Economist - "Claims that US 'poor are getting poorer' is largely a myth" - Is he correct?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Crafter_Man

Cutting taxes hasn’t led to a massive deficit. Massive spending has led to a massive deficit.

My point is (which you unsurprisingly seem to have missed) , your logic that the US system is not optimal because “there is too much government interference” is deeply flawed.

You might as well say that the USSR failed because there was not enough government control. Both statements are non-useful and bordering on foollish

[Shodan]

@Euphonious_Polemic

My point is (which you unsurprisingly seem to have missed) , your logic that the US system is not optimal because “there is too much government interference” is deeply flawed.

Then your unsupported allegation that tax cuts caused a massive deficit was a non sequitur.

You might as well say that the USSR failed because there was not enough government control. Both statements are non-useful and bordering on foollish

Two things about this - one is that this allegation is also a complete non sequitur, and the other is that “foolish” is spelled with one L.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Ah yes, I had a typo, therefore** Crafter_Man’s** logic is unassailable. You continue to impress me with your grasp of the world around us.

[Truman_Burbank]

Steophan, good question, I don’t know, but I don’t think that would be enough to explain the whole gap in either case.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Crafter_Man

Cutting taxes hasn’t led to a massive deficit. Massive spending has led to a massive deficit.

At any rate, a research paper By Harvard professor Alberto Alesina proves that spending cuts are more likely to increase growth vs. spending increases. (Tax hikes, obviously, have the opposite effect.)

Anyone can find commentary on the internet they agree with. Unless you can present that argument in your own words on a single computer screen I will suspect that you do not understand it.

In 1937 the Roosevelt administration reduced government spending, thinking that the Depression was over. The per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars declined from $6,721 in 1937 to $6,436 in 1938. Unemployment rose from 16.9 percent in 1936 to 19.0 percent in 1938.

In 1946 government spending declined because of the end of the Second World War. Per capita GDP declined from $12,100 in 1945 to $10,650 in 1946. Unemployment increased from 1.2 percent in 1944 to 3.9 percent in 1946.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Crafter_Man

Cutting taxes hasn’t led to a massive deficit. Massive spending has led to a massive deficit.

At any rate, a research paper By Harvard professor Alberto Alesina proves that spending cuts are more likely to increase growth vs. spending increases. (Tax hikes, obviously, have the opposite effect.)

That is like saying that overeating does not lead to obesity, but inactivity does. What has raised the national debt since 1980 has been a combination of tax cuts and increases in the military budget.

[flodnak]

@Damuri_Ajashi

No but, it [the oil revenue] does help pay for a lot of social programs that would otherwise cause financial strains for a country like Norway.

Nearly all of the Norwegian government’s oil revenues are being saved and invested for the future, not spent now. See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway. This shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the oil money means nothing, because it’s a valuable part of both the private and public sector economies in this country - but this thread is starting to make it sound like the oil money is a bottomless piggy bank the Norwegian government can raid at will.

We pay our friggin’ taxes to pay for our health care and schools and lousy roads just like the rest of Western Europe, dangit.