War on Poverty and government efficiency

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

All that proves is that the rich make ungodly gobs of money compared to the rest of everyone else. And if you think that tranfer of wealth to the rich stopped at the bailouts, you'd be wrong.

Yeah, but the transfer is from rich to rich, 85% (99% if you add in the 4th quintile).

So a bailout for the rich is all from the top 40% of taxpayers (and most of the 4th quintile contributions come at the very top of the bracket, so it's really like 90-somethign % from the top 25% of taxpayers (people who earn ~100k and up))

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

As the poor get poorer, they will want more entitlements. As the rich get richer they can buy off congress for more entitlements. In the end the poor will lose. They're millions of now white americans being forced into poverty and rest assured if you see your kids starving you'll go stand in line for foodstamps and welfare.

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

Wonder what will happen with the next coming meltdown. Most agree it will be much worse.

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.

[tater]

Not having money taken from you is NOT "welfare."

Welfare is money transfer. The money does not belong to the government.

This thread is NOT about tax collection, it's about SPENDING. The bulk of the budget is spent on social programs. A large chunk of that for the poor (the rest being the old). That said, since the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes actually collected, payouts to the "rich" are by definition funded by... the rich. If poverty programs were 90% funded by those in poverty, I'd have no place to whine, would I?

The money spent on people the government considers poor, divided by the number of those people that the government considers poor makes it mathematically impossible for them to be poor unless the government makes a massive mark up some how.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.

Nice political speech, especially since this started as a thread on government misspending, but what is your solution?

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And the narrative that the grifter class of rich sell to everyone else is that its the unions, the poor, the liberals, the Democrats, the illegal aliens who are keeping America down. Manufactured movements like the Tea Party keep the anger corralled away from the true culprits in institutionalized theft.

No, it's hammer missing nail, not even hitting thumb, and putting a hole in the drywall (yeah, I'm oldschool, I remember nailing drywall, not screwing it). (I suppose I should have made the analogy nailing flooring and wreaking it since that is a spiral nail, not a drywall nail, but I did more drywall back in the day).

Read the OP. The issue was inefficiency in spending. Divide expense on the poor by the number of poor.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.

No sir I did not say that. Do not assume what I might have stated. Simply put we have manufacturing plants from foreign countries. No I do not need to see the numbers however as the world economy changes week to week foreign companies recognize that shipping cost, duties and taxes take their product out of the market compared to foreign companies already manufacturing cars/products in the states. For example, VW can not compete with Toyota and Honda concerning pricing in the states. The only way for VW to compete is making a factory in the states which VW has started and to be completed next year. The dynamics are changing.

Even so, I'm a firm supporter of keeping manufacturing here in the states.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

Not having money taken from you is NOT "welfare."

Welfare is money transfer. The money does not belong to the government.

This thread is NOT about tax collection, it's about SPENDING. The bulk of the budget is spent on social programs. A large chunk of that for the poor (the rest being the old). That said, since the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes actually collected, payouts to the "rich" are by definition funded by... the rich. If poverty programs were 90% funded by those in poverty, I'd have no place to whine, would I?

The money spent on people the government considers poor, divided by the number of those people that the government considers poor makes it mathematically impossible for them to be poor unless the government makes a massive mark up some how.

Your numbers aren't close, the bulk is spent on corporate bailouts and show me the trickle down effect to the average american

Payouts aren't funded by the rich, they're added to the national debt for the next several generations.

You realize a once thriving middle class in America is on life support why a few percent get even richer. Again, it's regulation...not taxes is how they've become uber rich. They'll gladly pay any amount of taxes as long as they can write regulation...it's like winning the lottery.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Oh, now our manufacturing base is in a boom, I didn't know. You want the real numbers of jobs sent here compared to jobs we've exported.

No, the US has lost mfg jobs, no question. None the less we have even now low unemployment compared to much of the world (BTW, the unemployment rate for non-HS dropouts is close to 5%, only those that don't take FREE education are really hammered (~20% unemployment for HS dropouts).


Tater, the FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously benefited investors and large depositors. A neat example, a corporate operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it, made mass profits and still hasn't paid the government a dime back...this is happening all over except for auto paying back.

True, also helped people with accounts.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year, compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

LOL. The budget is almost 4 TRILLION. Not 1.4. You are looking at the discretionary budget. Most spending in on social programs—programatic spending. Entitlements. Tax breaks are NOT the same in the least. The US corporate rate is very high, so the code is filled with loopholes. This is just like the old, high marginal rates before Reagan. The top rate was high, but no one actually payed that due to all the loopholes. the effective rates were basically identical to right now. Lower the corp rate, and eliminate loopholes—note that many loopholes are protectionist measures to keep business here, so be clear what you want, don't complain about lost jobs when loopholes go away.

Where's all that money go? "There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud.

I'm against subsidies. That said, it's chump change compared to 900 billion spent on 44 million that doesn't solve the problem for the 44 million. I could halve the spending and have ZERO poor. Save money, AND the poor are better off. Win-win.

And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages."

37 billion. Wow. Under 1% of federal spending.

The problem is we are a nation of entitlement from the poor to the rich, but the rich are getting the better end of the deal.

Entitled to pay loads of taxes? Again, any money the rich get is money collect from... the rich. Any money the poor get is money collected from... the rich. I am less concerned with the rich giving themselves their money back, after all, it's their money. I'm all for ending subsidy, and a rational, no loopholes tax policy (personal and corporate).

It's just gonna get worse in the jobless recovery as more CEO's make billions off taxpayers.

No CEOs shoudl have been bailed out, we agree, presumably that they should sink or swim on their own merits. If that puts GM, AIG, et al out of business, so be it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Nice political speech, especially since this started as a thread on government misspending, but what is your solution?

No easy solution. So much of politics is intertwined with corporate money. Laws and policies are written by the very industries that are to be regulated.

Take the rule on leverage for financial firms. It used to be that they were limited to a 12 to 1 ratio for debt to net capital. In 2004, the big 5 (Merrill, Goldman, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, Morgan Stanley) pushed to be exempt from the rule. The SEC allowed it. Lehman was at 33 to 1 when it failed (meaning a 3% drop in the value of their investments would wipe out all your capital.) Take a look at the current status of the names on that list to see how well that rule worked out.

So long as the inmates are running the asylum, you're going to end up with laws that favor the upper class at the expense of everyone else. I say ban all campaign contributions that do not come from individuals. No more corporate money. No more PAC money. That'd be a great start.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Your numbers aren't close, the bulk is spent on corporate bailouts and show me the trickle down effect to the average american
.

Most federal spending is on entitlements. Defense is a distant second.

You are right that they borrow a lot of the money, but when it comes to be paid, the rich will be the ones paying it.

My numbers come from the CBO, where do yours come from?

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So long as the inmates are running the asylum, you're going to end up with laws that favor the upper class at the expense of everyone else. I say ban all campaign contributions that do not come from individuals. That'd be a great start.

I might agree with that as long as that includes unions, too. I'd then eliminate the cap though, as long as the money was 100% public. No limits on personal contributions, but they must be made in the open, for everyone to see. No organization can contribute in your name, so it's a 100% personal decision.

Of course open contributions would mean a union boss could check his guys contributions, and they could face sanctions for not toeing the line... As could management guys if they were the other way (Wall street splits money pretty evenly between parties on average, though).

Campaign stuff is non-trvial.

Putting Geithner in charge is definitely more of the same (compared to W).


<EDIT> On Topic: We spend about $20,000 per person at or below the poverty line for programs to help people at or below the poverty line. Could the government improve outcomes with less money? I think so. So large cuts in spending, but large improvements for the poor into the bargain. Not talking about slashing what the poor GET, but slashing what we SPEND. The two things seem very disconnected. You can argue about ending any direct payouts to business, or eliminating the dept of agriculture, but I'll just agree they need to go away, too.

[AVGWarhawk]

as long as that includes unions

I agree and I might add for Armistead that these very same unions are an integral part of manufacturing ending up overseas.

[Armistead]

Most numbers I use are from "The Tax Policy Center" a washington think tank...

Don't start beating me up on typos...My arm is in a sling and I shouldn't be typing....you're killing me. You're smart enough to know what I'm saying

You're aware the average tax break related to the last taxcut the average millionaire got back about 85K, the average 50K person got $20 bucks.

Again, it's not about taxes. If you could write regulation that would net you a 200% in profits, you would have no problem paying another 10% in tax.

The bigger issue wil be the global economy. America is being brought down to size now because of it. Why we may still lead the world in many ways, it doesn't work for most americans as they get poorer and poorer.

My lifestyle is half. I made over 200K 3 years ago. I'm disabled, but work. I'll be honest, I made a pity 72K this year. I get by because I don't have debt, but with my illness I'm putting every dime away, because I pay my expense out of pocket and if I took all the medical care they wanted I would be bankrupt in a week. Maybe one day adults with preexisting condtions will get affordable healthcare, but not if corporations have any say.

I think we both know our nation is headed for ruination and a two class system of a few percent rich and most poor. All the facts show that...The rich class has increased wealth 100 fold. Do you realize most now have loopholes and their wealth can go to their kids with no
inheritance tax..?

You should see the fox in the henhouse, that is unless you're one of the few uber rich.

I deal with several groups, mostly people with disease and living in poverty. Most worked all their lives, most once had insurance but couldn't pay cobra when jobs were losts. Most were denied or had to fight for years to get LTD they paid for for years, few see it, just search UNUM and see what people go through.

Sure, we have those that enjoy being poor and living off the government, but most don't. I've seen people eat dogfood, seen the sick blow their brains out waiting years to be approved for SS, medicare or LTD they paid for, so yea it burns me when another CEO buys his wife a million dollar coat knowing a disabled vet blew his head off not being able to get care. You call it capitalism...anyone with a brain knows better....it's bought and paid for regulation to do as they please.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by

<EDIT> On Topic: We spend about $20,000 per person at or below the poverty line for programs to help people at or below the poverty line. Could the government [I

improve outcomes[/I] with less money? I think so. So large cuts in spending, but large improvements for the poor into the bargain. Not talking about slashing what the poor GET, but slashing what we SPEND. The two things seem very disconnected. You can argue about ending any direct payouts to business, or eliminating the dept of agriculture, but I'll just agree they need to go away, too.

I can agree with this....

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I agree and I might add for Armistead that these very same unions are an integral part of manufacturing ending up overseas.

I hate all unions. Maybe they once had a place, not anymore. I fear they will grow. Funny how unions can vote for something and then have the Dems exempt them from the things they voted for.

We all can agree on one thing....

The system is FUBAR .

Don't let em take your guns...