Swipe to go to another post.
Very interesting way of turning it around, it's funny.
I reckon that is part of the gap. Those with money to invest view the economy in terms of the market. Those with little or no money to invest view the economy in terms of jobs and income.
Lots of jobs right now. Income...meh....
As far as being a commie? Why would anyone think that? Because you gave 100 dollars away?
The tax cut gave those with a bundle of disposable income, much more to invest. While those with little got enough to....well...with everything having gone up in price,...enough to still struggle.
What's the ism that ensures the rich get richer and the poor work three jobs to get by?
I think that's call historyism. It exists in every society no matter the economic system and has for all of human history. JMHO. :)
Yes. I reckon so. It's just that the gap gets wider and our fearless leaders seem to be financing the heavy equipment.:)
That's true, the rich get richer and the poor try to survive.
I don't judge people on what they spend their money on. Because it's their money. :)
I hope not! I have added to my retirement fund over the years, and I've also given to the poor. Neither of these investments should earn me a label.
Yeah. Commie 4ever
If you voluntarily give money to the poor, that's not communism, it's charity. Socialism would be taking that money from someone else to give to the poor, and under communism everyone is equally poor, so you wouldn't be in a position to give.
... except the elite. THEY still have plenty of wealth, because they get to decide how much to take from everybody else and who gets it.
Yes, in socialist countries the elite are the party insiders, and they literally do get to decide how much to take from everybody and who gets it. As much sway as capitalist elites have, nobody is forced to do business with them.
Depends on how you define "socialism".
I'm going by the behavior of self-described socialist governments.
Nobody calls me a commie and I give to the poor, voluntarily. The "Commie" label applies when the government takes it from people to give it to others.
Obviously, a mere $100 is not going to boost the market. But if you replace that amount with an amount that would boost the market, and then compare people spending a like amount on food and clothing...their spending would boost the market as well, as corporations would then report higher earnings, making their stock more desirable, as well as by raising both consumer and investor confidence along with the economy.
Also, the investor has several investment options. They could invest in companies raising capital for expansion, which would put more money into the economy through purchasing goods and services to effect the expansion, job creation and the resulting increase in spending by those workers, as well as increased taxes, both corporate and individual. They may also simply play the stock market casino, buying stock in existing companies not planning expansion. Either way, they then initially have a zero sum accounting entry where cash goes down and investments go up. Whether that results in a net gain or loss would remain to be seen. However, the person whose stock they bought may reinvest in other existing stocks, or cash out and bank or spend it, they may invest it in a new or expanding company, etc. Since few people handle their own stock transactions, brokers are generally getting their cut on both sides of a transaction. And while they do invest their own money too, they also spend (likely the bulk of) their earnings, paying the bills, buying goods and services, etc.
Point being, it's not as simplistic - or as evil - as you make it out to be. It is actually quite complex, with many variables that are in constant flux. One identical action performed by two individuals at precisely the same moment may, and most likely will, result in completely different outcomes. There are a myriad of factors and outcomes can never be predetermined, but merely speculated.
Now, were that truly a "commie" doing the giving, it would only be to those within the party's elite. And if someone from the multitudes said such a thing, they'd likely end up in a cell and/or a re-education camp where they learned to speak of glowingly of the Communist Party or The Party. Otherwise it's just an epithet thrown around a bit too freely by people in countries that haven't ever experienced communism.
You'll get no argument from me. But I do think that if you give tax money to banks, oil companies, railroads and agribusiness it is not called communism by the pundits, it is called "stimulus". If you give the same amount of money to the lowest income consumers (who will spend every penny the next week) it will be called [wrongly] communism - it is in fact socialism in both cases.
It is called "stimulus", regardless of who the recipients are, though I can only recall such being given to taxpayers once.
I actually understand the reasoning behind not wanting to give citizens stimulus money. And I disagree with giving businesses stimulus money, particularly transnationals and financial institutions.
Regarding the use of "communism" and "socialism" for any program that benefits citizens who neither prepay into the program or later pay it off (such as a student loan), I mostly hear it dubbed "socialism", though many will say that socialism leads to communism.
Many will say that, but we know they are mistaken.
Socialism and communism do have distinct differences, but also similarities. By definition. Yet most countries we consider communist today, as well as some in the past, self-identify/identified as "socialist".
who is Richer?
those who paid a ticket to have some great memories
or those who are making the music?
depends one'spoint of view
Climax Blues Band
they pay taxes to
working hard .... Chasing Change
Vic, you know what makes the USA great as a CAPITILIST country, is that you nutty "progressive" minded SOCIALISTS who became wealthy under our CAPITILIST country, CAN voluntarily FORK OVER 99% of your OWN wealth to the liberal causes that you all SUPPOSEDLY believe in....eh but you all don't..... INSTEAD you wealthy nuts on the fart left WANT to elect your fellow wealthy "progressive" POLITICIANS for them to impose even higher taxes on the WORKING Middle Class families in the USA, smh.
Why haven't all the ridiculously wealthy HOLLYWEIRD "progressive" nuts (becoming wealthy in our 'evil' CAPITALIST country) who became wealthy for ONLY being able to ACT or sing, who now feel BRAVE to "come out" as SOCIALISTS.. WHY haven't THEY as millionaires/billionaires having a Socialist mindset while living in the USA, voluntarily forked over 99% of THEIR own million/billion dollar wealth to go towards the liberal/progressive causes they SUPPOSEDLY believe in??
Bloomberg, Oprah, Zuckerberg etc. who are all "progressives".... ALL have a personal net worth EACH in the BILLIONS of dollars, yet they as "progressive" BILLIONAIRES support DEMOCRAT politicians/Democrat candidates who want to "spread the wealth"....whereas THEY as BILLIONAIRES themselves, who supposedly care about their liberal causes, do not VOLUNTARILY fork over 99% of THEIR OWN personal wealth to fund the causes that they as "progressives" SUPPOSEDLY care about...hmm why is that?
Good question, did you ask them, or are you just ranting here?
Oh please Vic, you know DAMN WELL that you and your supposed "tolerant of ALL/progressive" ilk, only agree to go on National TV/RADIO to spew your Liberal rhetoric/talking points/nonsense ONLY IF those who disagree with you AGREEE to sign a NOTORIZED legal document that states that they will eventually AGREE with your OPINIONS lol!!
I have to admire your reactionary stance, it is so well played.
The questions posed are flawed!
Why in the world would I give any money to a rich person? And I wouldn't be applauded - I would be called a fool.
And, if I gave money to a poor person, no one would call me a commie! Charitable giving is not typical of communists.
I think that the OP has simply failed in his presentation - an feeble swipe at capitalism vs communism.
Think what you want.
Not everyone is capable of understanding parables.
You left out an important middle man in your parable, Vic, namely the politician who passes tax laws that force me to give $100 to the poor person.
And of course the politician does this not so much because he is a commie, but because he is buying the poor person's vote in order to stay in power.
Motivation notwithstanding, the principles behind investment versus consumption are the point. Poor people spend their income thus stimulating growth from demand , rich people invest which is supposed to stimulate supply, the problem is if there is no money at the bottom with which to purchase the supply we get layoffs that exacerbate the problem. Stock markets go up at first but then they self correct. It has happened every time there is a major tax cut.
Of course there is a correction; there always are corrections, even when there isn't a tax cut.
The question is, would the sub-par economic growth have been needlessly prolonged without the cut?
And of course, there are political motivations for tax cuts, just as there are for increasing entitlement spending, either by increasing taxes or (more likely) by increasing the debt.
I would really like to agree with you, but as you pointed out before - tax cuts do a great job of increasing debt.
Not sure what you consider sub-par growth but I personally was happy with the growth for the Obama era and very disappointed with the contraction at the end of Bush's.
Sub-par is the 2% per annum growth we saw with Obama, as opposed to the 3% average over the last 75 years or so.
And the contraction we saw under Bush was mostly caused by the real-estate bubble that had its origins under Bill Clinton, when mortgage loans to large numbers of non-creditworthy individuals were made possible (out of 'fairness', don'tcha know).
Along the way, the banking committee gurus in the Senate and House, liberal Democrats Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, assured us that everything was just hunky-dory with these new regulations, not to worry.
(Both since retired, on fat pensions.)
Think, you are the smartest Fairy I know!
[And, I actually know a few! Really nice - you would like them.]
Thank you, Bud, you're too kind.
I'm sure I would like the fairies that you know.
I was warned about people like you;
Romans 16:17-20 ESV
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
And also with you.
Coming from a man that that believes only that Jesus was a man in history, and nothing more, kind of deflates any possible intention you may have had to be nice and actually makes it feel like you are mocking me and my faith.
I bother to point this out not with the hope that you will change - that ship has sailed. No, I point it out only to make sure you know that I am fully aware of what an empty vessel you really are. That your clever 'turn of phrase' is not at all clever but instead an indictment of your insincerity.
Not merely a man in history, my hero, and the only man I seek to emulate in my daily life.
May he be an example to all.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2018. Icons by DryIcons.