Austerity Doesn’t Work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Women whose birth control fails, women who can’t get abortions when they find out they’re 10 weeks pregnant, women stuck with children from deadbeat dads.

Oh, and people who define their quality of life differently from you. If they arent living in a Langley HS pyramid can they afford to have children by your definition? What about the federal employees who built their lives around serving the public for crap pay that were fired, can they ”afford” to withstand this sh*tshow of an administration and the economic and political instability being created? Or is that par for the course?

You may have money, but your thinking reflects a poverty mindset.

DP. Your odd response makes no sense to why a woman would have MULTIPLE children when she can’t feed herself or even one.

She had that many Ooopsie/?
Ooopsie forgot BC -failed again, Oooopsie out of wedlock how’d that happen, Oooopsie unprotected sex and no period for two months, Ooopsie missed the Plan B timeframe again, Oooopsie can’t figure out how to cross state lines on a bus, Oooopsie how does this keep happening to me 2,3,4x?, Oooopsie back to the SSA office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Actually the answer in all sociology classes and studies is that the un/underemployed single woman “wants to feel needed” so has a baby with a non-spouse. And then another. And another.
The fatherless welfare children are then “raised” by the maternal grandmother or aunt.

the real issue isn’t too many kids—it’s too little justice and too much wealth protection for the rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Women whose birth control fails, women who can’t get abortions when they find out they’re 10 weeks pregnant, women stuck with children from deadbeat dads.

Oh, and people who define their quality of life differently from you. If they arent living in a Langley HS pyramid can they afford to have children by your definition? What about the federal employees who built their lives around serving the public for crap pay that were fired, can they ”afford” to withstand this sh*tshow of an administration and the economic and political instability being created? Or is that par for the course?

You may have money, but your thinking reflects a poverty mindset.

DP. Your odd response makes no sense to why a woman would have MULTIPLE children when she can’t feed herself or even one.

She had that many Ooopsie/?
Ooopsie forgot BC -failed again, Oooopsie out of wedlock how’d that happen, Oooopsie unprotected sex and no period for two months, Ooopsie missed the Plan B timeframe again, Oooopsie can’t figure out how to cross state lines on a bus, Oooopsie how does this keep happening to me 2,3,4x?, Oooopsie back to the SSA office.

First, let’s clarify: not all poverty is the result of “oopsies.”
• Nearly half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, but that includes those within marriage, long-term relationships, and among working parents.
• Birth control failure rates (even with proper use) are real. 9% of pill users and 13% of condom users will experience unintended pregnancy annually.
• Access to abortion and Plan B is limited by income, geography, laws, and logistics—not everyone can “just get it handled.”

Secondly, life circumstances change. A family may have been stable at one point—then hit by job loss, illness, divorce, or inflation. It’s not linear. Poverty is often episodic, not permanent.

Third, judgment about reproduction often ignores how wealth and support structures buffer risk. Wealthy people can afford to make mistakes. Poorer people are penalized for having the same human vulnerabilities.

The issue isn’t irresponsibility. It’s that our society doesn’t offer a floor:
• We’re the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid leave or universal child care.
• SNAP, WIC, and TANF are underfunded, restricted, and often politically demonized.

That’s the real disconnect between wealth and wading theough the waters. If we cared as much about supporting kids as we do about blaming parents, this wouldn’t be a recurring debate.

So no, it’s not always “Ooopsie #4.” Sometimes it’s life, loss, or love—followed by a system that says, “you’re on your own.” That same system FAVORS wealthy families with other “govt policies” disproportionately.

This has been discussed ad nauseam.

Which is why the PP summed it up correctly with the fiest comment:

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals that American jobs don't pay living wages, it reveals that we have too much greed in our system with not enough oversight and cost control, which has made things like housing, healthcare costs, utility bills and other things that put that pain on people. Housing costs have spiraled out of control, with investors buying huge amounts of housing stock, new housing construction costs continue to increase disproportionately, and so on, with very little private sector innovation or initiative to drive any of that down.

Likewise healthcare costs, there's no legitimate reason why for example an MRI scan should cost over $1000 in the US when in most other countries it costs less than $150. It's the same piece of equipment, same procedure, same level of training. An appendectomy in the US costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. A c-section delivery costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. Same with colonoscopies, and many other routine procedures. And why does a prescription for Lantus cost $300 a month in the US when it's only $50 in places like Japan, or why does Xarelto cost $450 in the US and only $90 or less elsewhere, and so on? We lack price controls, we don't negotiate, we have a broken and fragmented healthcare system that is full of rampant inefficiencies that drives bloat everywhere.

You are presuming to lecture from an obvious position of wealth privilege, completely out of touch with what the rest of America is struggling with right now. You'd be better off shutting your mouth and listening more than presuming to try and lecture us with your ignorance.

Spoken like someone who had children they can't afford, and who looks to the government to support their choices instead of to themselves. Why should your bad choices be a burden on the rest of us? Personal responsibility is a concept which evidently eludes you.

Non-sequitur response. You are not actually responding to anything in the previous post, at all. Where did it say anything about "I can't afford to feed my kids?" You sound like a weird propaganda bot. Either that or you have nothing but a juvenile attitude, a flailing debate style, and a lack of sufficiently robust talking points.

Looks like you have only a rant, and not a persuasive argument. People get the wages the market offers them for their particular skills and efforts. Why should higher-earning people subsidize those earning less?

When the wealthy are in a position of power to lobby for the import of cheap labor (ie h!b) what should college educated people do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals that American jobs don't pay living wages, it reveals that we have too much greed in our system with not enough oversight and cost control, which has made things like housing, healthcare costs, utility bills and other things that put that pain on people. Housing costs have spiraled out of control, with investors buying huge amounts of housing stock, new housing construction costs continue to increase disproportionately, and so on, with very little private sector innovation or initiative to drive any of that down.

Likewise healthcare costs, there's no legitimate reason why for example an MRI scan should cost over $1000 in the US when in most other countries it costs less than $150. It's the same piece of equipment, same procedure, same level of training. An appendectomy in the US costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. A c-section delivery costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. Same with colonoscopies, and many other routine procedures. And why does a prescription for Lantus cost $300 a month in the US when it's only $50 in places like Japan, or why does Xarelto cost $450 in the US and only $90 or less elsewhere, and so on? We lack price controls, we don't negotiate, we have a broken and fragmented healthcare system that is full of rampant inefficiencies that drives bloat everywhere.

You are presuming to lecture from an obvious position of wealth privilege, completely out of touch with what the rest of America is struggling with right now. You'd be better off shutting your mouth and listening more than presuming to try and lecture us with your ignorance.

Spoken like someone who had children they can't afford, and who looks to the government to support their choices instead of to themselves. Why should your bad choices be a burden on the rest of us? Personal responsibility is a concept which evidently eludes you.

Non-sequitur response. You are not actually responding to anything in the previous post, at all. Where did it say anything about "I can't afford to feed my kids?" You sound like a weird propaganda bot. Either that or you have nothing but a juvenile attitude, a flailing debate style, and a lack of sufficiently robust talking points.

Looks like you have only a rant, and not a persuasive argument. People get the wages the market offers them for their particular skills and efforts. Why should higher-earning people subsidize those earning less?

When the wealthy are in a position of power to lobby for the import of cheap labor (ie h!b) what should college educated people do?

When the wealthiest 1% gets their way over the objections and suffering of the 99% (including the college educated folks cheated out of software jobs by imported Indian labor) then you know the system is rigged and that the oligarchs control it. And that it NEEDS TO CHANGE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post that Hayek Keynes rap video?

This 2010 hit—created by John Papola and economist Russ Roberts—depicts Keynes (Billy Scafuri) and Hayek (Adam Lustick) in a playful yet rigorous rap “battle” over boom-and-bust economic cycles. The original:

The official sequel (released April 2011) revisits the debate in the context of the Great Recession, exploring stimulus versus free‑market responses:

Government Spending
Keynes’ View: Stimulate demand via fiscal policy (spend more!)
Hayek’s View: Leads to misallocation; distorts natural cycles

Recessions
Keynes’ View: Result from a lack of demand
Hayek’s View: Result from prior malinvestments (bad credit)

Markets
Keynes’ View: Can fail without intervention
Hayek’s View: Self-correcting if left alone

Boom-Bust Cycles
Keynes’ View: Need smoothing via central policy
Hayek’s View: Booms are the problem, not just the busts

Role of Government
Keynes’ View: Active—“in the driver’s seat”
Hayek’s View: Passive—“humble and limited”

There are some issues on both sides - Hayek's models assume a level playing field, but reality is not so simple and there are entrenched power structures in the private sector, in banking, in government, and many other places. Monopolies keep popping up, which drives inequalities and leaves the regular citizen worse off.

Keynes also has some flaws but at least he recognized that markets often don't self-correct quickly enough. Ideally one would use a mix - Keynesian approaches during downturns and challenging times to protect jobs and services, and Hayek's discipline during boom times to avoid reckless spending and inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. We know balancing the budget doesn’t work by giving them tax breaks.

The last time we had a balanced budget and indeed a surplus, it was after they passed a capital gains tax cut.

Correction, Treasury is reporting a surplus in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please show the math on how you would balance the US budget by only taxing the rich, with zero cuts to spending.

Hint: you can't. There aren't enough rich people.

Trump is just as bad as any democrat when it comes to spending.

[Anonymous]

We need to implement more taxes on the rich (myself included) and the corporations, AND cut government spending.

Nobody wants to do this because each party only wants to implement one of them and not the other. This is why it hasn't been done.

But it NEEDS to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Actually the answer in all sociology classes and studies is that the un/underemployed single woman “wants to feel needed” so has a baby with a non-spouse. And then another. And another.
The fatherless welfare children are then “raised” by the maternal grandmother or aunt.

the real issue isn’t too many kids—it’s too little justice and too much wealth protection for the rich

Yeah! That’ll fix those non-parenting parents who were never parented themselves!

[Anonymous]

Take a look at Europe's tax rates. I suspect many of the 'tax the rich, including me' Dems aren't willing to pay that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals that American jobs don't pay living wages, it reveals that we have too much greed in our system with not enough oversight and cost control, which has made things like housing, healthcare costs, utility bills and other things that put that pain on people. Housing costs have spiraled out of control, with investors buying huge amounts of housing stock, new housing construction costs continue to increase disproportionately, and so on, with very little private sector innovation or initiative to drive any of that down.

Likewise healthcare costs, there's no legitimate reason why for example an MRI scan should cost over $1000 in the US when in most other countries it costs less than $150. It's the same piece of equipment, same procedure, same level of training. An appendectomy in the US costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. A c-section delivery costs 3-4x more in the US than it does anywhere else. Same with colonoscopies, and many other routine procedures. And why does a prescription for Lantus cost $300 a month in the US when it's only $50 in places like Japan, or why does Xarelto cost $450 in the US and only $90 or less elsewhere, and so on? We lack price controls, we don't negotiate, we have a broken and fragmented healthcare system that is full of rampant inefficiencies that drives bloat everywhere.

You are presuming to lecture from an obvious position of wealth privilege, completely out of touch with what the rest of America is struggling with right now. You'd be better off shutting your mouth and listening more than presuming to try and lecture us with your ignorance.

Spoken like someone who had children they can't afford, and who looks to the government to support their choices instead of to themselves. Why should your bad choices be a burden on the rest of us? Personal responsibility is a concept which evidently eludes you.

Non-sequitur response. You are not actually responding to anything in the previous post, at all. Where did it say anything about "I can't afford to feed my kids?" You sound like a weird propaganda bot. Either that or you have nothing but a juvenile attitude, a flailing debate style, and a lack of sufficiently robust talking points.

Looks like you have only a rant, and not a persuasive argument. People get the wages the market offers them for their particular skills and efforts. Why should higher-earning people subsidize those earning less?

When the wealthy are in a position of power to lobby for the import of cheap labor (ie h!b) what should college educated people do?

The “wealthy” and “college educated” can continue to do nothing.

Chain migration + cash black market jobs + $billions remittances = cheap labor flooding in all the time

Plus no contractors look at what their subcontractors are hiring or doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at Europe's tax rates. I suspect many of the 'tax the rich, including me' Dems aren't willing to pay that.

If it got us healthcare and the other things, yes we would.

But why even aim so high? We ran budget surpluses under Clinton with tax rates only a few percent higher than what we're paying now. The Bush and Trump tax cuts did in fact push us deep into deficit and add trillions to our debt. To claim raising taxes a few percent would either be so onerously bad that everyone would rebel and freak out, and/or that it wouldn't make any difference to the debt is just plain wrong, given actual history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please show the math on how you would balance the US budget by only taxing the rich, with zero cuts to spending.

Hint: you can't. There aren't enough rich people.

There are. Let’s start with Musk, Zuckerberg, Andreeson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please show the math on how you would balance the US budget by only taxing the rich, with zero cuts to spending.

Hint: you can't. There aren't enough rich people.

There are. Let’s start with Musk, Zuckerberg, Andreeson.

And Trump. Earlier in this thread someone brought up "austerity" in Greece and a big part of the solution turned out to be actually going after tax cheats.