It sounds typical of a liberal professor at a liberal university to come up with a defining sentence that sums up what you interprete to be common sense advice on our economy such as "inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand."<quoted text>
The benefits of tax policy during the past three decades has helped the rich more than the poor and the middle classes; that's part of the reason why that 1% of Americans get 25% of the income each year in this country. You can point to many other reasons why the poor and middle class have lost ground on incomes, including the lack of contract bargaining power afforded by union membership, CEO pay skyrocketing vs. line workers, or even the beneficial treatment to the rich oligarchy by Congress from such things as outrageous copyright terms, patent monopolies, and access to the mining and timber resources on public lands for pennies on the dollar, but the bottom line is most of our nation's wealth has been pooing to a select, small group of the population.
It's not hard to see why an unemployed person would say 's c r e w' the system when the system is doing just that to him. As social creatures we measure our situation relative to those around us, and if it's all for some and little for everyone else then the system starts to break down. There's a reason why those nations who have achieved social equality tend to have greater income equality as well.
Christopher Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, wrote a paper in 2004 affirming that "inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand." Reducing inequality, he argued, would also reduce consumer debt. Less consumer debt? Does that ring a bell? It should, as many people cite rising debt as one of the catalysts for the meltdown. You can decry unemployment benefits all you want, but logical thinking people don't see that as a detriment to the financial security of a country, in fact deficit spending has long been used as a tactic to put us over the many recessionary humps in the past. But long term deficit spending in the amounts at stake by extending the tax cuts to the 1% who already enjoy 25% of our nation's income is extreme.
This sentence or idea makes no sense, wrongo. Does inequality exert anything on anything? Your professor doesn't seeem to know, do you? And does inequality include nearly 50% of our adult population paying only 2% of federal taxes?
I keep going back to my main point in these discussions with the "tax the rich" ideologues. 1. Name me all the poor people that create jobs and 2. How much more in taxes should anyone pay? Be specific please.
I, and many like me, see this as a spending problem, not a federal revenue problem. I know you like to blame Bush, so lets do it together. But in the same breath, lets not forget that the democrates have controlled the purse strings in congress for going on four years, and added to Obama they have outspent the bush regime silly. Combining these two spending administrations together has killed this nation.
The federal government must drastically shrink to fit into it's revenue or it's going to collapse from it's own debt following your other favorite liberal bastion, California.