How The Economics of the Left Destroys the Poor

Gee, I wonder what could have caused those speculative housing prices to begin with? Could it be that lowering borrowing standards across the board and forcing banks to loan to "underrepresented borrowers" threw millions of previously unqualified buyers into the housing market at the same time? Surely something caused housing prices to increase 25% within a few short years in the late 90's, after decades of relatively flat growth. Could that have been the reason why people suddenly started buying up homes as investment properties and borrowing equity at rapid rates?

 

Could have been lots of things. The fact that housing prices had been fairly flat for a decade and were due for an increase. The fact that capital gains taxes were cut way back so that you paid a lot less taxes flipping a house as opposed to earning. The fact that we had a "industry can regulate itself" attitude in government that felt hands off was the best policy. The fact that banks thought they could insure against mortgage losses by credit default swaps with AAA rated companies like AIG. The fact that brokers could sell their mortgages to investors, divorcing themselves from the risk of their own poor underwriting. The fact we had "Mr. Ownership Society" in office whose one bragging point on the economy was the fact that home ownership percentages were rising and promoted and ever increase set of policies to make it easier to buy homes with little or no money down.

 

Very well, you make the argument for reversing trickle down policies. That's all well and good and may have some worthwhile discussion. But how does that have to do with whether the minimum wage, extensions of unemployment benefits, and fuel taxes hurt the poor? Because if your argument is merely "Look what someone else does!" isn't that the very definition of a red herring?

Tell me how the minimum wage has helped Joe Factoryworker? Tell me how all of those who received the boost the last time through have been removed from the bottom of the scale?

Interestingly enough, Federal Minimum Wages changed on that scale as follows:
1979-1980: $2.90
1980-1981: $3.10
1981-1991: $3.35
1991-1992: $4.25
1992-1997: $4.75
1997-1998: $5.15
1998-2008: $5.85
2008-2009: $6.55
2009-2010: $7.25
2010 - present : $7.25

Assuming your sources are accurate, none of these increases seems to have helped on your charts.

 

The Poor have never been poorer than these last 4 years.By
ever measure.Blacks effected the most.
However the Middle Class is the one being used to con the
masses.That is why ones energy costs have doubled since Obama
was elected in 2008.More and more regulations is what will be
the end of a Middle Class.That plus more and more taxes.
There is no debating that.
More & more taxes,penalties, fees and constant big brother
regulations will lead to a classless society.
Those in the Permanent Political Class will be exempt from
harmful taxation and fees and penalties.
The Science Fiction Movie is now here.
Being Poor is the new standard just like High unemployment.
NO Growth is the new norm.As is no Morality.
*********************************
In November of 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated a spike
in Poverty numbers going to more than 16% of the Population.
Almost 20% of American children live in poverty.
That report was slated to come out in late October.
It was delayed till after the November General Election.

 

The minimum wage probably doesn't affect Joe Factoryworker a lot. Some might argue that it sets a floor that brings up lower wages generally. But it does affect Marvin Minimumwageworker.

The MW went up, but has not, over time, kept up with even inflation, much less wages in general.

 

I couldn't care less what you think.

Haven't we gone through this just recently? You know my responses. You're just playing games.

I'll discuss it with anyone else who has an interest.

 

This is one thing I do agree with. No policy should be immune to being examined and challenged to see if the policy is achieving its goals and whether it is a just a feel good measure.

The drug war is my clear example of 'feel-good' politics that does far more harm, in particular to poor people.

This is the Right's most egregious attack on poor people that immediately comes to mind, but like the examples you cited, actually supported by people on both sides.

 

Prove that housing prices were "due for an increase". According to what, exactly? Sounds like unsubstantiated opinion.

I agree that lower capital gains tax rates could have added pressure to the housing market.

An attitude and policy that Clinton signed into law when he could have votoed it.

They also relied on the fact that Freddie and Fannie would cover the losses of any bad loans to "underrepresented borrowers", which was a primary focus of Clinton's homeownership policies.

Mr. Ownership Society, indeed.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51448

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

 

Your dodge is noted.

Another dodge. You just finished saying you wanted the middle class to retain more income that was being "redistributed to the 1%". I'm asking for you to explain how enacting a large increase on the middle class "to pay down the deficit" helps the middle class retain more of that income.

Clearly not.

 

Irie, let's assume that minimum wage has no effect on inflation of its own - something I'm not willing to concede, but which we can play with for the sake of fun. You believe that it hasn't kept up with inflation?

From 1980 until 2010, MW has increased at a rate of approximately $0.145 per year ($7.25-$2.90 = $4.35, divide by 30 years). To figure the average rate of increase, we simply figure out the average wage over the course of the time span (($7.25+$2.90)/2 = $5.075), then divide that into the average increase. The result is an average increase of 2.85% per year.

So, has that kept up with the overall inflation rate? Overall, it appears that it has kept pretty close - in the period from 1980 to 2010, the inflation rate was only above 3% from 1980-1989. Overall, the average inflation was roughly 3%.

 

Another dodge. You just finished saying you wanted the middle class to retain more income that was being "redistributed to the 1%". I'm asking for you to explain how enacting a large increase on the middle class "to pay down the deficit" helps the middle class retain more of that income.



Clearly not.[/QUOTE]
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...mics-left-destroys-poor-4.html#post1062275792

 

Another dodge. You just finished saying you wanted the middle class to retain more income that was being "redistributed to the 1%". I'm asking for you to explain how enacting a large increase on the middle class "to pay down the deficit" helps the middle class retain more of that income. If you can't support your own argument, maybe you shouldn't argue it.

 

As the chart I posted indicates, it has not kept up with inflation since the 1960s. I agree that the current level is just a little lower in real terms than 1980, but that was because of the recent increase in 2007. Prior to that it was significantly lower than even compared to 1980 standards.

- - - Updated - - -

Already addressed.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/288328-how-economics-left-destroys-poor-4.html#post1062275792

 

Another dodge. You addressed nothing.

 

This is SO typical of Lefties.Saying the Right attacks and oppresses the Poor
and Blacks,and yet under this Democrat Cabal the Poor and Blacks have never
been worse off.
You can't even lie with a crooked smile { posting }.

 

Here's the previous thread where Brewskier asked me the same thing and my responses just a couple weeks ago.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...egative-fourth-quarter-18.html#post1062228086

As I said, just playing games.

 

Here's the previous few posts where Iriemon did not reference said thread, despite being asked to.

As I said, just dodging.

For what it's worth, I did indeed ask "Taking more money from the poor and middle class would help the economy how?" to which you replied:

Sounds like you may need to clean out that creepy text file on your desktop where you save everybody's posts for future use. This one really didn't do anything but expose the ignorance behind your position.

Let me know when you are able to figure out how to help the middle class retain more income by enacting a large tax hike on them.

 

Everyone can read the thread for themselves and see the truth as opposed to Brewskier's fabricating and distortion.

 

Yes, they can see where I asked you to explain what I've been asking you to explain, and they can see you reply with "I don't know". I'm sure they will laugh at the fact that you used said "I don't know" response as evidence for your position in this thread several times.

 

First he lies when he claimed I never addressed it when I answered his silly questions less than two weeks ago. Now he's lying about my posts. Anyone can read the exchange for themselves to see the truth here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...mics-left-destroys-poor-5.html#post1062275994

 

You answered with "I don't know". Either you're lying about that, or you really don't have any way of reconciling your stated desire of allowing the middle class to retain more income with the large tax increase you would place on them.

I did no such thing.

Pro-tip: Linking people to the same thread they are reading is pointless. Please link to a specific post.

 

How did I lie?
This is one thing I do agree with. No policy should be immune to being examined and challenged to see if the policy is achieving its goals and whether it is a just a feel good measure.

The drug war is my clear example of 'feel-good' politics that does far more harm, in particular to poor people.

This is the Right's most egregious attack on poor people that immediately comes to mind, but like the examples you cited, actually supported by people on both sides.

Go for it- demonstrate my 'lie'.

 

Its obvious you don't understand tax brackets lets try this maybe you can understand:

Who pays more tax dollars the guy paying 15% on his $30,000 or the guy paying 10% on 1,200,000 ?

 

The latter. So what?

My turn. Who pays a higher proportion of his income in taxes -- the guy paying 15% on his $30,000 or the guy paying 10% on 1,200,000 ?

 

Stop it.

All the ideas/policies of the "Right" are not exclusively what America needs or has needed. SOME of what each side (Left/Right) has been good for this nation.

Even so, the workings of all these actions are those of human beings; imperfect. The best we can do, is continue to work together... as best we can.