Larry David loves the Bush tax cuts

[franklin]

We just put better than a third of that into the economy directly (40% of it via tax cuts) this past year. Are you saying that had a positive effect on poverty in the USA? How large of an effect?

So the US can borrow and spend it's way to poverty? You have a twisted way of relating things together. There's no comparison between borrowing and producing something of value such as oil. Another irrelevant, Big Fundamentalist response that really didn't deserve even the brief attention I gave it.

If not, why would Norway's intake reduce poverty, unless directed across the whole population as opposed to concentrated in a few hands? Since your argument is that wealth distribution increases poverty, that would make Norway a counter-example to your point, unless you put a lot more behind it.

First off, you make no sense here. Second, quit stating arguments I never made to score Big Fundamentalist points. Norway is able to pay for their social programs thanks to oil production. Period. The USA doesn't have this luxury.

So, the fact that we need to pay more workers explains why more people are living in poverty?

No. A) We don't have much in the way of poverty by my standards. B) Norway's easy production frees up production time available to increase wealth through alternative activities. C) Are you aware of the extremely high cost of living in Norway (in spite of this huge advantage)?

Texas doesn't currently pay for full military coverage? Why does this impact the poverty rate? You're still throwing out random thoughts.

What? Are you out of your mind? How do you consistently misread the simplest of concepts? I really hope you are planning on donating your body to science for study after you die. You have some serious comprehension and reasoning deficiencies. Studying you might answer a lot of questions.

By the way, Texas has about 25 million people, France about 65 million.

France was specifically excluded in my responses. I'm afraid your literacy is suffering proportionally to your post count. Keep up or quit making yourself look like a fool.

 

[One Brow]

There's no comparison between borrowing and producing something of value such as oil.

Since you claim one has an effect on poverty and the other does not, the reasoning behing the distinct is yours to make.

Norway is able to pay for their social programs thanks to oil production. Period. The USA doesn't have this luxury.

Since the topic of discussion is poverty, and whether that spending increases poverty (as you claimed), you now need to link poverty rates to specifically having oil production, as opposed to other types of production. I'll keep waiting.

No. A) We don't have much in the way of poverty by my standards.

Vague, and meaningless in a discussion comparing poverty, and what it increases it.

B) Norway's easy production frees up production time available to increase wealth through alternative activities.

Does an increase in wealth always translate into a decrease in poverty, or does it often mean a greater wealth disparity? If the wealth is not dispersed through a social support apparatus, how does poverty get diminished by it?

C) Are you aware of the extremely high cost of living in Norway (in spite of this huge advantage)?

I would be unsurprised by it. Much of Norway is above the Artic Circle, IIRC. Alaska and Northern Canada also have high costs of living.

What? Are you out of your mind? How do you consistently misread the simplest of concepts?

If you're comments weren't connected to the poverty rate, why did you bring them up? I was trying to connect your comments to the topic, could not see a direct connection, hence asked about it.

France was specifically excluded in my responses.

But not mine. I am supposed to automatically respect any exclusion of data you make for the convenience of your argument?

 

[franklin]

You keep trying to push an argument onto me that I've not made. I guess honesty is a little too much to ask from you.

I have a feeling this is one of the reasons a lot of others on this site refuse to engage you. I'll leave you to argue with yourself yet again.

I am a little curious where your fundamentalist ideology comes from so I think I'll poke around your blog a bit.

 

[One Brow]

You keep trying to push an argument onto me that I've not made.

I apologize, then. That really is aggravating when that happens. Let's backtrack.

The issue left-leaners seem to have the most trouble with is their policies can cause more poverty than they cure. ... you're only helping the billionaires when you hit them hard) and true social safety nets rather than this all encompassing, destined to fail social security bull ****.

I understood you to say that government programs that improve the social stability of people increase poverty rates. What did you mean to say?

I have a feeling this is one of the reasons a lot of others on this site refuse to engage you.

When I want to engage people, I'm usually successful at doing so. Outside of a discussion where JohnDeereJerry was sharing some of his legal expertise, I can't think of a conversation that I wished had gone on further.

I am a little curious where your fundamentalist ideology comes from so I think I'll poke around your blog a bit.

Welcome, and feel free to comment as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thread hijacked by Unibrow apparently.

/thread

 

[franklin]

I understood you to say that government programs that improve the social stability of people increase poverty rates. What did you mean to say?

We're really going quite a few steps back, but it looks like a better starting point is in order.

It seems logical to me that support programs taken too far will have negative consequences. If this weren't true then why not expand them to infinity? The answer is obvious--someone has to produce. In case this isn't intuitive, I'll add specific examples referred to earlier but better clarified.

(To bold above) The level of improved social stability is debatable, and truly hard to quantify. If we attempt to measure this level then we'll be required to extrapolate into the future and include those effects into our calculation. As far as social security goes, looking into the future doesn't look as pretty as it is or has been. In essence, the safety net program is becoming less safety net and more subsistence living, at best. How can we call it a safety net when a) everyone is caught rather than only those who truly need to be, which b) has ended up in increasing the benefit age and/or reducing benefits (arguably, at least)? It's quite possible we'll be unable to provide for those who truly require the assistance because we're also dolling out valuable resources to those who don't.

Subsidized housing loans: This is a very basic explanation. The 30 year loan programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided cheaper loans both in up front principal and lower interest rates. Econ 101 tells us that cheaper prices will increase demand. Housing prices "skyrocketed" over a 40 - 50 year period (relative to both overall CPI and average wage growth). One side effect was increased housing demand meant increased labor demand for larger houses and products purchased thanks to the house ATM. Meanwhile, housing prices went up and became less affordable. Loan notes held by the less fortunate who bought in near the end of the cycle became harder and harder to service (housing as a percent of disposable income went too high for many of these folks). A default wave hit and fed on itself as one default lowered the value of the house next door, which couldn't be sold at loan value if needs be, and ended in default as well. Prices headed lower and lower, and many Americans became trapped under a mortgage they couldn't afford and a house they couldn't sell.

This program was taken too far (and combined with stupid banking deregulation) and ended up hurting instead of helping. Nothing is free and those subsidized loans are being paid for by the taxpayers, bankers, mREITS, pension funds, and bankrupt citizens.

 

[One Brow]

We're really going quite a few steps back, but it looks like a better starting point is in order.

It seems logical to me that support programs taken too far will have negative consequences. If this weren't true then why not expand them to infinity? The answer is obvious--someone has to produce. In case this isn't intuitive, I'll add specific examples referred to earlier but better clarified.

That makes sense, and I pretty much agreed with what you posted. If that was all you meant, than other than a gratuitous "left leaning" insert, your position seems reasonable.

 

[franklin]

That makes sense, and I pretty much agreed with what you posted. If that was all you meant, than other than a gratuitous "left leaning" insert, your position seems reasonable.

What's wrong with the generalization? I don't understand why people get so hung up on saying leftist or rightist or whatever. I understand that our media uses the terms to denigrate, but that's not what I intended. I thought I was careful enough to not put "left-leaners" up as a shot across the bow. Do you have a better suggestion?

 

[One Brow]

What's wrong with the generalization?

It's not accurate. When I think of "left-leaning" social programs, I think of welfare, Medicaid, etc. Programs that support home ownership, perhaps too aggressively, are supported at least as much, if not more, by right-wingers.

I agree the issues with the proper incentives for home ownership are complicated, and probably swung too far to supporting it in the last 20 years.

 

[One Brow]

Thread hijacked by Unibrow apparently.

First, it's One Brow. Please don't use an altered version.

Second, are you under the impression that I alone have been doing the posting? If not, why single me out?