That's A-McCain...

Was It Really Reagan’s Fault?

mrsmccain — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:54:21 +0000

So I am reading a Krugman article about Reagan’s fiscal policies and how it affected America. I have a hunch that he thinks that this whole economic crisis was Reagan’s fault in the first place. He pin points it specifically to income inequality. It’s true that in the sense that only a few people saw their incomes go up while the majority of working families barely saw any gains. Back in the 1980’s, the incomes of the richest [top 2% I am thinking], grew by 62% while the incomes of the bottom grew by only 21%. So that means that the poorest of the poor only received a $143 gain [except in Alaska when the poor gained faster than the rich].

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Household_Income_1967_to_2003.png

Here you can see that all incomes better benefited from the gains in 2003 than in 1967. Maybe it can be because Former President Bush fixed the Bubble Crisis in 2000? Maybe so… but check this out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Income_gains.jpg

This was from 2005 and here you can see the enormous income gap happening here and that income gap was said to have caused our current recession.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Median_Personal_Income_1975_to_2005.png

If I am not mistaken, this is believed to be the gains for the median [personal] incomes. They clearly did better in 2005.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/images/cda99-07cht1.gif

Here, this is from 1997. You can see the enormous income gap here as the top gets 50% of the nation’s money… more than they did under Reagan or Bush.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/images/cda99-07cht2.gif
Another one from ’97…

So in my findings, the bigger income gap happened under Clinton… not Reagan.

Krugman, Paul. “Reagan Did It.” New York Times Blog 5/31/2009 1. Web.2 Jun 2009. .

Coleman, Nancy. “Press Release: Income Inequality Grew Across The Country Over The Past Two Decades: Early Signs Suggest Inequality Now Growing Again After Brief Interruption .” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 1/26/2006 1. Web.2 Jun 2009. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=978.

Thought’s on taxes…

mrsmccain — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:38:32 +0000

So I am thinking to myself, why would so many conservatives say that the government should cut taxes for the rich first? That kind of set me off there for a second. I am for all incomes getting a tax cut but I think that our main focus with these tax cuts should be the average man. It’s not going to help the wealthy’s companies if the average man doesn’t have money to buy their goods. It is a known fact. When arguing about tax cuts; the conservatives give me the ‘can a poor person employ you?‘ move.

Not *ALL* businesses are owned by rich people. There are a couple of small businesses that are owned by people that are middle class or just being shy of middle class. If they have a spot open, then they can employ you… bada boom bada bang.

I am very skeptical of trickle down economics. Why? Because in my fifth run of research on the topic [hence I used to be for TDE], I find that it only helps the wealthy and the wealthy only. How? They are the only ones that get reasonable tax cuts. The average man doesn’t get squat. Call me class envy all you want, but it’s the truth. Do you know that the reason why the rich don’t pay their 35% marginal rates is because they are taking advantage of loopholes and tax reserves? I will be the first to tell you that my parents didn’t pay what they were supposed to pay in taxes… [they were supposed to pay 35%]

So all and all, the arguments made by the conservatives really shock me. I don’t think that the rich should come before the middle class when it comes to tax cuts….. however, it doesn’t mean that I am against the rich even getting a tax cut. I want them to get a tax cut but please take out loopholes and these foreign tax reserves [Swiss Bank accounts etc] and make all incomes pay what they are supposed to pay…

This ‘trickle down’ theory

mrsmccain — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:38:51 +0000

According to this article: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009885.asp

The real theory of trickle down is actually advocated by the interventionists and socialists. They think that if we tax everyone and give money to the government, it will eventually come trickling down to the middle class and the poor. Same with power. If we give more power to the state to regulate and run our lives, this power will trickle down to the rest of us.

So meaning the actual trickle down theory was a socialist ideal that call for higher taxing so that the government would have money and then it would eventually trickle down to the middle class and the poor.

I had no idea that this was a socialist ideal hence this theory is now advocated by conservatives and Austrian [theory] economists. For such theory to work, I am guessing that it requires government intervention… hmmm. Didn’t the Austrians *HATE* government intervention in economics? Does the term regulate in the article ring a bell?

Now, I guessing that such theory has been reformed as it’s not the same description used. But no matter the description used, it still would require government intervention. Why? Because they would have to give the top everything in hopes of it trickling down to the middle class.

I am not so sure if the modern use of trickle down economics would work due to income inequality started by Reagan and implemented by Bush II , but I wonder why such people would believe in a theory that requires government intervention…

Does Say’s Law Really Work?

mrsmccain — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:36:05 +0000

Say’s Law: a principle stating that supply [or production] creates it’s own demand. Question is: does it really work? To say that supply creates it’s own demand is saying that if you produced 45 million 1970s style typewriters, then people are going to want it. In order to increase demand, one must create a product that will appeal to the public, then sell it at a reasonable price. Also, entrepreneurs create jobs when there’s a demand a product they’re willing to sell.

So ask your self, can this really be applied to modern economics?

Saving money

mrsmccain — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:54:11 +0000

If you were a regular on Liberty News Forum, you would know that I am a strong believer when it comes to fiscal responsibility. If you don’t know me at all and your just reading this… now you know. So, why do I feel so strongly about fiscal responsibility? Because I have been thought ways to be responsible with your money. I have saved up almost every penny of every allowance my parents have *EVER* given me. And guess what… I *STILL* have it sitting in my vault. Why? Because I am not a big fan of this whole ‘shop till you drop’ scene. I am very frugal when it comes to shopping. I *ALWAYS* buy cheap and when I say cheap I mean shirts that only cost me 50 cents or pants that only cost me $1.25 or shoes that only cost $2. Sometimes, I can even get deals for 25 cents!!! I don’t fully understand why most kids my age would want to get $500 jeans or $300 shoes or whatever. It’s only going to be out of style or worthless the next day.

I come from a family of cheapscapes. My parents are always conscience about what will come on their next bill. To make the electric bill smaller, we literally unplug everything and shut off the electricity on the wall socket *EVERYTIME* we leave the house! We also unplug everything we don’t use when we are in the house. As for the water bill, when we take a shower, it’s timed. It’s a great way to conserve water. Also, even our sinks have a timer! There are days where we don’t have the AC on. I think that if more people were t find ways to conserve what they are using such as electricity, water, phone etc… think of how much *smaller* your bill would be.

As for saving money, I feel that everyone should come up with a budget plan and they should figure out how to save money. It’s relatively easy when you make money like my family does because all they have to do is put at least 100k on the side. But if you were in the bottom thirty, I can understand how hard that can be so I would suggest that you put at least 1k on the side. Why? Because when a natural disaster comes or we are in a recession, you would have some money to help you get by. I suggest doing this yearly.

More updates to come.

Problems with some economists..

mrsmccain — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:43:53 +0000

Most are only there to hear the poor’s concerns. But that is just my observation. What about everyone else’s concerns?

God arnt they suppose to help *ALL* needs? If *I* were an economist, I would have proposals and plans that fit *ALL* concerns; from the wealthy’s concerns to the bottom thirty’s concerns.

I would give help to anyone that truly needs it. If you were concerned about Obamanomics and it’s affect on you, I will give you some advice. If you were concerned about saving money, I will give you advice.

Remember, this is an observation about economists in *MY* area…

Political Philosophy… what’s yours?

mrsmccain — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:03:56 +0000

I took this test and it determines which political philosophy you best fit under.

I am a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=Senate

My thoughts on money and poverty

mrsmccain — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:58:57 +0000

I will say that I think I have a very average life. Maybe it’s because how I am living now, is the way I have known it. Of course when you are young like I am, you think that everyone has the same life as you or that your town was the center of the universe [not that I thought that].

My parents do have a very decent income. They can pretty much afford most things but are very cheap to the point where they hold onto a penny so long, that Lincoln’s tongue comes out. I am the same way. I have been taught to hold on to every bit of money I have in case of an emergency. That’s why when I get an allowance [I don't get one anymore hence I starting to work for my own], I don’t spend it unless I REALLY need to. I am not a big spender like most kids my age. I am really not a big fan of “blowing” off all your money on a pair of shoes that are $300.

Aside from my own life, there are others who are in deep financial trouble. I respect those people for trying their hardest to do what they can to survive. I want them to make it through and have a good life that they deserve to have. It’s sad that in the richest country in the world, there is still poverty.

My best friend is one of those people who’s families are less fortunate. She couldn’t even afford to buy clothes that she needed and her family couldn’t buy food that they needed. My family helped them in any way they can. I even helped my friend by lending her some stuff she may need. [So much for being an evil conservative].

Now, I may not know what it’s like to be in a situation in where my parents can’t figure out what to put on the table but I cam totally understand how that can be hard on another family.

My advice to those less fortunate would be to keep strong and hold on to what you have. Do what you can and you will have a happy life.

Obama healthcare envaluation

mrsmccain — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:28:25 +0000

I was researching Austrian Economics until I can across an article about Obama’s health care. I summarized it the best I can and I agree with the article. [this was only part one that the economist posted]

Obama: “I don’t accept the idea that in the richest country on earth we should have 47 million people without health insurance, and millions more being bankrupt from medical bills.”

Here lies the problem: The protection of that property of resources is what leads to economic welfare, not resources and riches. Obama sees economics as distributing scarce resources.

So is it acceptable for someone who takes care of their health to pay through tax money for someone who does not care for their health and abuse their bodies with drugs, alcohol or smoking etc?

Obama: “Which is why as President of the United States, my goal is to adopt a health plan that covers all Americans. The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as President, I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office. The key to making this happen is to overcome the resistance we will see from drug companies, insurance companies, HMOs…”

The graph above shows the consequence of such reform why affiliated persons in the health care market actually resist this plan.

As the number of enrollee’s [Q] increase, the cost rises for providers to manage the cost [bottom curve]. Most assume that because enrollee’s increase, the costs per member will decrease. Our current health care model lacks an economy allowing such results to produce. What a comprehensive coverage would impose is that enrollee’s are fixed at some value [the right red dotted vertical line].This would force prices to increase.

Obama: “My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you is the amount of money you will spend on premiums; that will be less than what you are spending now.”

Refer to graph and info above.

Obama: “But if you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have health insurance available to you.”

If you get sick, bring something to entertain you because your going to be waiting for along time. Britain may have national health care but they are notorious for their waiting times.

Read more here: http://austrianeconomicsschool.blogspot.com/2008/01/evaluation-of-obamas-health-care-plan.html