Can You Imagine How Badly It Might Have Gone If Trump* Had Been Elected In 2008?

Hello Celticguy,

Celticguy said:
Still unconstitutional and unfundable regardless who likes it.
Click to expand...

Please state the part of the Constitution which is being violated.

Andrew Yang raised $16.5 Million toward his campaign. He is not going away. People like his ideas.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Celticguy,



Please state the part of the Constitution which is being violated.

Andrew Yang raised $16.5 Million toward his campaign. He is not going away. People like his ideas.
Click to expand...

Its unconstitutional because its not enumerated.

16m is uncompetetive. A few may like him but not enough to matter.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



If the government provided commensurate services to the level of taxation it is logical that some compromise should be worked out there. After all, that's the whole idea. But those are not the only differences between the nations. In Germany, every corporation is required to have labor representation on the board which makes the decisions which affect labor. And executives are paid FAR less in Europe than they are in the USA. The ratio of executive to average worker pay is far lower. That disparity would also have to be eliminated. Either the rich can't be raking in a far greater portion of the national wealth OR they have to be taxed at a far greater rate, one or the other.
Click to expand...

The ratio you speak of was not government mandated. That was a natural development within their economy. If you start using government to limit executive pay, that will have a negative impact on business growth here.
 
Micawber said:
Imagine how bad it would have been if Trump had been duly elected with a mandate, instead of coming in second to Hillary.

No election is legitimate when the winner gets fewer votes than second place. To the extent Trump got to inhabit the White House anyway,
the law is an ass.
Click to expand...

Pass an Amendment. It's been the law for over 200 years.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if there was full reserve banking where would the money to make loans come from?.......full reserve would mean banks could do nothing except hold the money......banks would earn nothing, therefore they would pay no interest on saving and would not make loans.........
Click to expand...

That's not actually how full reserve banking works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking

Full-reserve banking (also known as 100% reserve banking) is a proposed alternative to fractional-reserve banking in which banks would be required to keep the full amount of each depositor's funds in cash, ready for immediate withdrawal on demand. Funds deposited by customers in demand deposit accounts (such as checking accounts) would not be loaned out by the bank because it would be legally required to retain the full deposit to satisfy potential demand for payments. Proposals for such systems generally do not place such restrictions on deposits that are not payable on demand, for example time deposits.

Time deposits are things like certificates of deposit. Yes, full reserve banking would greatly reduce overall liquidity and lending, but it would also result in less debt overall.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
The ratio you speak of was not government mandated. That was a natural development within their economy. If you start using government to limit executive pay, that will have a negative impact on business growth here.
Click to expand...

It may make it more difficult to excel but that doesn't mean the best won't. One thing is for sure. Look at the big picture:

Back in the 1950's the ratio of pay between American executives and the average worker under them was about 15/1. Very similar to what exists in Germany today. Executives paid income tax rates over 90%, but only on the amounts they earned over everybody else. For the amount that equaled everybody else, they paid the same tax as anybody else who made that much. (That ratio is about 300/1 today.)

Back when America 'was great,' the government used the money to rebuild America. Interstate highways, Hospitals, schools, airports, the space race. It was a grand time. The 1950's. That's the age many Trump fans think of when they reminisce about when 'America was great.' The baby boom. The economic boom. The great American middle class.

Now, the rich have bought off most of government with big money, their taxes have been reduced to such a low amount that we run our country on credit and don't even pay for it, shoving the debt off onto the next generation. They have used that power to build their own wealth, and to make it very difficult for others to rise from nothing to wealth. The class war is real and it has been won by the rich. They have nearly all the money, the lower half has nothing perceptible at all, and the government is hopelessly in debt with no foreseeable possibility of ever paying it off. All of the wealth that could be extracted from the economy and from the government has been, and it has been done by a very small segment of our populace. It is so much that many functions in our society and government have been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness, education being a prime example as we trail other smaller nations by a great distance in STEM education, which is ridiculous and dangerous.

We have to fix this or we are toast.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wait, so bailing out the banks was a bad thing, but Obama did it, and who knows what would have happened if Trump had been there to actually do a bad thing?.........you do realiize 2009 WAS a mess, right?......
Click to expand...

The president is not a king. Well, until Trump came along. Obama worked hard to save the economy and it was obvious that bankers refused to do anything about the mess they caused on their own. The US forced banks to buy up failing institutions. They had to save the banking system. It almost fell apart because bankers insisted on keeping their salaries and 100 percent of their bonuses or they would walk, The ones who caused the mess were made whole to save the system. I wanted Obama to nationalize the banks or at least a big chunk of them. You can figure out what the bankers thought about that. You can, can't you?
The result was also damaging in that banks were consolidated. The thieves walked away with all their money and more power. Bankers and Repubs have worked hard to water down Dodd/Frank since it was being drafted. They have succeeded. Money talks in the US. We are still vulnerable to another banking crash.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



It may make it more difficult to excel but that doesn't mean the best won't. One thing is for sure. Look at the big picture:

Back in the 1950's the ratio of pay between American executives and the average worker under them was about 15/1. Very similar to what exists in Germany today. Executives paid income tax rates over 90%, but only on the amounts they earned over everybody else. For the amount that equaled everybody else, they paid the same tax as anybody else who made that much. (That ratio is about 300/1 today.)

Back when America 'was great,' the government used the money to rebuild America. Interstate highways, Hospitals, schools, airports, the space race. It was a grand time. The 1950's. That's the age many Trump fans think of when they reminisce about when 'America was great.' The baby boom. The economic boom. The great American middle class.

Now, the rich have bought off most of government with big money, their taxes have been reduced to such a low amount that we run our country on credit and don't even pay for it, shoving the debt off onto the next generation. They have used that power to build their own wealth, and to make it very difficult for others to rise from nothing to wealth. The class war is real and it has been won by the rich. They have nearly all the money, the lower half has nothing perceptible at all, and the government is hopelessly in debt with no foreseeable possibility of ever paying it off. All of the wealth that could be extracted from the economy and from the government has been, and it has been done by a very small segment of our populace. It is so much that many functions in our society and government have been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness, education being a prime example as we trail other smaller nations by a great distance in STEM education, which is ridiculous and dangerous.

We have to fix this or we are toast.
Click to expand...

There are lot of interesting factors to consider with the 1950s as compared with today.

First, the US had a massive manufacturing sector that had little overseas competition. Because of the vast economic growth we had, taxation was less of an issue, and a lot of the tax revenue was specifically spent on infrastructure. As overseas competition developed, so did tax policy. Executive pay also rose steadily, as did a large upper class.

People often look at the high personal taxes on upper income during the 50s and assume that this meant that the rich were paying huge percentages to the government. In reality, the rich deducted a huge amount of their tax liability. There was no minimum tax liability (similar to the current AMT) until 1969. This means that you could potentially deduct away all of your tax liability up until 1969. So there were plenty of wealthy people paying very small percentages in tax during the '50s, and some even paid no taxes. The reason tax revenue was so high at the time had less to do with tax policy and more to do with being so far ahead of the rest of the world in economic growth.

Another thing to consider is that the '50s had a "dark underbelly", so to speak. White people were doing pretty well at that time in terms of economic advancement, but black people were held back by segregation. While wage growth for black people was good in some economic sectors, segregation had the effect of limiting competition for many jobs. Blacks didn't have access to many of the better schools, and so their career prospects were limited. By contrast, whites had better economic mobility due to less competition in labor.

After decades of racial integration, things leveled out some. Minorities fared better economically, while white people declined a bit. This was a natural result of more competition in the market. In short, some of the economic mobility that you can see with whites during the '50s and '60s had less to do with taxes and more to do with government limiting competition. It also had to do with little overseas competition.

Things are so different now in terms of the global market and society, that people can't realistically expect us to ever return to the growth of those times.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
There are lot of interesting factors to consider with the 1950s as compared with today.

First, the US had a massive manufacturing sector that had little overseas competition. Because of the vast economic growth we had, taxation was less of an issue, and a lot of the tax revenue was specifically spent on infrastructure. As overseas competition developed, so did tax policy. Executive pay also rose steadily, as did a large upper class.

People often look at the high personal taxes on upper income during the 50s and assume that this meant that the rich were paying huge percentages to the government. In reality, the rich deducted a huge amount of their tax liability. There was no minimum tax liability (similar to the current AMT) until 1969. This means that you could potentially deduct away all of your tax liability up until 1969. So there were plenty of wealthy people paying very small percentages in tax during the '50s, and some even paid no taxes. The reason tax revenue was so high at the time had less to do with tax policy and more to do with being so far ahead of the rest of the world in economic growth.

Another thing to consider is that the '50s had a "dark underbelly", so to speak. White people were doing pretty well at that time in terms of economic advancement, but black people were held back by segregation. While wage growth for black people was good in some economic sectors, segregation had the effect of limiting competition for many jobs. Blacks didn't have access to many of the better schools, and so their career prospects were limited. By contrast, whites had better economic mobility due to less competition in labor.

After decades of racial integration, things leveled out some. Minorities fared better economically, while white people declined a bit. This was a natural result of more competition in the market. In short, some of the economic mobility that you can see with whites during the '50s and '60s had less to do with taxes and more to do with government limiting competition. It also had to do with little overseas competition.

Things are so different now in terms of the global market and society, that people can't realistically expect us to ever return to the growth of those times.
Click to expand...

One of the things that hurt economic prospects for black America was welfare. We made unwed childhood a paid career and made sure that fathers were not living with the family. This left a lot of young single men on their own to get into trouble and it destroyed poor black family structure. It was the unintended consequences of a program meant to help. We had the right intentions but experienced mixed results. That system needs more social engineering.

I agree the factors which created the great American middle class cannot be recreated and that it would be unrealistic to expect that experience to be reproduced. I do think we can do far better than what we have now. Greedy capitalism driven corrupt government is horribly inefficient. Vast amounts of human capital are wasted.
 
Woko Haram said:
That's not actually how full reserve banking works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking

Full-reserve banking (also known as 100% reserve banking) is a proposed alternative to fractional-reserve banking in which banks would be required to keep the full amount of each depositor's funds in cash, ready for immediate withdrawal on demand. Funds deposited by customers in demand deposit accounts (such as checking accounts) would not be loaned out by the bank because it would be legally required to retain the full deposit to satisfy potential demand for payments. Proposals for such systems generally do not place such restrictions on deposits that are not payable on demand, for example time deposits.

Time deposits are things like certificates of deposit. Yes, full reserve banking would greatly reduce overall liquidity and lending, but it would also result in less debt overall.
Click to expand...

interesting.....you say that's not actually how it works then you cite a description which states its exactly how it works.......
 
" Can You Imagine How Badly It Might Have Gone If Trump* Had Been Elected In 2008? "

I don't think we would have seen the steady recovery.

Austerity could have sent us into depression.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock.
 
Nordberg said:
The president is not a king. Well, until Trump came along. Obama worked hard to save the economy and it was obvious that bankers refused to do anything about the mess they caused on their own. The US forced banks to buy up failing institutions. They had to save the banking system. It almost fell apart because bankers insisted on keeping their salaries and 100 percent of their bonuses or they would walk, The ones who caused the mess were made whole to save the system. I wanted Obama to nationalize the banks or at least a big chunk of them. You can figure out what the bankers thought about that. You can, can't you?
The result was also damaging in that banks were consolidated. The thieves walked away with all their money and more power. Bankers and Repubs have worked hard to water down Dodd/Frank since it was being drafted. They have succeeded. Money talks in the US. We are still vulnerable to another banking crash.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't force banks to do anything......he bribed them to do it.......but, as you say.....instead of bribing them to do something which punished the wrong doers he ended up bribing them to do things which benefited them........
 
PoliTalker said:
One of the things that hurt economic prospects for black America was welfare. We made unwed childhood a paid career and made sure that fathers were not living with the family. This left a lot of young single men on their own to get into trouble and it destroyed poor black family structure. It was the unintended consequences of a program meant to help. We had the right intentions but experienced mixed results. That system needs more social engineering.
Click to expand...

when conservatives say things like that you guys call them racists.......
 
PoliTalker said:
" Can You Imagine How Badly It Might Have Gone If Trump* Had Been Elected In 2008? "

I don't think we would have seen the steady recovery.

Austerity could have sent us into depression.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock.
Click to expand...

not even if you have a magic wand that brings back manufacturing jobs?.....
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



One of the things that hurt economic prospects for black America was welfare. We made unwed childhood a paid career and made sure that fathers were not living with the family. This left a lot of young single men on their own to get into trouble and it destroyed poor black family structure. It was the unintended consequences of a program meant to help. We had the right intentions but experienced mixed results. That system needs more social engineering.

I agree the factors which created the great American middle class cannot be recreated and that it would be unrealistic to expect that experience to be reproduced. I do think we can do far better than what we have now. Greedy capitalism driven corrupt government is horribly inefficient. Vast amounts of human capital are wasted.
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree that welfare screwed a lot of things up.

I actually agree with the UBI idea, but only if we get rid of all other welfare. It would be cheaper to administrate, you could layoff a ton of lazy federal employees, and you could make it so that people could opt to make the stipend a tax credit. All of that together would greatly benefit the country.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
interesting.....you say that's not actually how it works then you cite a description which states its exactly how it works.......
Click to expand...

Demand deposit funds would not be lended, but things like time deposit funds would be. You seemed to assume that banks wouldn't be able to lend at all.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
Oh, I completely agree that welfare screwed a lot of things up.

I actually agree with the UBI idea, but only if we get rid of all other welfare. It would be cheaper to administrate, you could layoff a ton of lazy federal employees, and you could make it so that people could opt to make the stipend a tax credit. All of that together would greatly benefit the country.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. I don't see any need to administer nearly as many social assistance programs if we simply began a UBI. It would replace the need for much of that, and it would free those workers from the need to work. They themselves could go on the UBI, or, if they choose, they could try to find work elsewhere for even more income. The UBI should be enough to live comfortably. Some assistance programs such as extra needs therapy and other medical and mental will require extra social assistance funding, so there will still be a need for some social workers to determine eligibility for those programs. Simple food and bills assistance programs can vanish, along with all the bureaucrats who run them, and the overhead costs associated with administering them. This will also free up large amounts of funding which can be applied to the UBI program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top