers. In 1936, at the height of the great depression, Keynes' landmark book The General Theory Of Employment, Interest And Money caused a paradigm shift for economics: it suddenly replaced their emphasis on study of the economic behavior of individuals and companies(microeconomics) to the study of the behavior of the economy as a whole (macroeconomics).

The main plank of his revolutionary theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy.

This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment.  Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. Their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world-over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near-full employment through measures (such as deficit spending) that stimulate aggregate demand. See also classical economics, neo-classical Economics, new classical economics and supply side economics.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Keynesian-economics.html

Let's try to start with a common basis to discuss the subject. For once.

I am neither an expert or an advocate of Keynesian theory, but I would like to hear you dismantle it assuming you are so inclined.

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 12,172]

13 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Says much about my i-phone posting. But to the point, if Obama was so awesome with this 2 terms of recovery, we'd not NEED a massive, biggest since WW2 jobs program, now would we ?

And you DO comprehend W H Y the US was so kick ass in the j-o-b-s department, after WW2, right ? Japan was obliterated. Europe was rubble. Russia was razed to the ground. Every potential , former and conceivable world power was destroyed. Save for one - The USA.  It was a no-lose scenario ! The US was the ONLY game in town, industrially speaking . So, what in the hell is Hillary trying to say ? 

What do you mean by that?

[AURaptor 1,137]

My iphone posts are limited in details, explanation, ... fret not. Just enjoy a happy Summer August night. 

[Guest NC1406]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Keynesian economics

A school of economic thought founded by the UK economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and developed by his followers. In 1936, at the height of the great depression, Keynes' landmark book The General Theory Of Employment, Interest And Money caused a paradigm shift for economics: it suddenly replaced their emphasis on study of the economic behavior of individuals and companies(microeconomics) to the study of the behavior of the economy as a whole (macroeconomics).

The main plank of his revolutionary theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy.

This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment.  Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. Their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world-over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near-full employment through measures (such as deficit spending) that stimulate aggregate demand. See also classical economics, neo-classical Economics, new classical economics and supply side economics.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Keynesian-economics.html

Let's try to start with a common basis to discuss the subject. For once.

I am neither an expert or an advocate of Keynesian theory, but I would like to hear you dismantle it assuming you are so inclined.

 

 

 

 

keynasian theory says the government will take care of me. I don't trust them. Do you trust trump?  Oh how about hill?  

[homersapien 12,172]

3 hours ago, NC1406 said:

keynasian theory says the government will take care of me. I don't trust them. Do you trust trump?  Oh how about hill?  

Are you having a seizure?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

We need a refocus on practical skills, e.g Hvac, appliance repair, plumbing, etc. and an investment in infrastructure. If you disagree with that, not sure what to tell ya.

[Mikey 16,781]

Why does the United States need "the biggest jobs program since World War II"?

 

Obviously, so Hillary can throw billions to her Democrat crony supporters, just like Obama did with the "shovel ready" deception.

[TheBlueVue 177]

16 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Income is not how "wealth" is measured.  The capital gains rate is 15%.  $200,000.00?  Who said it wasn't enough?  How much income are we talking about?

Any more inane questions?  Feel free.

One quesiotn..why didn't you qualify who the super wealthy are?. Long term capital gains are 15%, while short term rate can be as high as 40% but I know you dont want to be reminded of that. I figured 20% is a close approximation of what a lot end up with. 

For short-term gains, the capital gains tax rate is your ordinary income tax rate, which could be in the 33% to 40% range if you're a high earner. (For most of us, it will be 25% or maybe 28%.)

If paying even 15% on your long-term capital gains seems unpleasant, buck up -- because you don't always have to pay it.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/14/long-term-capital-gains-tax-rates-in-2016.aspx

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

12 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

One quesiotn..why didn't you qualify who the super wealthy are?. Long term capital gains are 15%, while short term rate can be as high as 40% but I know you dont want to be reminded of that. I figured 20% is a close approximation of what a lot end up with. 

For short-term gains, the capital gains tax rate is your ordinary income tax rate, which could be in the 33% to 40% range if you're a high earner. (For most of us, it will be 25% or maybe 28%.)

If paying even 15% on your long-term capital gains seems unpleasant, buck up -- because you don't always have to pay it.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/12/14/long-term-capital-gains-tax-rates-in-2016.aspx

 

Are you feigning stupidity or, are you genuine?  Think about what "generational wealth" means.  Now, if you understand, you will realize that the short-term rate is not a factor.

Your question is inane.

[TheBlueVue 177]

30 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Are you feigning stupidity or, are you genuine?  Think about what "generational wealth" means.  Now, if you understand, you will realize that the short-term rate is not a factor.

Your question is inane.

It would be inane if you hadn't used "super wealthy"as those who only pay capital gains rate but you did and you still haven't qualified who they are. I understand generational wealth quite well. I also understand there are some really rich folks who in the grand scheme of things are actually small potatoes when compared to super rich people. What is the wealth threshold you've used in your statement?

It would also be nice if you would specify if they're trust babies or still working. I mean lets get specific shall we?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

6 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

It would be inane if you hadn't used "super wealthy"as those who only pay capital gains rate but you did and you still haven't qualified who they are. I understand generational wealth quite well. I also understand there are some really rich folks who in the grand scheme of things are actually small potatoes when compared to super rich people. What is the wealth threshold you've used in your statement?

When you consider that the world is a dynamic place and, the implications of trusts and foundations, that becomes a very difficult question to answer.  At this point, I would have to say that the "super wealthy" would be those who's total assets put them in the top .2% of all Americans (the academic world suggest, .1%). 

FTR, I do not favor laws that discourage the accumulation of "generational wealth".  However, I also do not favor legislation that ensures it, entrenches it, empowers it.  I believe the extreme concentration of wealth skews the relative values of capital and labor.  It leads to further distortion because, it favors further concentration of wealth.  It becomes a self-defeating cycle for the economy as the broad ability to consume is diminished.

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

When you consider that the world is a dynamic place and, the implications of trusts and foundations, that becomes a very difficult question to answer.  At this point, I would have to say that the "super wealthy" would be those who's total assets put them in the top .2% of all Americans (the academic world suggest, .1%). 

FTR, I do not favor laws that discourage the accumulation of "generational wealth".  However, I also do not favor legislation that ensures it, entrenches it, empowers it.  I believe the extreme concentration of wealth skews the relative values of capital and labor.  It leads to further distortion because, it favors further concentration of wealth.  It becomes a self-defeating cycle for the economy as the broad ability to consume is diminished.

That's a lot of splainin but it really makes no distinction that is concrete. Who are there top .1 or 2%ers?  It seems to me to be another of your much ado about nothing posts. The larger point Im trying to make is punishing rich people will NOT solve our financial dilemma, increase employment nor drive the GDP. So, what's it all about? Why worry about people who have experienced success in their life? Confiscating all of their wealth wouldn't solve a single damn problem we face as a country.

As long as our current tax code exists, rich people will have the resources to minimize their tax liability and they should. What most people ignore including you is that Obama's policies have benefited the ultra rich more than any President in recent history. Who do you think benefits the most from virtual ZERO interest rates..capital or labor? The itense concentration of wealth in America right now is worse than it was with the "robber barons" at the turn of the 20th century and that's a fact.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Blue  – ' there comes a point where you've made enough money. '

 

That's what it all comes down to. They want the government to determine a limit for how much money a person can make.   But of course there is no limit to how much money the government can spend. How much of OUR money, that is. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

15 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

That's a lot of splainin but it really makes no distinction that is concrete. Who are there top .1 or 2%ers?  It seems to me to be another of your much ado about nothing posts. The larger point Im trying to make is punishing rich people will NOT solve our financial dilemma, increase employment nor drive the GDP. So, what's it all about? Why worry about people who have experienced success in their life? Confiscating all of their wealth wouldn't solve a single damn problem we face as a country.

As long as our current tax code exists, rich people will have the resources to minimize their tax liability and they should. What most people ignore including you is that Obama's policies have benefited the ultra rich more than any President in recent history. Who do you think benefits the most from virtual ZERO interest rates..capital or labor? The itense concentration of wealth in America right now is worse than it was with the "robber barons" at the turn of the 20th century and that's a fact.

Absurdity upon absurdity.  

We have a scoreboard.  We know who is "winning".  No one is "punishing" the wealthy.  No one is advocating "taking all of their wealth".

Absurd you contend that Obama is a source of wealth inequality.  Does he write our tax code?  Certainly doesn't reconcile with your beginning argument.  You are contradicting yourself.  Your desire to have it "both ways" reveals your true motive and, level of understanding.