The Ecomony will not Recover until the Government Spends MORE Money!!

Because, proportionately, compared to 30 years ago, about $2 trillion less of our national income goes to the middle classes, and instead goes to the top 10%, who proportionately don't spend it.

Which equates to something approaching $1 trillion less spending in the economy, every year.

- - - Updated - - -

Companies are not as expanding as fast as previous recessions because the demand for the products isn't strong because spending is weak because the middle class doesn't have the money to spend.

 

Ding ding ding!

We have the solution to our economic riddle.

Ironically, it is so obvious it is hard for most people to see.

 

Oh, I think they see it just fine. I think the real reason is they don't want to see it, because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that our economy (not to mention most of the people) is suffering because we have diverted so much more of the nation's income and wealth to the 1% with "trickle down" policies.

Because for heaven's sake, the richest 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from 30 years ago, just isn't enough for them.

For some, more is never enough.

 

None of that changes the lack of apparent advantage with government spending. The costs to the economy as a whole has not proved to justify the redistribution of income most federal spending accomplishes.

 

They is a huge advantage of government spending compared to no spending at all, when the economy is slack and struggling for lack of demand.

It's not just a coincidence that this recovery has been anemic compared to previous ones given the austerity.

 

Yep! In spite of huge stimulus spending. In the last 5 years the government has spent more actual dollars than any other 5 years of relative peace time spending. (ie not a period of full mobilization)

 

Stimulus spending wasn't huge. Maybe $500 billion spread over a couple years. That's just 1.5% of the economy.

So what? The Govt has always spent more actual dollars than any other 5 years of relative peace time spending. That is case every year and always has been, at least in modern history.

This is what is unique to our recovery:

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

Compare:

(fiscal years)
Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Bush
Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total Government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

Also unique in modern history: The percentage of national income going to the richest:

 

Other estimates suggest the various stimulus spending exceeded $2.5 Trillion since 2009. That may be a little high, but half a trillion is way too low.

 

You had $878B in the Stimulus package, of which $380 billion was tax cuts. That is $500 billion in stimulus spending, spread over a couple years.

Very modest.

 

Other estimates are up to $2.5 trillion.

 

I am assuming that by a functional stimulus you mean the money spent on stimulus was to hire workers to perform infrastructure, or in other ways to put money into the hands of the least wealthy for them to spend as they tend to spend all of their money. Is this correct?

 

What did people at the 10% level do for a living in the 1960s? That is to say, I believe the percentage of people living off dividends and interest was much higher back then, while today almost everyone in the top 10% still goes to work almost as often as the poorest laborers. That means they collect $100 million in salary,75 million in bonuses, $250 million in dividends, $100 million in interest, $50 million in rent, $20 million in royalties, $10 million in paid appearances and $5 million in growing value of their antiques. If you isolated income earned by working, so retired billionaires don't count, what would those charts look like?
On the other end, the percentage of people on the bottom end whose only income comes from government checks has increased to 47% right? If you drop them off the list, leaving only money earned by people who work regularly,is the distance so obscene?

 

You have lots of assumptions in your post and your conclusions do not fully comply with your assumptions.

 

I just want to know what that chart really means/
Income consists of paychecks, bonuses, gifts,dividends, interest and appreciation. Retired rich people get all but paychecks,but many get paychecks too for consulting or annuities from past contracts.
People whose primary source of income is social security andpensions make less than when they were working. The number of people with pensions is decreasing because the factories poor people worked in are closed. There are more old people than ever.
If the median Social Security income is $20,000 per year and the number of people making that has quadrupled from 4% to 16% those who make little else form a logjam at the bottom of the income race.
Rich retired people get the $20,000 from Social Security and pension,so they don't drop to that level even in full inactivity. Dividends and interest alone might add another $20,000 putting them in middle income.
If the chart reflects net worth poor people own nothing but the cash in their wallets and bank accounts. Many middle-class persons are technically millionaires because the house they bought for $100,000is now worth $900,000 and a few heirlooms combined are worth $100,000. They feel poor because their bank balance still reads less than $20,000.
It also matters whether that is family income or individual. Rich people marry rich people. Middle-class women become housewives and stop earning. A family of 10 consisting of a man who earns $200,000, housewife and nine children is poor on average but prosperous in reality.
I'm just saying I want to see a chart that reflects those same percentages based on weekly paychecks of employed persons only.
Is there such a chart. If not, I expect it's hidden because it doesn't follow the script.

 

I said nothing about "a functional stimulus". What are you talking about.

Please cite a source for your claim that the Stimulus was $2.5 trillion.

 

Are we talking about the stimulus package specifically, or government spending in general over the past x amount of years?

 

Did you read the posts in the thread? What else could the "Stimulus Package" be?

What Stimulus Package are you aware of that is worth $2.5 trillion?

 

I jumped into the thread in the middle (don't have time for 60+ pages) and saw this. Thus my confusion.

 

How did that possibly confuse you? Why would you possibly think that is talking about the Stimulus?

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was an effort to improve the economy by having the government-directly or indirectly-pay people to work temp jobs. They did. Roads that needed to be paved but might not have been paved until 2011 were paved in 2009. Playgrounds that might never have been built were built. Signs on the highways noted that another two-tenths of a mile had passed since the last sign. Someday more temp workers will have to repaint those signs and round two of the stimulus will kick in. The temp jobs were scattered over all 435 Congressional districts, including places where no one needed a new temp job. The only businesses helped were construction contractors with inside routes to government projects anyways. The extra benefit is not worth investigating even if crime was involved, because these are residual deals from crimes long ago.
Many Congressmen were reelected because of the law and it helped get Obama a second term.
The increase in spending from 2001-2005 probably is associated mostly with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, drone development and two wars. Those gave long-term employment and the military is a long-term temp job available to all with a possible pension or free burial. Every soldier that dies on the job is one less person on Social Security or government pension someday, so some of that money is reserved.
The increases in the 1980s were mostly associated with the Strategic Defense Initiative and defense spending. Some would argue that ended the cold war. Certainly the government needs updated computers to run properly. Gates and Jobs didn't have to change the technology so often, but every time they do the government has to spend millions to keep up, so they gathered more money even if the obsessed public didn't buy every new item instantly. It would have been cheaper to pay them a few billion a year to work exclusively for the government, then hire Americans to sell the products one step behind the newest technology, including used government computers. Pay them commission and they'll get rich.
As I said previously, the stimulus bills of the 1930s (WPA, NRA, etc), the 1940s (World War II spending) and the 1950s (Interstate HIGHWAY SYSTEM) LEFT SOMETHING USEFUL. THE American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not.

 

Numerous independent analyses show that the Stimulus saved or created 2-3 million jobs, boosted GDP, and lowered the unemployment rate at a crucial time in the recession.

 

What were the 3 million jobs? Are those jobs still in operation or did they expire after the signs were put up? did some people get three of those jobs for two months each? Were they in construction industries that would have hired the same people one month later for other projects? Do they include the extra servers at diners the construction workers ate at, responding to signs that had been hanging for years because the potential for extra tips made taking the job worthwhile? How many of the jobs came in places most distressed?
I don't know the answers. I just know that if it were up to me the stimulus would have been aimed at 10 spots in the country that were most distressed and anything else would have been of universal good for as many people as possible for as long as possible, such as making every three-lane highway in the country a four-lane highway. A second stimulus would have targeted 10 more distressed places.
Even Karl Marx would have done it that way, creating 2000 low-rent housing units in the Trump Tower and making him live in a West Virginia outhouse.

 

They didn't specify what each job was.

Since there have been about 700,000 government jobs eliminated over the past four years of austerity, my guess is most expired.

Don't know.

Don't know.

Don't know.

Don't know, but the who country was pretty distressed.

Feel free to do you own research and let us know.

I'm sure if were up to Obama it would have been different and if it were up to Boehner it would have been different too.

Could be.

 

The whole phrase: job creation is useless if it is misused.
Some construction companies lay off 100 employees every December and rehire them every April. That's not creating 100 jobs a year. The jobs were just suspended because they didn't want the people standing around waiting for work.If they hire 110 people in April they have created 10 jobs.
That sounds good, but if at the end of the year the company paid the same amount of money to the 110 employees as to the 100 a year earlier nothing has improved the local economy, just the extra 10 workers didn't collect Unemployment all year.
New jobs are technically created when a retail store hires 80 new people for the Christmas rush. When they keep the 20 best in January, 60 jobs are lost,meaning they really created 20 jobs.
When those 20 people have their hours cut from 32 to 16they become eligible for Unemployment, getting weekly checks except for weeks when they pick up a third shift. Those weeks they don't. When the company increases their schedule to 24 hours per week they no longer qualify for Unemployment, cutting the rate and giving the impression the economy is improving.
In reality, the man who went through that cycle, losing his Unemployment checks in November for the slight increase, followed by a 50% drop, then the cut to wages lower than his Unemployment checks, then getting both from March to July, then off Unemployment for roughly the same amount in his 24-hour weeks until November gets him back to 32,ends up wishing he never took the job.
Next time he's fully jobless, he won't repeat that cycle.
The real statisticswe need to assess how things are are;
Percentage of people who worked at least 40 hours for 52 consecutive weeks,
Number of people collecting both government checks and weekly paychecks,
Number of people employed for fewer than 20 hours per week at their only job,
Number of households with two persons continuously employed but still legally eligible for benefits (whether they collect them or not).
Percentage of workers employed for fewer than 35 hours per week.
Create a chart with that data over the past 12 years and you will see the real problems.
They are insurmountable both from anything the government might do and the plight of persons living in those conditions.

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity