Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Biden intensifies public lobbying for Covid-19 relief bill" video.
-
7
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pepepinochetshelicoptertou2696 Biden legally won the election and Trump cronies did everything in their power to change that. They sued dozens of times, tried to overrun the government's certification vote, tried to get electoral college members to change their vote, tried to pressure state governors to cheat for them and declared victory long before anything was decided. The "military curtain" is to protect the government from people like you, trying to overturn a legitimate and legal election with guns, pipe bombs, zip ties and gas. Trump is a wannabee fascist doing everything he could to try and cheat the election, steal from the government and lie to his supporters, whipping them into a frenzy to try and overturn democracy. He even stole from his supporters in the millions. He tried to get foreign governments to influence our elections as well, or did you forget that, exactly what he was accused of in 2016. It's transparent and dangerous, and you fell for it anyway, hook, line and sinker.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Weinmaste
The Paris Accord is not an iron-clad penalty riddled contract, it is an agreement to try to try to lower emissions. The US is also not pulling the weight of others, if anything the opposite is true, the US is one of the largest polluters.
The pipeline job cuts were all temporary and would only serve to build something we are trying to outmode. It would be like wasting billions on a new coal plant when we are trying to move onto renewable energy sources. The administration has already talked about shifting existing jobs into different parts of the energy sector to compensate job losses, creating permanent jobs for people rather than temporary ones.
Most of the executive orders signed were either undoing some bullshit Trump did or not orders at all, but actions. The remainder were necessary to push through quickly, especially as we are in a pandemic. Requiring masks during a pandemic should not be seen as dictatorial, but instead necessary for national security. Provisions that protect workers health and safety and promote Covid safety should not be seen as radical during a pandemic. These are things Trump should have done, but was too lazy to bother doing. He was too busy as well, claiming the virus wasn't real or was going to go away in the summer because of the warm weather. We finally have a leader leading the country.
They aren't paying for abortions for people in other countries. They changed a rule that used to block US foreign aid from performing or promoting abortions. This specific rule has been signed back and forth by every president for 35 years ever since Reagan introduced it, yes including Trump.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bill Billson
"$15 wages ages when the market doesn't call for it does not increase wealth"
What a load of bollocks. If you pay people more they have more wealth. It rocket science you spanner. The wage is double for some people.
"Increase unemployment"
An empty statement with nothing to back it up. Not only has the nominal minimum wage been higher in the past, it increased spending among the lowest earners, increasing overall spending and pushing businesses to perform better.
"The more you intervene the more severe these problems will be"
Oh sure. Let's just let monopolies crush the balls of the working class. Why not remove minimum wage and bring back slavery while we're at it? The only thing stopping things from being worse is the minute hold government has.
"But you fail to realize that ran programs are the most expensive"
1. By supplementing health the government stop medical bankruptcies. These are both terrible for the economy and yet still make up the majority of bankruptcies. Without Medicare and Medicaid we would see both more debt and more death, resulting in increases in unpaid debts. This would ruin the economy. These programs save money as a result. Also, due to various Republican policies, these programs could be cheaper, but just aren't.
"Gov healthcare and social sec that dens want account for over
half our spending"
Sure, if you ignore the discretionary spending, which is defense 57% of the time, and changes the total budget. Moreover, social security it paid for by people who pay into it, and Medicaid and Medicare pay for themselves.
1
-
@billbillson5082
"Ok, so why just 15? Why not raise it to 5000 an hour?"
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum a family can survive on. That definition had shifted over the years, to the point where people cannot survive on it any longer.
"monopolies are nearly impossible in an actual free market."
Bullshit. Monopolies are the end result of a free market. Government is the only thing stopping monopolies. Large corporations are what stop people from entry into the market.
"ok, you runa business and have your workers wages increase to $15 an hour. Guess what happens? You won’t have money to support that, so you’ll lay off the appropriate number to maintain some sort of revenue."
Or, you just raise prices to match the increase in wages. Do you know how much McDonalds would need to increase their prices to pay for a $15 wage? A 4.3% increase in prices. Wow, just fucking wow. Look at that disastrous inflation in action. How ever will we as a country survive? It's almost as if most of these business have operating costs tied up in purchasing and rent rather than wages. How crazy is that? This is also usually proposed over 5 years so by the time we get there the value of a dollar would have dropped roughly another 10% if the last 5 years are anything to go by.
"Most of them are on the brink themselves lol, and barely managing to get by while taking on enormous risk."
If the business owners aren't earning any money then they aren't paying taxes, aren't using their dividends to pay for things, and aren't contributing anything to the economy, especially if all their workers are on starvation wages and food stamps. Their employees in turn are also not paying taxes. They are actually taking from the economy by throwing away good money after bad. Their eventual bankruptcy from having such a shitty exploitative business model will only further harm economic strength.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Dems in the House passed several bloated stimulus bills full of a bunch of things they knew damn well would never pass the Senate"
Not sure why you think trying to help fellow Americans is bloat? God forbid they try to increase the stimulus payments to $2K. They also are literally waiting on Republicans right now.
"All $15 min wage will do is cause even further job losses and business closures in the restaurant industry and other small service businesses that are already getting obliterated by the pandemic"
False. By increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour you automatically put up to $1000 a month (after tax) into the hands of millions of workers currently earning below $15 an hour. That alone would be a solid regular stimulus payment for the poorest Americans, causing increases in spending in poor communities. Increased spending means increased business. Increases business means businesses are doing better, not worse. Restaurants also don't pay their tipped staff, so not sure where you get off claiming they would be worse off with a minimum wage change. Federal taxes from these workers would also increase, lessening the deficit. Best of all it would cost the federal government literally nothing, all so people can live like actual people. Finally, you would be able to reduce the number of workers getting federal benefits such as food stamps. You would literally save the federal government million, and make them even more millions, stimulate the economy, and help those who are most vulnerable in a single sweep.
"The executive orders that were just signed that are killing tens of thousands of jobs in the energy industry"
Ah yes, the temporary pipeline jobs. God forbit we steer away from outdated technology and use that 2 billion for people who actually need it. The renewable energy sector has been adding jobs for years now. Pushing funds into it to retrain oil workers is ideal. The pipeline itself was also a disaster for a multitude of other reasons. 2 native american communities were suing the construction of the pipeline for violating treaties for starters. They also didn't "eliminate" any jobs. The construction hadn't even started yet.
"blah blah politicians lie"
Yes we get it, you support some really crappy politicians. I don't believe that applies to all of them though.
"If government-mandated wages and checks actually helped anybody, why don't Dems just propose setting the min wage at $1,000/hr and sending us all checks for $1MM."
Minimum wage is designed to be the minimum a family needs to earn to live above the poverty line. 50 years ago it was closer to $12 an hour in todays money, and by the time the $15 comes into effect it will be sitting around that point as well. Arguing using an appeal to extremes is just pathetic and does nothing to push your actual position. Instead, it shows how dishonest you are about the situation. It would be like trying to explain that we're having power shortages so we need to build another power plant and you claiming "that's ridiculous, what are you going to build 100 power plants, that doesn't even make sense". See how dumb you sound? Minimum wage workers are short on funds constantly. If you really want I can break down your obviously absurd argument, but you don't really want that, you just want to make an idiotic point that serves no purpose.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Increased labor costs mean that in order to maintain the same profit margin they will need to either cut costs elsewhere or increase revenue."
McDonalds would need to increase prices 4% to cover this. Most business expenses are in rent and goods, not staff. Staff become expensive in low rent high skills jobs, like marketing and IT. This small increase in prices would still net a 99% increase in wages for those on federal minimum wage. Even if the inflation was 20%, they would still be on way more money.
"There is still a minimum wage for tipped employees, and if the minimum wage gets increased for kitchen staff a restaurant will likely have to take more from the tips of the wait staff to cover, reducing their total compensation."
Restaurants don't take money from tips, that's not how that works. They pay kitchen staff a wage and barely pay front of house.
"Even if that were true for some workers, their increased income is coming from business profits. Low-wage earners pay a low tax rate, in many cases as low as 0% after deductions and credits. The corporate tax rate is a flat 21%."
Full time minimum wage earners with kids would currently be paying almost exactly $0 in taxes. If you double their wages almost all the new wages are taxed. You are also not focusing on medicare/medicaid/social security, which you should really factor in. Corporations on the other hand do everything in their power to pay zero taxes. There would also be more business as minimum wage earners have more disposable income, leading to more profits, not less.
"Also false. In addition to the prior point, another way many companies handle a jump in the minimum wage is by eliminating full-time positions and replacing them with part-time positions that don't qualify for benefits like employer-sponsored health insurance or paid time-off. It's also easier to cut their hours. Where do you think those workers go for health insurance?"
So you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that businesses already do and would be literally the same regardless of a wage increase. If they would do it then why not do it now?
"NYC, DC, San Francisco, Seattle, those cities already have $15 min wage. I'm sure $15/hr has boosted their economies, kept cost-of-living from skyrocketing, and reduced instances of poverty and homelessness, right?"
They increased minimum wages because their prices were already high. Minimum wage was not the reason for rising costs, but the money flooding into these cities from outside. Some stockbroker is willing to spend $1m on an apartment close to his work, his buddy spends $2m, the next spends $3m, and so on. Outside investors buy property and never even use it. Restaurants start increasing prices to match the increasing rental costs due to rising property values. They then pay their staff more to compensate their staff for the increases in their cost of living. Wages increased after, not before.
"I used the extreme example to bait you into admitting that there is some point at which government assistance moves from helpful to harmful or financially unsustainable."
Right, and we disagree about line to a pretty substantial degree. You think the point is where people on minimum wage are still getting food stamps, are unable to have literally any savings, have healthcare so terrible if they ever use it they'll go bankrupt and the rich get richer. I think we should go back to the days when families could actually be supported from a single income with relative ease.
"But Democrats, progressives, liberals, SJWs - whatever you call yourselves nowadays - tend to want to debate by attacking the arguer from a presumed position of moral or intellectual superiority, instead of debating the merits and supporting evidence of the argument itself. It's pretty disgusting."
I'm sure the irony is lost on you.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"So your best defense of a min wage hike is that the largest fast food chain in the world can handle it?"
They're a franchise. Each individual McDonalds is a small businesses. They even receive government funds allocated for small businesses.
"For many of them labor costs are their largest expense."
No, they aren't. Profit margins on goods automatically put labour costs at well below the cost to purchase goods. Unless they are tripling the price of their products and their rent is practically non-existent this is just not true. Labour costs are only high in businesses that require skills and have low numbers of physical products, like desk jobs and trade jobs.
"Yes, they already do it, and artificially raising labor costs would cause that practice to accelerate."
Speculation. They do it when they can get away with it. If anything we should be releasing partial benefits for part time employees to discourage this practice. Changing minimum wage will not do anything to this.
"You're not accounting for how that is offset by individuals who have their hours cut to compensate, which would not result in an increase in what they are paying in taxes, and the individuals who lose their jobs completely and the businesses that close for good, all of which then generate zero income or payroll tax revenue."
Right, because everything you just said is bullshit, for the many multitude of reasons I have already outlined. You don't have any clue when it comes to encouraging spending to stimulate the economy or labour costs in small businesses. You don't account for a small amount of inflation to pay for a huge increase. Minimum wage used to be pretty much at this level, and businesses weren't closing their doors left right and center. Moreover, while at this level, GDP per capita was half what it is now. So not only could businesses afford it then, then could afford to double it again now. Imagine paying people for their worth.
"Now you didn't actually refute the point, you just stated something that was already a problem, and that a subsequent forced min wage hike not only demonstrably did not fix, but only exacerbated other problems."
No, my point was the increase in minimum wage came AFTER the increases in costs. Prices were already increasing due to rent prices in New York continually increasing, which is due to housing prices jumping, which is due to outside investment causing massive spikes in prices. It was a response to a need, which is exactly what we need now.
"I just believe that an ever-increasing amount of federal government spending and intervention is not the path to getting there"
Again, minimum wage increases would decrease government spending and generate more taxes while also stimulating the economy.
"and that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that government overreach is what has lead to many of these issues to begin with"
Like reducing oversight on the housing market....oh wait no, that's the opposite. Seriously, what is your "substantial body of evidence"?
"To suggest that more government manipulation will fix the problems related to the fallout from prior government manipulation measures makes no sense to me."
Like? You're just broadly claiming that government is the reason people are poor, which is laughable.
"My comment about the disgusting nature of progressives who attack the arguer rather than the argument was not necessarily directed at you or our policy-based debate, but more so at the sentiment often pushed by the left that the right disagrees with them on policies because they don't care about people, which is a character attack, not a policy debate."
So you decided to poison the well by trying to bait me with a blatantly absurd argument? Sounds like the work of a true thinker right there, really looking for an honest debate. It would be like me saying "why do we even have a minimum wage? Why not just set everything to zero?" and expecting an honest discussion out such a ridiculous proposal.
"Your original comment was that there is one party doing the pissing."
Right, in reference to the belief that trickle-down economics actually works. That and the 50 Republican Senators that are refusing the increase the minimum wage while voting unanimously to cut taxes for businesses, leading to the deficit climbing every year since Trump took office.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"This has been done before and there's literally zero evidence that it's ever helped an economy, and substantial evidence that it likely causes more harm overall than good."
Oh well, if you say so. After all, you nonsensical argument that says absolutely nothing about consumer habits couldn't possibly be wrong.....
"You obviously have no clue, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can forcibly raise the price of labor in an economy where the demand for it is already dropping and the supply is increasing, and that that will somehow stimulate economic activity."
Demand for labour will not continue to drop over the next 5 years, the timeframe for these increases. The fact that they are mailing out stimulus cheques is proof that giving people money stimulates the economy.
"but you oppose tax cuts"
I do, because tax cuts:
1. Don't effect people already not paying taxes.
2. Save far more money in the long run for those at the top.
3. Serve to temporary plicate the masses, only to rip away their tax cuts while leaving them in place for those well off already.
"which will only lower the pace at which wages are able to increase in the long-term"
Well sure. If wages have already gone up, they no longer need to go up. Not rocket science. Minimum wage earners however never see wage increases without this increase taking place.
"Yes, prices were already increasing, and raising the minimum wage did nothing to help anything"
It gave people enough money to live, meaning we didn't see increased bankruptcies, which is good for the economy.
"The government forced banks to reduce underwriting standards in home lending for certain groups of people, causing a surge in subprime loans which is where the meltdown started."
Um, no. They ALLOWED them to reduce their standards by REDUCING oversight and RELAXING laws. LESS oversight caused the meltdown, not more.
"How has government-backed student loans for college worked out? How has the ACA worked out for the healthcare industry? How's the future funding for Social Security and Medicare looking?'
Poorly, because they're all half-arsed watered down solutions to a problem so that corporation can be placated. You want to actually fix the issues, okay:
Universities are required to keep tuition rates at a rate determined by the government to make college more accessible for everyone. This can be by state or federal, allowing for a maximum fee. Student loans will also be government backed and interest controlled, meaning all interest is inline with COLA. Colleges will also be compensated for allowing this reduced rate.
ACA, Medicare and Medicaid are now scrapped. The government is building and buying hospitals around the country, employing their own staff and giving healthcare for free, using the funds previously going to Medicare, Medicaid and insurance. They will hire their own staff, charge their own fees, ignore red tape around insurance issues, and pay to send patients to private hospitals for specialist care as needed. They will also negotiate drug prices for the entire healthcare network as a whole. People can still purcahse private insurance to bridge the cap in aftercare or just pay for private care.
The government needs to take off the cap on social security and stop dipping into the pot to steal from those who paid in. SS will fix itself for decades with that simple adjustment. Long term they will probably reduce it by around 1/3 just because people are living too long.
"Venezuela was the third richest country in the western hemisphere less than 30 years ago."
True, and the government that came into power was both massively popular and did a lot of good for the people. Their issue was one of checks and balances. They had someone incompetent put in power and the system broke. For decades however poor people prospered. I should know, I was there 11 years ago when the value of Bolivars was high and the economy was doing well. They also relied very heavily on oil production to keep their economy growing, which eventually started to run dry, especially with government mismanagement. Allowing the free market to take over however would only be worse. Foreign oil companies would flock to the country, burn down the rainforest and leave people in squalor, so they can pay themselves millions. Only a government could stop that sort of activity.
"Yeah, why not? Having a minimum wage accomplishes nothing other than limiting opportunity and getting progressive politicians elected. "
They you advocate for a vast redistribution of wealth through other government systems? Maybe a reverse tax? Universal income? Let me know when you pick something that actually helps people and stimulates the economy rather than allowing Amazon and Wall Street brokers to profit off the poor and increase stock prices while not actually pushing money back into the economy because they're too busy setting up accounts in the Cayman islands.
"Taxes revenues climbed every year under Trump"
No: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-bill-did-not-cause-revenue-rise
Also, the ever rising deficit means he not only decreased tax revenues, he also increased debt. And for what?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Your arguments got much weaker as this progressed."
That's not even an argument, and I'm getting pretty sick of your general lack of understanding economics.
"That's a snarky comment, but provides nothing to refute my point."
Again, ignoring consumer habits. it's like the very words themselves confuse you.
"Do you have any evidence to support that? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Given the impending flood of unskilled workers into the country and the ever-increasing amount of automation replacing low-skilled jobs, there are many more factors indicating that demand in that area of the labor market will decline."
That has been true for literally the entire existence of the US. Demand doesn't drop. More people means more money in the market, means more businesses being created and expanded, means more jobs. That has always been true and continues to be true.
"That's why I made the earlier statement that you mocked - if you believe just sending people checks will "stimulate" the economy, why not just send checks for $10,000 every month, or $100K every week. Maybe $1MM per day. Man, that would sure "stimulate", right?"
Because there is a balance to these things. You need to balance stimulating the economy with inflation caused by, as you say, printing money. Weighing up how much people actually need, and how much they would even spend, with inflation and how much to give them is key. You also talk about borrowing money to survive, but survive in what way? Survive economically, hence the term 'stimulus'? They are investing in people to spend money in the economy to grow the economy overall. They understand that giving people money is good for the economy.
"The idea is to get more of those people situated well enough that they start paying some taxes. They don't exist in a vacuum of just being the people who don't and will never pay taxes."
Like paying them more..... financial class mobility is lower in the US than many other western nations because of this lack of a social safety net.
"Why is that more of a concern than how it helps people at the bottom? That argument always kills me. That's like saying eliminating poverty would be unjust if in the process more billionaires were created. It's this farcical narrative that believes the rich get all of their money by stealing it from the poor."
Because the only farcical narrative we have been spoon-fed is that giving billionaires more money will help the economy because they will reinvest that money domestically. While that may have been true 100 years ago, these days billionaires horde their cash and spend it overseas rather building something here. They bet on the stock market, then bet on other people's bets, then bet on those bets, and don't actually create jobs. Giving more money to those at the bottom yields direct results as they now have more financial freedom to spend in the economy.
"That's counterintuitive to #1. Also, the "ripping away" is the result of bloated government spending and loopholes in the code that benefit political donors."
Sure, we need a sliding scale with less loopholes. Upper tax rates could do with being a lot higher too.
"Everyone always wants to be improving their standard of living, and the cost of living is always increasing. Without wage growth then standard of livings by default decline."
Right, so minimum wage not moving in years has caused a drop in standard of living, so we should increase it. Again, by the time minimum wage hits $15 under this proposal (which will be closer to $12 in today's money) it will be back to the same level it was at in 1969 (again, in today's money).
"The government forced banks to make a certain percentage of their loans to riskier borrowers from lower income areas under the belief that it would decrease the disparity in home ownership rates between classes and races. Banks responded by successfully lobbying for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had previously prevented institutions from commingling investment banking and commercial banking activity. The government also became the financial backer of the riskier loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which meant banks now had no risk on their subprime loans. Yes, there were loosened restrictions and decreased oversight, but that was all as a result of the government manipulating the market, distorting prices, and changing the market-driven risk/reward fundamentals. It had disastrous results that almost destroyed the entire worldwide economy. There's no reason to believe manipulating wages and distorting labor markets would work out any better."
Wrong. The failed mortgages that caused the financial collapse were not the risky ones. Risky mortgages were packages and financed accordingly, with appropriate interest rates to account for levels of risk. They accounted for a percentage of these to fail. The loans that failed en masse were AAA rated and were not checked properly when sold in packages by the thousand. These are the loans that failed. The government bought these loans with the guarantee they were correctly rated, which they were not.
"That explanation could be used to describe every US government program ever."
So why not advocate for real policy that causes real change rather than whining about the system not working and claiming we need to be saved by Amazon or some shit?
"because it's widely recognized that the US economy, by all traditional measures, was extremely strong prior to the pandemic - unemployment rates and labor force participation statistics were all at or near record levels."
Yes and no. Economies don't change overnight, and coasting off a good economy, then pumping billions into it to artificially inflate the numbers will make anyone look good. But as you said, they were borrowing from the future to survive, and in doing so increased the deficit by hundreds of billions.
"Lot of conjecture there, but the best way to stimulate the economy is to get out of its way, as evidenced by Trump's economic policies. Government should be small and limited, and only get involved to the degree needed to keep markets free and fair."
Lol. Sure thing. While we're at it why don't we lower their taxes and jerk off their CEOs. I'm sure that won't ruin the deficit as they lobby to have the minimum wage dropped to $3.
"And how do you square continuously advocating for the expansion of government programs, but then complain about deficit spending. Where's the historical precedent for massive spending that lowered deficits?"
Not deficit spending, 'the deficit', meaning not just more spending but also less income, either/or. Republicans have a long history of cutting taxes and increasing military spending, while then complaining we have no money for government programs. Programs which would be more than well enough funded without the constant tax cuts and increases in other spending. Investing in programs that actually help people pays off. Just look at Obamacare. They spend money to reduce those not covered by health insurance, which in turn reduce medical bankruptcies and improved the overall strength of the economy. The result was an economy that crawled out of recession, dropped the deficit to very low levels and dropped unemployment to less than half what it was. Spending helped the economy overall. Your argument seems to ignore that investment draws dividends.
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709
"Why do you think America has a fourth of the population of China and India, but has a larger GDP than both of them combined?"
Because after WWII they used the combined technological advancements and the fact that they were the only industrialised nation left to dominate the market. Most European countries had to completely rebuild. They also used immigrants consistently throughout their entire history. Sorry you want to close the door now you're already here. It will however negatively effect the economy.
"You're talking in circles and can't even follow your own logic thread. Subprime loans were rated AAA because they were being backed by the federal government. The rating is based on default risk. The default risk was justified as being very low when the government is the creditor, just like Treasury bonds."
Wrong. The subprime loans were not being properly vetted. Loans being government backed doesn't change risk or loan ratings. Loan ratings are based on the percentage chance of them failing. This is were you are confused. The problem was that the banks didn't vet loans correctly and sold them as low risk when they packaged and resold, when in fact they were high risk. Seriously, have you not seen the Big Short? They explain this all very very well. I'm sure Margot Robbie would keep your attention for at least a little while before you start whining about the government.
"Pay people what they're worth!"
Yes, a radical idea. Did you know that if wages increased with GDP minimum wage would be $24 an hour? People are being undervalued.
"Give us checks and free shit!"
A idiotic mentality really. People are earning an income for the business they work for. They are then paid a portion of this worked income as compensation. The lowest amount of compensation people see is currently less than a third of what it was in the past based on that income. Wanting things for free is the opposite of what I want. I want people to be paid fairly. Is that so much to ask?
"there is no magic government policy that fixes everything. Less government involvement and more freedom is the path to prosperity for more people"
The whole point of the government is to protect people from businesses overreaching and exploiting things, be it people's value, the environment, public safety or anything else we have regs on. The market on the other hand does everything it can to monopolize and cut worker rights, protections and conditions. Really not sure why you love monopolies and hate workers rights.
"that the economy was good under him"
Pretty much. Employment was in a nosedive when he took office. He reversed it and dropped unemployment down to 4.7%, less than half what it was when he took office. Blaming Obama for the financial crisis and the deficit, even though jobs grew consistently, is simply objectively stupid. As I said, and will say again, economies don't change overnight. Arguing that the entire financial crisis, the largest recession since the great depression, took a few years to right itself because of Obama just makes you look idiotic. Arguing that a crisis that massively hit homeowners is for some reason causing huge issues with the middle class makes you look idiotic. Arguing that zero interest rates are a bad idea when banks are literally refusing to write mortgages makes you look idiotic. Obama had slow and steady growth year over year. What more could you want in light of a recession? Are you angry GDP didn't increase 20% in March of him taking office or something? Seriously, what is your guidestick for a good economy after a huge global economic recession?
"Obama ran the biggest deficits of any president in history"
Big oof......
"I'm not even going to address the assertion that Obamacare helped the US crawl out of a recession and reduced deficits. That's too dumb of a claim to even discuss. There's a reason why the middle class became a minority class less than 5 years after it's implementation. What a magical program."
Of course you aren't, because then you would have to admit that the program lowered bankruptcies and actually saved lives by allowing people to get healthcare. That's not really the capitalistic way of living though is it.
"Let's all just quit our jobs and collect government benefits for everything. What would we call that program - the Progress Initiative?"
See what I mean about the argumentum ad absurdums. You really can't help yourself from being an inflammatory child. Social support networks help people to, more than anything, not go bankrupt. Bankruptcies are what broke the economy the last time. Support networks work just fine in other countries, and show that issues like mass poverty and homelessness shouldn't really be a first world problem.
I think the main issue is that you are far more interested in the bottom line than individuals. You constantly undervalue individuals in the hopes that large businesses can exploit them enough to grow. You think that this will eventually help those exploited individuals and the economy as a whole. So lets go with a hypothetical. Would you sacrifice 10% of GDP to have the US poverty rate drop by 80%?
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709 Okay, let's make this quick because you're being stupider than usual.
Other countries didn't have a drop in labour post WWII and neither did the US. The labour markets shifted in countries either to tech or rebuilding. Really not sure what your argument is here.
Historically legal immigration was purposefully made more difficult in the US because they were trying to encourage illegal immigration. Both types of immigration pay into the system more than they take out.
At this point you just need to admit that you have no idea what caused the housing market crash. It's just sad really that you're this far up your own arse. The low quality loans directly run by the government programs did not cause the crisis. Banks marketing subprime loans as AAA did. They were not encouraged to do this, they were underregulated.
Not sure what your argument is since highschoolers used to make that when comparing the income of the movie theatre. Also, yes, you literally want people to be paid less.
You think free markets protect workers rights? Are you joking?
Trump grew the economy and jobs at the same rate as Obama did after he stabilised the economy. The recession was only second to the great depression, so of course recovery was slow. A faster recovery would have made the market volatile. Hypocritically, you also can't help but strawman.
Big oof because someone hasn't looked at the deficit recently.
No, ACA did not cause prices to skyrocket. It actually reduced the increases in those substantially as they had been skyrocketing for years.
Yes, foreclosures are the sole reason the market was fucked, and almost everyone that foreclosed went bankrupt. The credit crunch and job losses were knock on effects, not the main cause. Personal bankruptcies are also not good for the economy. Arguing otherwise is just sad.
Historical precedent? Wow you are a moron. Historically workers rights and personal wages for those at the bottom have only improved with government intervention. Read a fucking book.
Not an ad hominem if it's true though is it. Larger businesses don't support higher minimum wages, not sure where you got that idea. Also, arguing wage growth while literally arguing against a wage increase makes you look idiotic. Here, this is how you sound:
"You can't be paid $15 an hour. How will you ever manage to earn more than minimum wage?" - some business arsehole who pays their workers $8 an hour.
Seriously, go break up a union or beat up a teenager for earning too much or some shit. Would be right up your alley.
So to cap it, you keep regurgitating the same points then claiming that you are such a fucking genius with the economy. You are of course not, and it's embarrassing talking to someone so smoothbrained. I'm not here to undo years of indoctrination that makes you believe cutting wages actually increases them. You can't even argue what the current deficit is without declaring victory like a pathetic politician at a podium. You're an embarrassment that shills for businesses, and you're part of the problem. I'm sure you'll go off and decide you won this argument because you're just that simple. Maybe you'll even know what a deficit is pretty soon, but until that day enjoy being an idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1