Black Lives matter shuts down Bernie

[Rotobeast]

(08-14-2015, 09:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course taxes trickle down.  Capitalize profits. Socialize losses.  

Profit before people.

Its the new American way.

Taxation is tithing to the cult of capitalism.
We are to follow it blindly.
:snark:

I feel if we view our government more as a religion, it's faults become that much more clear.

[Benton]

(08-14-2015, 12:59 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Those two sentences entirely contradict each other. 

You should probably buy a dictionary as this word isn't really fitting in here. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, if you're refuting that Greece's economy wasn't worse pre-euro (which it was about half the GDP it had during it's best years with the euro), or that you're uninformed in not knowing that Greece's economy wasn't worse pre-euro (which it was about half the GDP it had during it's best years with the euro).

You'd think an insurance guy would know that.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 03:35 PM)Benton Wrote: You should probably buy a dictionary as this word isn't really fitting in here. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, if you're refuting that Greece's economy wasn't worse pre-euro (which it was about half the GDP it had during it's best years with the euro), or that you're uninformed in not knowing that Greece's economy wasn't worse pre-euro (which it was about half the GDP it had during it's best years with the euro).

You'd think an insurance guy would know that.

Do all of the moderators here generally insult people here at the level you employ?  Just curious, because both of your posts addressed to me have contained insults.

Now that we have that out of the way, two things: 

1)  So you believe that Greek's fiscal situation has nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility, and everything to do with joining the euro and whatever other excuses you're using here?  Seriously?  That'd be like a family having 70k of credit card debt and blaming the interest rate for why they are broke. 

2)  I'm not an insurance guy.  Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.  

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 08:10 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I would rather be poor here than in any country in the history of the world. 

Poor people here have food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, WIC, head-start, utility assistance, welfare, cash assistance, SSDI, public housing, many private charities that will donate a large variety of things from clothing to cash assistance to furniture, and the list goes on and on. 

I don't like the idea of people living in the sewer or starving to death, so to suggest that I'm somehow in favor that because I despise big government and social welfare programs that may be started with the best of intentions but often fail and lead to dependence is ridiculous. 

Again, charity through government force is ridiculous.  The idea of people who are trying losing some or all of their benefits because they work more hours or take a promotion is ridiculous and discouraging people from getting off of the dole. 

There are loads of people who are stuck in a cycle of perpetual poverty because the very design of most of these programs were to get these people "trapped" in the system.  

I can't figure out what you think should be done?

You sem to be in favor of cutting out government benefits to the poor.  But then you say we need these programs?

Tell me exactly what you think should be done so I can properly address your position.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 12:55 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The poor are better off getting their charity from private organizations.  Because such charity has the goal to get them off charity.    

There is no incentive on either side to get off gov benefits.   Politicians stay in power by using fear
Mongering over benefits.   And their is no kick off date.  

If they limited benefits to 2 years of each persons life.   Then they could use it when they needed it.  or somehow put a dollar amount on it and of they don't use it by 65 then let them have a lump sum payment tax free.

Private organizations can not handle the burden.

And there are lifetime limits on cash benefits.  i think it is five years.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 02:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The real problem is globalization.  You can whine about outsourcing all you want, but if American companies (companies which pay taxes and dividends to shareholders) don't do it, someone else will and take their business.

I agree that globalization is a problem, but the answer is not for us to lower ourselves to third world levels.

Here in America during the industrial revolution we faced the same problems that emerging economies across the world are facing now.  The wealthy elite were oppressing and exploiting the labor force.  Many people fought end died for American labor to earn some fairness in the market.  There were violent clashes between labor and ownership that resulted in people dying for a fair wage.

So today we should not give up all of those gains and return back to the days when lawer and middle classes were exploited so that the owners of industry could amass huge fortunes.  If the rich were not getting richer due to globalization then I would agree that labor should take a cut.  But that is not happening.  American corporations continue to reap massive, even record profits.  So we should not ask labor to bear the burden of globalization.

Eventually the markets in other emerging countries will balance out.  citizens in those countries will also stand up and demand a fair share of the profits.  So the United States should stand as an example of what these other countries can attain instead of ggoing back to the days of a small minority reaping all the profits while pushing the lower and middle classes down.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't figure out what you think should be done?

You sem to be in favor of cutting out government benefits to the poor.  But then you say we need these programs?

Tell me exactly what you think should be done so I can properly address your position.

Why does everything have to be all or nothing?

I advocate for a safety net.  I don't want people starving to death and living in the sewer.  I believe that government pretty much screws up everything that it touches, so I'd favor doing the bare minimum. 

What I don't like is programs that promote laziness or dependence. 

I'd prefer that government stop passing out section 8 vouchers and instead build large one room "apartments" with as little comforts as possible.  I'd also prefer that they stop handing out food stamp cards and invest in pantries that also offer nothing but the bare necessities.  If you can't afford to buy your own groceries, no more soda pop, steaks, and potato chips on the public dime. 

Perhaps if living in poverty were uncomfortable and not very luxurious, people might begin to take education a little more serious and consider every job opportunity as a potential way out, rather than a temporary thing that they don't really care about because they'll still have a roof over their head and food on their plate.  Maybe they'd think twice before they had unprotected sex, because they might be financially responsible for a child instead of having a kid that they have no financial means to take care of but don't care because they'll pass the costs onto the taxpayer. 

In short, I believe in personal responsibility.  Most liberals don't like me at all for that reason.  Those two words typically make them cringe.  

[Benton]

(08-14-2015, 05:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Do all of the moderators here generally insult people here at the level you employ?  Just curious, because both of your posts addressed to me have contained insults.

Now that we have that out of the way, two things: 

1)  So you believe that Greek's fiscal situation has nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility, and everything to do with joining the euro and whatever other excuses you're using here?  Seriously?  That'd be like a family having 70k of credit card debt and blaming the interest rate for why they are broke. 

2)  I'm not an insurance guy.  Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.  

No, generally just me and generally just when there is a gross misrepresentation of things.

1- Largely. They had a bad economy, they were unable to adjust to their rate of boom and then bust when converting to the euro. Fiscal irresponsibility may have accounts for their slump between the 80s-00s, but not the large amount of growth after they switched and the debt that followed.

It's more like a family investing in stocks while the market is climbing and then not having money with any value when the market falls out.

Which has nothing to do with trickle up or down.

2- Maybe... Jake from State Farm?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 06:15 PM)Benton Wrote: No, generally just me and generally just when there is a gross misrepresentation of things.

1- Largely. They had a bad economy, they were unable to adjust to their rate of boom and then bust when converting to the euro. Fiscal irresponsibility may have accounts for their slump between the 80s-00s, but not the large amount of growth after they switched and the debt that followed.

It's more like a family investing in stocks while the market is climbing and then not having money with any value when the market falls out.

Which has nothing to do with trickle up or down.

2- Maybe... Jake from State Farm?

1)  Why have no other countries faced the same fiscal insanity that Greece has faced since joining the Euro? 

I'm not referring to trickle up or down at all.  I'm referring to anyone (be it a person, a family, a business, or a nation) spending more money than what they have coming in.  Yes, there are things that you can do to offset that for quite a while (we've been debt spending for a long time), but at some point they all lead to failure. 





That sort of fiscal irresponsibility isn't caused by the Euro.  It's caused by incompetent government.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-14-2015, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree that globalization is a problem, but the answer is not for us to lower ourselves to third world levels.

Eventually the markets in other emerging countries will balance out.

Yes, EVENTUALLY.  But today and for a good many more years, the engineer in India making $10k a year is rich where he lives...and that's what's driving the wealth gap (all over, not just in the US).  And mom & pop get a nice chunk of that savings via their investments in the F500 thru mutual and pension funds.

What's ultimately going to "balance" things out is those economies growing to increase aggregate demand to catch-up to the excess supply of global labor.

It's not about "lowering ourselves to third world levels".  If you were trying to run and maintain a competitive company, Fred, you're going to employ the cheaper but equally talented Indian engineer.  Or you'll be a "good citizen" and slowly, perhaps quickly, let your business become uncompetitive and go bankrupt (real big of you to lose us 100 jobs for every dozen you saved not outsourcing).

All this talk about what America used to be is apples-to-oranges.  The assembly technician and even the engineer were not really competing with a global labor pool 30 years ago.

But I'd submit our "abject poor" have it better, in many respects, than your middle class families of 30-40 years ago.  They have a car, possibly two, WITH air conditioning.  Big screens tvs.  Cell phones.  Washers and dryers.  Dishwashers.  Money is even readily available to go to college.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 07:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not about "lowering ourselves to third world levels".  If you were trying to run and maintain a competitive company, Fred, you're going to employ the cheaper but equally talented Indian engineer.  Or you'll be a "good citizen" and slowly, perhaps quickly, let your business become uncompetitive and go bankrupt (real big of you to lose us 100 jobs for every dozen you saved not outsourcing).

No.  Companies could go back to paying their CEOs 20 times what the workers made like they did in 1965 instead of 300 times more like they do now.

US companies are not using cheap foreign labor to be competitive.  Instead they are using it to make all time record profits and sending all of those profits to the top instead of compensating their workers.

If they are saving so much money with cheap labor then why have the costs of their good continued to rise?

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2015, 05:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Do all of the moderators here generally insult people here at the level you employ?  Just curious, because both of your posts addressed to me have contained insults.

Just the ones that actively post in the PnR forum it seems.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just the ones that actively post in the PnR forum it seems.

I don't take it personal or anything, I just find it odd to basically be called an idiot twice because not only is he a mod, but he also failed to share anything that disproved what I said.  Well, unless you count him saying so as proof. 

[StLucieBengal]

(08-14-2015, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Private organizations can not handle the burden.

And there are lifetime limits on cash benefits.  i think it is five years.

Then why do we have generations on benefits?

And the fact private organizations can't handle it should be the biggest selling point. It means they gotta get moving

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then why do we have generations on benefits?  

And the fact private organizations can't handle it should be the biggest selling point.    It means they gotta get moving

Lifetime limits on cash benefits...but people can stay in things like section 8 housing, medicaid, and food stamps provided that they meet the financial criteria forever. 

There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in these systems, just like there is in everything that the government touches. 

I'm tired of making it too comfortable for these people, and being poor should suck.  I don't want to see a person on food stamps get to the checkout lane with a grocery cart full of steaks, soda, and junk food.  It's ridiculous.

Open up food pantries and give them the bare minimum.  Here's some pasta, some bologna, some potatoes, vegetables, and oatmeal.  Enjoy. 

[Benton]

(08-14-2015, 06:48 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: 1)  Why have no other countries faced the same fiscal insanity that Greece has faced since joining the Euro? 

I'm not referring to trickle up or down at all.  I'm referring to anyone (be it a person, a family, a business, or a nation) spending more money than what they have coming in.  Yes, there are things that you can do to offset that for quite a while (we've been debt spending for a long time), but at some point they all lead to failure. 





That sort of fiscal irresponsibility isn't caused by the Euro.  It's caused by incompetent government.

And that's the problem with the euro. Germany and Greece weren't anywhere close in terms of economy, but since they're using the same currency, they have to be competitive. They can't.

What would happen if Mexico suddenly switched to the US dollar? They don't have any trickle up policies, they aren't known for their strong social programs. But moving to a more rigid and stronger foreign currency would leave them unable to keep up with growth.

[Benton]

(08-14-2015, 07:49 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't take it personal or anything, I just find it odd to basically be called an idiot twice because not only is he a mod, but he also failed to share anything that disproved what I said.  Well, unless you count him saying so as proof. 

First off, welcome to the board. If you're a new member you may think I mean that sarcastically. I don't. I really do mean welcome and I hope you keep posting. 

With that said, it might help to provide some background. 90 percent of the board has a basic "good neighbor" philosophy. Treat others as you want to be treated and, as long as it falls in the CoC, everbody posts and gets along. You want to talk about the greatness of Peko, the size of Andy's junk or Marvin's breakfast in Jungle Noise, go for it. Post a mock draft, great. Want to tell people what you hate about your job in Klotsch, then go for it.

 But that 10 percent where the good neighbor tends to fall off is the smack forum and PnR. In smack, it's generally good natured between divisional fans and our Bengals fans. CoC rules still apply. They still apply here in PnR, too, but generally the topics shared here inspire a little more passion among posters. So if you make a sweeping statement like you did that trickle up economics were to blame for Greece's problem expect to get the deserving ridicule. It's not the same as if you call Eifert the greatest TE ever in Jungle Noise, or making a mock draft in the draft forum and having a punter going first overall. Sure, you'll get some sarcastic comments, but not like making sweeping, unfounded statements in PnR.

With that in mind, do your own research. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/europes-weapon-of-mass-destruction/2015/06/29/2791ecbc-1e9d-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html

Quote: But this wild, boom-time overborrowing left it destitute when credit and demand dried up during the financial crisis. Thanks to the currency union, Greece no longer had the means — currency devaluation — to inflate away its debts and export its way out of a deepening recession. Instead, its euro-zone family members — particularly Germany, the effective patriarch — insisted on keeping inflation in the shared currency ultra-low, which was precisely the opposite of what Greece needed.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/1/8871509/greece-charts

Quote:The roots of Greece's crisis are simple. Before Greece joined the Eurozone, investors treated it as a middle-income country with poor governance — which is to say, a credit risk. After Greece joined the Eurozone, investors thought that Greece was no longer a credit risk — they figured, if push came to shove, other Eurozone members like Germany would bail Greece out. They were wrong.

Again, Greece's problem has nothing to do with trickle up. It has to do with the switch to the euro. That had two effects. One it allowed them to borrow more money than they could handle. Two, to keep up with economic growth, they were forced to borrow. Not because they were giving it away to the masses, but because they didn't have the infrastructure in place to grow that fast.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 10:26 PM)Benton Wrote: And that's the problem with the euro. Germany and Greece weren't anywhere close in terms of economy, but since they're using the same currency, they have to be competitive. They can't.

What would happen if Mexico suddenly switched to the US dollar? They don't have any trickle up policies, they aren't known for their strong social programs. But moving to a more rigid and stronger foreign currency would leave them unable to keep up with growth.

This doesn't make any sense. 

If currency is free-floating, the value of that currency is not determined by government. 

It is determined by supply and demand, markets and banks throughout the globe. 

Mexico switching to the US Dollar tomorrow would have no effect whatsoever on their GDP, debt to GDP, or spending.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 10:45 PM)Benton Wrote: First off, welcome to the board. If you're a new member you may think I mean that sarcastically. I don't. I really do mean welcome and I hope you keep posting. 

With that said, it might help to provide some background. 90 percent of the board has a basic "good neighbor" philosophy. Treat others as you want to be treated and, as long as it falls in the CoC, everbody posts and gets along. You want to talk about the greatness of Peko, the size of Andy's junk or Marvin's breakfast in Jungle Noise, go for it. Post a mock draft, great. Want to tell people what you hate about your job in Klotsch, then go for it.

 But that 10 percent where the good neighbor tends to fall off is the smack forum and PnR. In smack, it's generally good natured between divisional fans and our Bengals fans. CoC rules still apply. They still apply here in PnR, too, but generally the topics shared here inspire a little more passion among posters. So if you make a sweeping statement like you did that trickle up economics were to blame for Greece's problem expect to get the deserving ridicule. It's not the same as if you call Eifert the greatest TE ever in Jungle Noise, or making a mock draft in the draft forum and having a punter going first overall. Sure, you'll get some sarcastic comments, but not like making sweeping, unfounded statements in PnR.


Again, Greece's problem has nothing to do with trickle up. It has to do with the switch to the euro. That had two effects. One it allowed them to borrow more money than they could handle. Two, to keep up with economic growth, they were forced to borrow. Not because they were giving it away to the masses, but because they didn't have the infrastructure in place to grow that fast.

Yeah....

Greece was part of the euro zone, so investors mistakenly thought that government bonds issued in euros were somehow safer — and deserved lower interest rates — than old Greek bonds in drachmas. Since Greek banks paid higher interest rates and capital was free to flow across borders, capital flowed into the country at a rapid pace.


Banks with swollen deposits made loans fast and loose, which turned out to be a problem when the property craze crashed.

Eurostat, the agency tasked with reporting the condition of all euro zone members, regularly traveled to Athens from 2004 through 2010 in search of good data on Greece’s finances, on both the private and the public side. They walked away with nothing but guesses.
Meanwhile, as everyone later found out, the Greek government was busy working with Goldman Sachs to borrow money in such a way that the debt would not show up on its books. By 2009, debt was growing fast and economic activity was stalling.

The 2009 budget deficit was first reported in 2010 at 6% to 8%, but was later revised to 12.7%, which seemed horrible, until it was later revised to an uglier 13.6%. This being Greece, even that terrible number wasn’t reality. When Eurostat finally got good data and calculated the real deficit for 2009, it was a massive 15.7%.

Claiming they wanted to solve their financial issues, the Greeks brought in all new people to measure and report their finances. That did not turn out well. In 2013 Andreas Georgiou, the new head of statistics in Greece, was charged with inflating the deficit of the country in order to make Greece look bad (this is not a joke!).

Eurostat defended Georgiou, pointing out that his calculations were within the guidelines of euro zone reporting regulations. That didn’t matter to the courts. The 2012 deficit was too high, and it was clearly the fault of the messenger!

By this time Greece was already taking bailout funds from the troika, the lending trio of the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Along the way, Greece defaulted on its government debt that was held by private sector investors.

Oh, strike that. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, which gets to decide who defaulted and who didn’t, claims that private sector investors “willingly” worked with Greece to lower what would be repaid, therefore no default occurred. This is a story for a different day.

In order to get the bailout bucks from the troika, Greece had to agree to cut government spending on social programs, pensions, and employees, as well as raise taxes and actually go about collecting taxes.

The Greeks cut social programs, as well as government pensions and employees. As for going after huge tax evaders and reforming business dealings that rewarded a small circle of the very rich… not so much.

http://economyandmarkets.com/markets/foreign-markets/greeces-economic-trouble/

[Benton]

(08-15-2015, 12:20 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah....

Greece was part of the euro zone, so investors mistakenly thought that government bonds issued in euros were somehow safer — and deserved lower interest rates — than old Greek bonds in drachmas. Since Greek banks paid higher interest rates and capital was free to flow across borders, capital flowed into the country at a rapid pace.


Banks with swollen deposits made loans fast and loose, which turned out to be a problem when the property craze crashed.

...

In order to get the bailout bucks from the troika, Greece had to agree to cut government spending on social programs, pensions, and employees, as well as raise taxes and actually go about collecting taxes.

The Greeks cut social programs, as well as government pensions and employees. As for going after huge tax evaders and reforming business dealings that rewarded a small circle of the very rich… not so much.

http://economyandmarkets.com/markets/foreign-markets/greeces-economic-trouble/

This was actually a pretty well thought out post. Good job.

But you get to the end and contradict yourself, which brings up my original point of 'you should read up on the situation.' Either a- you didn't understand what was going in Greece or b- you don't understand trickle up, the theory that more money going to a majority of the people means they will spend more money, creating higher gains at the top.


Or maybe you do understand both, but you're failing to tie in how trickle up was done by cutting money in the middle (social programs, pensions, employees) and leaving the money at the top (tax evaders, business dealings for the very rich). What you're describing as their failing is closer to trickle down, not trickle up. 

Mulligan on this one?