The truth about the economy in 2 minutes

[Fraggle145]

JTzMqm2TwgE

(So I know this is lefty slanted since it was submitted by moveon.org)

I'm not an economist, obviously. I'M A SCIENTIST!!![hairGel]

But seriously, this seems to make sense to me. What am I missing here? Is this wrong? How so? :confused:

[dynersooner]

youre a shiitty scientist.

[tommieharris91]

in before Nazi George Soros comment

[Fraggle145]

youre a shiitty scientist.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif

:mad:

[picasso]

Is that Robert Reich?

Pass.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Don't listen to him. Youre a great scientist.

[Fraggle145]

Don't listen to him. Youre a great scientist.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif

:D

[85Sooner]

This guy is just a little bit more full of Sh!t than a porta potty. Just about everything he said is just flat intellectually dishonest.

[yermom]

Is that Robert Reich?

Pass.

ad hominem is fun.

is that Picasso?

pass :D

[yermom]

This guy is just a little bit more full of Sh!t than a porta potty. Just about everything he said is just flat intellectually dishonest.

you can't at least come up with a straw man?

[GKeeper316]

it really doesn't take a scientist to know that when the largest economic segment of american society (the middle class) isn't making any money, they aren't spending any money.

but let's keep on bending over backwards to accomodate big business... because they tell us that if we cut thier taxes, more money will go into the economy, forgetting that they've had unprecidented tax breaks over the last 20 years and still drove us into the largest global recession since the great depression.

lower taxes for the rich will fix everything!!!

[picasso]

ad hominem is fun.

is that Picasso?

pass :D

I don't blame you for that. Picasso was a progressive Commie, all the while raking it in from the bourgeois.
Typical eh?:)

[StoopTroup]

If there was a good answer....it would have been in the 1st post after you posted that video

[StoopTroup]

This guy is just a little bit more full of Sh!t than a porta potty. Just about everything he said is just flat intellectually dishonest.
Maybe it needs more lipstick?

ajdRBDuLctk&feature=player_embedded

[StoopTroup]

Mmmmmm.....lipstick....

DLgm1I8bVVE&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[soonerscuba]

This guy is just a little bit more full of Sh!t than a porta potty. Just about everything he said is just flat intellectually dishonest.Is there anything I can do to goad you into OU professor bashing? That is sort of your Stairway to Heaven in terms of board kookery.

[StoopTroup]

Lopsided Lipstick....

GFDlhzj1MRA&feature=player_embedded

[badger]

The truth about the economy in two words: No money.

Or perhaps: Money?! NO!

[soonerscuba]

Works on contingency? No, money down.

[Serenity Now]

Made sense to me. The middle class is disappearing. The rich are getting richer and our taxes are at a 60 year low. If you agree with these things you're a communist...whatever.

[Chuck Bao]

JTzMqm2TwgE

(So I know this is lefty slanted since it was submitted by moveon.org)

I'm not an economist, obviously. I'M A SCIENTIST!!![hairGel]

But seriously, this seems to make sense to me. What am I missing here? Is this wrong? How so? :confused:

This is entirely correct, except that he doesn't mention that tax savings of the rich are not going back into the US economy. It is going overseas and then it escapes future tax revenues through loop holes in our tax policy.

He makes a very point that to strengthen our economy, we have to strengthen our middle class. He doesn't offer a solution to fix that. Honestly, I have no idea about that either.

The very sad thing is that the middle class didn't save. They did the opposite thing and borrowed money to spend. Some even re-mortgaged their houses to pay for unnecessary consumption. Yeah, that was very good for the economy in the short-run, but it is disastrous in the longer term and we are having to deal with that now.

This is tough love, but I think the best solution is to let the economy crash. Let people feel the pain and learn from their mistakes that saving for the future is a very good thing, not only individually but for the whole economy. Thais learned this lesson after the '97 economic crisis and 13-14 years later are finally starting to spend again. Think about our grandparents and great grandparents who went through the Great Depression. That was a life-long lesson for them and they saved and skimped until they died.

Alright, I realize that this would wipe out a very huge part of everyone's retirement funds invested in the stock market. And, those people really should be rewarded for saving instead of spending. But, that is a terrible consequence and I am sorry for that. We just need to save more and spend less. Wall Street be damned.

[BU BEAR]

Of Mr. Reich's fallacies, he compared the growth of economy in absolute (non-inflation-adjusted terms) with growth in wages expressed in inflation adjusted terms. It is even more intellectually dishonest of Mr. Reich to omit that real wages have declined in the last two years. He might not want to talk about the destructive effect that Democrat policies have had on worker's wages.

The "super rich" get richer because they are the ownership and risk-taking class and that is how wealth is produced. Of course, Mr. Reich omits to discuss this.

Also, Mr. Reich blames the huge deficit on lower tax rates. The deficit is a result of too little revenue and too much spending, but talking about out-of-control spending is apparently so difficult that Mr. Reich cannot bring himself to do it.

The presentation lacks integrity. If Mr. Reich cannot be honest in two minutes, then he should make the presentation longer or not give the presentation.

[IndySooner]

Of Mr. Reich's fallacies, he compared the growth of economy in absolute (non-inflation-adjusted terms) with growth in wages expressed in inflation adjusted terms. It is even more intellectually dishonest of Mr. Reich to omit that real wages have declined in the last two years. He might not want to talk about the destructive effect that Democrat policies have had on worker's wages.

The "super rich" get richer because they are the ownership and risk-taking class and that is how wealth is produced. Of course, Mr. Reich omits to discuss this.

Also, Mr. Reich blames the huge deficit on lower tax rates. The deficit is a result of too little revenue and too much spending, but talking about out-of-control spending is apparently so difficult that Mr. Reich cannot bring himself to do it.

The presentation lacks integrity. If Mr. Reich cannot be honest in two minutes, then he should make the presentation longer or not give the presentation.

Pretty sure I saw this video a couple of years ago, BEFORE the time period that you claim says he's lying in the video.

Just sayin'.

[BU BEAR]

Pretty sure I saw this video a couple of years ago, BEFORE the time period that you claim says he's lying in the video.

Just sayin'.

It was just posted this week. Assuming that the video has been out for two years, my points about Mr. Reich's lack of integrity still remain except for the point about real wages declining over the past two years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Of Mr. Reich's fallacies, he compared the growth of economy in absolute (non-inflation-adjusted terms) with growth in wages expressed in inflation adjusted terms. It is even more intellectually dishonest of Mr. Reich to omit that real wages have declined in the last two years. He might not want to talk about the destructive effect that Democrat policies have had on worker's wages.

The "super rich" get richer because they are the ownership and risk-taking class and that is how wealth is produced. Of course, Mr. Reich omits to discuss this.

Also, Mr. Reich blames the huge deficit on lower tax rates. The deficit is a result of too little revenue and too much spending, but talking about out-of-control spending is apparently so difficult that Mr. Reich cannot bring himself to do it.

The presentation lacks integrity. If Mr. Reich cannot be honest in two minutes, then he should make the presentation longer or not give the presentation.As a certifiable Limnologist, Fraggle ain't exposed to pedestrian goings-on such as human nature in action.

[Veritas]

This is tough love, but I think the best solution is to let the economy crash. Let people feel the pain and learn from their mistakes that saving for the future is a very good thing, not only individually but for the whole economy. Thais learned this lesson after the '97 economic crisis and 13-14 years later are finally starting to spend again. Think about our grandparents and great grandparents who went through the Great Depression. That was a life-long lesson for them and they saved and skimped until they died.
Chuck, we don't usually agree but we're singing the same tune here. I just hope they'll let it crash before we put ourselves further in hock to the Chinese.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Chuck, we don't usually agree but we're singing the same tune here. I just hope they'll let it crash before we put ourselves further in hock to the Chinese.If the govt. would drastically cut back spending and growing, the economy would rebound. (the Great Depression ended due to our mobilizing for War, and post war shifting away from the level of stifling regulations and govt. control.) I would certainly not prefer we be faced with the same circumstances as occurred in the late 30's.

[NormanPride]

Cut defensive spending in half, use the savings to rebuild our infrastructure. Invest in the country, not in war. After WW2 we went about building all the wonderful things that we rely on now and make our nation great - power plants, highways, power grids, etc. The effort paid dividends in the pride and productivity of the people.

Cut medicare in half and start paying down our debt.

Overall, we need a leader to inspire our people to invest in the country. Right now that's just not profitable and it won't be until someone with real charisma and intelligence tells us it is; while doing the things necessary to actually make the statement true.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Defense of the country is a valid and prescribed function of govt. Social engineering is not.

[yermom]

imperialism isn't defense

[The Profit]

Cut defensive spending in half, use the savings to rebuild our infrastructure. Invest in the country, not in war. After WW2 we went about building all the wonderful things that we rely on now and make our nation great - power plants, highways, power grids, etc. The effort paid dividends in the pride and productivity of the people.

Cut medicare in half and start paying down our debt.

Overall, we need a leader to inspire our people to invest in the country. Right now that's just not profitable and it won't be until someone with real charisma and intelligence tells us it is; while doing the things necessary to actually make the statement true.





You are absolutely right. Obama made a mistake by not having a large enough stimulus plan. We need to rebuild the entire infrastructure of this country (highways, bridges, rail, power grid, etc.). Military spending has robbed this nation of its ability to maintain itself. A Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower, as he was leaving office, warned us about the evils of the military industrial complex. We are paying the price for not heeding his warning.

[Chuck Bao]

The "super rich" get richer because they are the ownership and risk-taking class and that is how wealth is produced. Of course, Mr. Reich omits to discuss this.

Seriously, Mr. BU BEAR, you going with this? That is a very fun circular argument that the rich get richer because they are rich and create wealth (for themselves).

Now, how is the trickle down effect working out? Maybe not very textbook.

I suppose that you are a business or economics student or graduate of Baylor.

I used to be the research assistant to Terry Maness who I hear was the dean of Hankamer at least a few years ago when they had that blow up about the gay donor. Good grief, I hang my head in shame, even more than 10 years of losing football seasons and that is saying a lot.

[Sooner5030]

A Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower, as he was leaving office, warned us about the evils of the military industrial complex. We are paying the price for not heeding his warning

You do realize that our annual deficit is about twice the size of our entire DoD budget?

other things have to be cut.

[Chuck Bao]

imperialism isn't defense

I agree with this. It is a very often said statement that the US must protect American interests abroad. Why? It is not in my interests. Don't get me wrong. Protecting against foreign aggression and terrorism is important. Keeping the shipping lanes and aircraft travel safe is important. Protecting US interests abroad would be far down my list.

I suppose that the further development of technology through the military-industrial complex is important. I just don't know if it is more important than developing our high school math and science students to make advances which will benefit our economy and essentially pay for future military spending in the future.

It just seems that we are winning the military battle and losing the education/economics war.

[49r]

imperialism isn't defense

+1

[NormanPride]

You are absolutely right. Obama made a mistake by not having a large enough stimulus plan. We need to rebuild the entire infrastructure of this country (highways, bridges, rail, power grid, etc.). Military spending has robbed this nation of its ability to maintain itself. A Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower, as he was leaving office, warned us about the evils of the military industrial complex. We are paying the price for not heeding his warning.
It's not that the "stimulus" wasn't big enough, it's that it went to businesses that didn't re-invest in the economy. How much of that money just left the states and went elsewhere? How much just helped bad business? That money should have gone to infrastructure, creating jobs and opportunities for businesses. Create the void where business can flow, and you will get business to flow there.

[delhalew]

Is there anything I can do to goad you into OU professor bashing? That is sort of your Stairway to Heaven in terms of board kookery.

I'd be willing to oblige. I had a pretty righteous Creative Writing Professor. He's off limits.

[diegosooner]

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/051611/put-away-the-printing-calculator.gif

[delhalew]

Chuck, we don't usually agree but we're singing the same tune here. I just hope they'll let it crash before we put ourselves further in hock to the Chinese.

My thoughts exactly.

[delhalew]

imperialism isn't defense

Music isn't the only thing we agree on. We both like food, and think Imperialism is lame.

[REDREX]

Maybe the next President will listen to someone besides intellectuals about what to do to help the economic situation

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...rebuild our infrastructure. Invest in the country, not in war. After WW2 we went about building all the wonderful things that we rely on now and make our nation great - power plants, highways, power grids, etc. The effort paid dividends in the pride and productivity of the people.
These are the things you thought president Obama was going to do with the Porkulus, didn't you?

[NormanPride]

These are the things you thought president Obama was going to do with the Porkulus, didn't you?
**** no, I knew he was going to give it to banks and the auto industry because he's beholden to them. No, that was what I believe should have been done by a competent president. We have not had one of those in decades.

[pphilfran]

Well, duh...

How does he propose to strengthen the middle class?

Raising taxes?

Dat all he got?

[TheLadiesMike]

1. As pointed out above, he is comparing the doubled economy (which is not adjusted for inflation) with wages, which are adjusted for inflation.

2. The "super rich" are not a static group. This article has a lot of rhetoric, but it also has facts from the IRS: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264296/rich-aren-t-getting-richer-kevin-d-williamson


About 50 percent of U.S. households move from one income group to a different one every decade, and actual households initially in the low-income groups see proportionally more income growth than do actual households initially in the high-income groups.

When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000

3. The tax burden has gone down for everyone. Fewer and fewer Americans are paying taxes in general, as the hated Reagan and Bush tax cuts have moved lower income people off the rolls entirely. I think this is actually a bad idea because it created a lot of people who receive benefits but do not contribute anything. It also reduced the effect of tax cuts, and it made taxes a less meaningful policy issue since so many people no longer pay them.

4. The problem was not just tax cuts. The problem is also spending increases. He points out taxes are down to their lowest share of the economy in years. But spending is up to its largest share of the economy since WWII. This chart does not go all the way back but it does cover 35 years:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q-t461HgFI4/TaIrahyo1HI/AAAAAAAAPLU/XFrRf-gjEV4/s400/fedspending.jpg

Notice the two economic booms coincided with spending being a lower share of the GDP? Partly because the GDP was growing but also because the budget was not growing at an unsustainable rate. That has not been the case since 2000, under Bush or Obama.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, duh...

How does he propose to strengthen the middle class?

Raising taxes?

Dat all he got?Raising taxes, plus more borrowing and printing money(Quantitative Easing), so he can finance more govt. spending.

[BU BEAR]

Seriously, Mr. BU BEAR, you going with this? That is a very fun circular argument that the rich get richer because they are rich and create wealth (for themselves).

Now, how is the trickle down effect working out?

It is hardly a circular argument to note that the wealthy get wealthy because they take risks and are productive. It is, however, a cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, they use their talents, capital, and effort to produce wealth for themselves. We should encourage this type of behavior and not discourage it through the tax code or other punitive measures.

If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the government transfer it to the non-productive? If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the rank-and-file be paid for their work? The answer is that society will get less if wealth creation is discouraged and/or private property right are curtailed.

Besides, who ever told you that you were entitled to someone's property other than that for which you bargained in the first place? Put another way, who told you that the government should use its coercive power to steal from one party to alter a bargain that you made with a wealthy person or corporation for your labor? If you do not like the pay rate, then stay home and watch Oprah re-runs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It is hardly a circular argument to note that the wealthy get wealthy because they take risks and are productive. It is, however, a cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, they use their talents, capital, and effort to produce wealth for themselves. We should encourage this type of behavior and not discourage it through the tax code or other punitive measures.

If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the government transfer it to the non-productive? If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the rank-and-file be paid for their work? The answer is that society will get less if wealth creation is discouraged and/or private property right are curtailed.

Besides, who ever told you that you were entitled to someone's property other than that for which you bargained in the first place? Put another way, who told you that the government should use its coercive power to steal from one party to alter a bargain that you made with a wealthy person or corporation for your labor? If you do not like the pay rate, then stay home and watch Oprah re-runs.If I was Milton Friedman jr., I would make you an HONORARY SOONER!

[StoopTroup]

If all of you bastards would just fill out your Census Forms we could find the slackers that don't pay.

[pphilfran]

What pizzes me off is someone as smart as RR not giving to the total facts...

I can scratch the surface of data available and give you a far better idea of who is getting screwed...

This is IRS data...AGI...compares 1993 (earliest data available) to 2007 (latest data available)

The groups that got killed are those that made less than 50k...no change in total number making less than 50k...this groups earnings stayed flat during the time frame...their buying power declined significantly...

Let's look at above 50 to 200k...this group grew by 25 million, a 128% increase...their average income grew by 165%..this group outpaced inflation...

Above 200k to a mill...an additional 3.2 million filers, a 347% increase...the groups total income grew by 349% during the time frame...

Above a million..the evil folks...an additional 325k, a 490% increase...with total group earning increasing by 721%...

What can be taken from this data?

Any ideas?



http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/agichange.jpg

[Chuck Bao]

It is hardly a circular argument to note that the wealthy get wealthy because they take risks and are productive. It is, however, a cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, they use their talents, capital, and effort to produce wealth for themselves. We should encourage this type of behavior and not discourage it through the tax code or other punitive measures.

If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the government transfer it to the non-productive? If the wealthy do not produce wealth, how will the rank-and-file be paid for their work? The answer is that society will get less if wealth creation is discouraged and/or private property right are curtailed.

Besides, who ever told you that you were entitled to someone's property other than that for which you bargained in the first place? Put another way, who told you that the government should use its coercive power to steal from one party to alter a bargain that you made with a wealthy person or corporation for your labor? If you do not like the pay rate, then stay home and watch Oprah re-runs.

Alrighty, Mr. BU Bear I can't answer your question any better than pphilfran already did. If the tax rates are the lowest in 50 years, I do not think that we have a Robin Hood government and I doubt anyone on this board is advocating that. Honestly, I was very disappointed in President Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts.

Much more valid criticism should be leveled against run away spending. It eventually has to be reined in. But, you get no prizes for correctly guessing if I think it should be military or health care/education for our kids.

[SpankyNek]

nm

[PeoriaSooner]

What pizzes me off is someone as smart as RR not giving to the total facts...

I can scratch the surface of data available and give you a far better idea of who is getting screwed...

This is IRS data...AGI...compares 1993 (earliest data available) to 2007 (latest data available)

The groups that got killed are those that made less than 50k...no change in total number making less than 50k...this groups earnings stayed flat during the time frame...their buying power declined significantly...

Let's look at above 50 to 200k...this group grew by 25 million, a 128% increase...their average income grew by 165%..this group outpaced inflation...

Above 200k to a mill...an additional 3.2 million filers, a 347% increase...the groups total income grew by 349% during the time frame...

Above a million..the evil folks...an additional 325k, a 490% increase...with total group earning increasing by 721%...

What can be taken from this data?

Any ideas?



http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/agichange.jpg

I'll bite...
Answer:
If you're able-bodied yet uneducated, lazy, or allow yourself to depend on handouts for survival, your inferior genetics will naturally be weeded out of the population except in the scenario where your ability to spawn as many offspring as our current welfare state will subsidize (in exchange for votes) can keep your sorry *** afloat. Everyone who eschews unnecessary handouts, gets educated, works hard & is motivated to succeed will survive just fine.

[BU BEAR]

Alrighty, Mr. BU Bear I can't answer your question any better than pphilfran already did. If the tax rates are the lowest in 50 years, I do not think that we have a Robin Hood government and I doubt anyone on this board is advocating that. Honestly, I was very disappointed in President Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts.
.

We absolutely do have a Robin Hood government. The "War on Poverty," "Great Society," and "New Deal" have cost us trillions of dollars and will cost us trillions more. Social Security may have originally been sold as social insurance, but it is little more today than a wealth transfer program that is underfunded by about $15-$20 Trillion. That means that not only are the current workers subsidizing the retirees' non-productivity, but future workers (your children, grandchildren, etc...) are also subsidizing current retirees' non-productivity. This generational wealth transfer is magnified again when one looks at Medicare which is underfunded even worse than Social Security.

The government is stealing from current and future workers to curry favor with the largest voting bloc in America--the baby boom generation. That is a Robin Hood government; and it owes about $62 Trillion when you include the debt and the underfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We absolutely do have a Robin Hood government. The "War on Poverty," "Great Society," and "New Deal" have cost us trillions of dollars and will cost us trillions more. Social Security may have originally been sold as social insurance, but it is little more today than a wealth transfer program that is underfunded by about $15-$20 Trillion. That means that not only are the current workers subsidizing the retirees' non-productivity, but future workers (your children, grandchildren, etc...) are also subsidizing current retirees' non-productivity. This generational wealth transfer is magnified again when one looks at Medicare which is underfunded even worse than Social Security.

The government is stealing from current and future workers to curry favor with the largest voting bloc in America--the baby boom generation. That is a Robin Hood government; and it owes about $62 Trillion when you include the debt and the underfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.We have a very significant number of folks who post here that can't or refuse to acknowledge that capitalism is the only economic system that provides the max opportunities for economic wealth and personal freedom. They apparently believe that those in power in govt. should control economic activity, and that the money an individual earns is actually the property of the state, and the citizen should only be allowed to keep what the state believes is fair.

[C&CDean]

I'm picking up a new hay accumulator and grabber this afternoon. I am doing my part to help the economy. And, I ain't on here bitching about it. Of all you guys raising hell, how is your personal economic situation, and why is it so? Could it suck because you're lazy or have a ****ty job? My economy is fine, thanks very much.

[yermom]

"i got mine, what's your problem?"

:D

[REDREX]

I'm picking up a new hay accumulator and grabber this afternoon. I am doing my part to help the economy. And, I ain't on here bitching about it. Of all you guys raising hell, how is your personal economic situation, and why is it so? Could it suck because you're lazy or have a ****ty job? My economy is fine, thanks very much.---Do you think that people should show some personal responsibility and not expect the Gov't to take care of them?----What a radical thought

[Position Limit]

I'm picking up a new hay accumulator and grabber this afternoon. I am doing my part to help the economy. And, I ain't on here bitching about it. Of all you guys raising hell, how is your personal economic situation, and why is it so? Could it suck because you're lazy or have a ****ty job? My economy is fine, thanks very much.

they are looking for identity and have chosen a side. reality be damned, there are points to be scored, and if you spin it enough you might get some. rare is the occasion that fical policy or economic policy is gonna affect these worker bees. but with stardard talking point in hand, the slap fight will rage on. rage on.