With the financial crisis weighing on everyone's minds, many debate whether our government's economic policies cater to the rich over the poor.
But a new study finds it would be impossible to serve only one socioeconomic group, because people's preferences tend to be overwhelmingly similar when it comes to how the federal government should spend its money.
"Even if government wanted to respond only to the interests of the rich, it couldn't, because the rich and the poor tend to share similar political viewpoints - at least on economic issues," said North Carolina State University political science researcher Chris Ellis.
Ellis and Joseph Ura, an assistant professor of political science at Texas A&M University, analyzed data from the General Social Survey on public opinion of government spending from 1973 to 2006. They found that, overall, the country would sway from being more fiscally conservative to more liberal, but that these trends occurred across all socioeconomics groups. In general, both rich and poor responded to changes in the nation's economic health, or the actions of the federal government, in broadly similar ways.
For example, the public's views of how the federal government should spend money on education, health care and the environment are similar regardless of socioeconomic level. Social issues, such as abortion, were not considered in the study.
The researchers concluded that the federal government acts on the desires of all income groups either because it can't tell the difference between the preferences of the rich versus the poor, or because politicians wish to serve the public as a whole. The study was detailed in the Oct. 3 issue of the journal Political Science and Politics.
"This does not mean that the government is actually acting in the best interests of the poor, only that what the poor want is similar to what the rich want in terms of how the government appropriates its funds," Ellis said.
-----------------
If it's true, it's surprising, at least to me.
OldDude
10-03-08, 06:45 PM
It's so surprising that you'd think the article would offer some proof or evidence. A few concrete examples and some poll data would help back up the BS. It's so vague as to be incredible, not credible.
wendersfan
10-03-08, 07:05 PM
It's so surprising that you'd think the article would offer some proof or evidence. A few concrete examples and some poll data would help back up the BS. It's so vague as to be incredible, not credible.All the data they would have used are freely available here:
It's more a commentary on the reporting. The reporter really should have dug a little deeper.
DVD Polizei
10-03-08, 09:46 PM
But then he would be wrong.
First rule of reporting these days is don't dig so deep you find the truth.
And if you don't find your truth?
Well dig deeper, motherfucker!
VinVega
10-03-08, 09:49 PM
Those who are not wealthy look to one day become wealthy, so they are not bothered by policies that disproportionally benefit the wealthy. "Hey, one day I might be rich, so I don't want those anti-rich policies out there."
wendersfan
10-03-08, 09:51 PM
It's more a commentary on the reporting. The reporter really should have dug a little deeper.
Sorry, I misunderstood. :shrug:
OldDude
10-04-08, 08:45 AM
Those who are not wealthy look to one day become wealthy, so they are not bothered by policies that disproportionally benefit the wealthy. "Hey, one day I might be rich, so I don't want those anti-rich policies out there."
True. If Obama speaks the truth about NO tax increases for anyone earning under $250 K, I am perfectly safe from what he is likely to do.
However:
*I don't believe him. There aren't enough people earning over $250K to pay for his plans. I don't know if he is lying or just doesn't know that.
*I can always aspire. I certainly wouldn't mind earning over $250K.
*Over $250K, between phaseouts, progressive rates and AMT, they already tax the shit of you. It will just start a quest for tax loopholes and provide guarenteed employment for CPAs and tax lawyers (who already contribute heavily to one party over the other due to their full employment for CPAs and lawyers initiatives)
classicman2
10-04-08, 08:57 AM
There aren't enough people earning over $250K to pay for his plans.
Wouldn't that depend on what tax rate he had in mind?
If I were running things, I could easily find a way for them to pay for it. ;)
classicman2
10-04-08, 09:00 AM
The rich really want to be taxed more.
Of course when it first happens, they will bitch & moan; but, soon they're come to realize that they feel more patriotic sharing more & more of the load.
I believe it's our duty to make them feel patriotic as hell. :)
VinVega
10-04-08, 09:06 AM
The rich really want to be taxed more.
Of course when it first happens, they will bitch & moan; but, soon they're come to realize that they feel more patriotic sharing more & more of the load.
I believe it's our duty to make them feel patriotic as hell. :)
That's not something a "Republican" would say. :hscratch:
Mordred
10-04-08, 09:26 AM
It's so surprising that you'd think the article would offer some proof or evidence. A few concrete examples and some poll data would help back up the BS. It's so vague as to be incredible, not credible.I thought this line:
professor of political science at Texas A&M University
was proof enough. :D
classicman2
10-04-08, 09:46 AM
You don't have to see your location to know where you're coming from. ;)
I only live a short ways from The University of Texas at Norman. :)
Mordred
10-04-08, 10:40 AM
You don't have to see your location to know where you're coming from. ;)
I only live a short ways from The University of Texas at Norman. :)My home is a maroon oasis in a sea of orange.
DVD Polizei
10-04-08, 12:39 PM
Here are some other amazing views the Rich and Poor share:
1) I wish I could get a bigger home
2) I need more money
3) I can't afford paying taxes
4) My economic class needs more influence in US Gov't
5) It should be easier to file bankruptcy
wabio
10-04-08, 01:35 PM
Here are some other amazing views the Rich and Poor share:
1) I wish I could get a bigger home
2) I need more money
3) I can't afford paying taxes
4) My economic class needs more influence in US Gov't
5) It should be easier to file bankruptcy
I agree with all except for #5. I think the rich want to make it harder to file bankruptcy.
The biggest <i>differences</i> I see between rich and poor.
1) The rich make their money from money, while the poor make their money from labor.
2) The rich have proactive gov't representation looking out for their interests.
bhk
10-04-08, 01:56 PM
I agree with all except for #5. I think the rich want to make it harder to file bankruptcy.
The biggest <i>differences</i> I see between rich and poor.
1) The rich make their money from money, while the poor make their money from labor.
2) The rich have proactive gov't representation looking out for their interests.
You should read the book "The Millionaire Next Door" it will open your eyes as far as how so few of the rich make their money from money. And most of the time, the poor are poor because of poor decisions in their own lives.
wabio
10-04-08, 04:28 PM
You should read the book "The Millionaire Next Door" it will open your eyes as far as how so few of the rich make their money from money. And most of the time, the poor are poor because of poor decisions in their own lives.
I've read the book. There's one major omission you left out. The rich in his book worked because they liked to, not because they "had" to. The author repeatedly expounds on the fact that rich folks are able to earn money while <i>not</i> working. Either through compound interest, investments, or having others work and make money for you. His basic gist.....you'll never get rich working for a paycheck. He also mentioned in his book that he found a majority of doctors unfortunately aren't rich.
Another side note I found interesting was the author's discovery that most of the rick folks he interviewed were extremely cheap, which derails the popular notion that rich people spending drives the economy.
bhk
10-04-08, 04:43 PM
I've read the book. There's one major omission you left out. The rich in his book worked because they liked to, not because they "had" to. The author repeatedly expounds on the fact that rich folks are able to earn money while <i>not</i> working. Either through compound interest, investments, or having others work and make money for you. His basic gist.....you'll never get rich working for a paycheck. He also mentioned in his book that he found a majority of doctors unfortunately aren't rich.
Another side note I found interesting was the author's discovery that most of the rick folks he interviewed were extremely cheap, which derails the popular notion that rich people spending drives the economy.
But the most important thing in that book is that 80% of the millionaires in this country are first generation millionaires and they worked to earn the money in the first place. And yes, they are thrifty.
X
10-04-08, 04:56 PM
Another side note I found interesting was the author's discovery that most of the rick folks he interviewed were extremely cheap, which derails the popular notion that rich people spending drives the economy.Yes, investment drives the economy. Rich people don't keep their money under the mattress either.
wabio
10-04-08, 04:56 PM
Also, IIRC, the majority of his study was done in the early to mid 80's. I wonder what the demographics would look like in 2008? I would also like to see a study determining and comparing the "millionaire success ratio" between the mid 80's and 2008. Basically....how many people who seriously attempted to make it rich through hardwork and ingenuity succeeded vs. failed. We also need to adjust that $1M for inflation.
wabio
10-04-08, 04:58 PM
Yes, investment drives the economy. Rich people don't keep their money under the mattress either.
Isn't 70% of the economy driven off consumer spending?
X
10-04-08, 05:01 PM
Isn't 70% of the economy driven off consumer spending?Where do you think the jobs come from where people earn the money to do that spending?
bhk
10-04-08, 05:01 PM
Also, IIRC, the majority of his study was done in the early to mid 80's. I wonder what the demographics would look like in 2008? I would also like to see a study determining and comparing the "millionaire success ratio" between the mid 80's and 2008. Basically....how many people who seriously attempted to make it rich through hardwork and ingenuity succeeded vs. failed. We also need to adjust that $1M for inflation.
They had a follow up. From what I remember it was basically the same. And one of the things that they said was the #1 personal characteristic of a millionaire was integrity.
Dr Mabuse
10-04-08, 05:06 PM
Where do you think the jobs come from where people earn the money to do that spending?
From the spending itself. Hence the lower wages and greatly accelerated loss of actual wealth in the majority of Americans signals our economic descent/demise.
wabio
10-04-08, 05:16 PM
Where do you think the jobs come from where people earn the money to do that spending?
Theoretically, you can't have one without the other. But to say investment itself drives the economy is reaching a bit IMO. To examine extremes, I'd say an economy is more sustainable with minimal investment and heavy spending, than vice versa.
X
10-04-08, 05:29 PM
Theoretically, you can't have one without the other. But to say investment itself drives the economy is reaching a bit IMO. To examine extremes, I'd say an economy is more sustainable with minimal investment and heavy spending, than vice versa.The current economic "crisis" is the result of lack of investment capital not being available. How many new jobs are being created and how much is spending growing?
X
10-04-08, 05:32 PM
From the spending itself. Hence the lower wages and greatly accelerated loss of actual wealth in the majority of Americans signals our economic descent/demise.Poor people spending money don't hire people. A need based on demand is recognized, money is invested, and a business is created to satisfy that demand. That's what hires the people and provides them the money to spend. And so on, and so on, etc.
Poor[er] people just sitting around with money to spend don't create the businesses.
Dr Mabuse
10-04-08, 05:40 PM
Poor people spending money don't hire people. A need based on demand is recognized, money is invested, and a business is created to satisfy that demand. That's what hires the people and provides them the money to spend. And so on, and so on, etc.
Poor people just sitting around with money to spend don't create the businesses.
"Poor people"?
Surely you have more insight than this.
X
10-04-08, 05:50 PM
"Poor people"?
Surely you have more insight than this.Well, this is the "Rich and Poor" thread, but I should have said poorer or middle class or whatever group it is that isn't the rich because I heard they are cheap and don't spend their money.
Jason
10-04-08, 05:56 PM
Those who are not wealthy look to one day become wealthy, so they are not bothered by policies that disproportionally benefit the wealthy. "Hey, one day I might be rich, so I don't want those anti-rich policies out there."
What about us realists who realize that we will probably never be "rich", and if we are, paying a little extra tax would be the most welcome "burden" they could think of? Of all the worries I have, moving into the highest tax bracket is pretty much dead last.
Dr Mabuse
10-04-08, 06:16 PM
This is what built the US economy:
US workers working for a US company remove raw materials form the earth, these are jobs and the owners of the operations aggregate wealth along the way. These raw materials are purchased by another US company where US workers turn these materials into a product. These products are purchased by a US company with US employees that markets this product to US consumers who purchase it. The same people who own and work at all the various companies along the way.
At every step along the way the economy grows. In whole and for everyone, to very different degrees of course.
Greed and corruption are nothing new. They have plagued the system along the way.
But that is the scenario that created the US economy.
Products and raw materials from outside the US being shipped in to be sold to US consumers, working for the rich 'investors' I guess. Will not sustain the economy even in the relative short term. As with Geology the time span in economies is on a different scale than most things. But even in the short term of the economic timescale our current model is a failure.
It's painfully easy for anyone to see, if they are able to see that is.
X
10-04-08, 06:25 PM
This is what built the US economy:
US workers working for a US company ...Stop right there.
Where did the US company come from? Who owned it?
wabio
10-05-08, 12:01 AM
The current economic "crisis" is the result of lack of investment capital not being available. How many new jobs are being created and how much is spending growing?
If you mean the current "crisis" within the last few weeks, then yes.....it's due to lack of accessible money. But the whole ball-o-string started unraveling long before that. Once the housing bubble popped and people realized they didn't have as much money to spend is when the economy started tipping. You can invest gazillions of dollars but if nobody is buying, it's useless. I still stand by my previous post.....better to have more spending and less investment than vice versa.
wabio
10-05-08, 12:03 AM
Poor[er] people just sitting around with money to spend don't create the businesses.
You should've emailed Washington before they sent out the stimulus checks. I knew from the get-go they weren't going to work anyways.
wabio
10-05-08, 12:28 AM
Products and raw materials from outside the US being shipped in to be sold to US consumers, working for the rich 'investors' I guess. Will not sustain the economy even in the relative short term......
This is what makes our new economy so difficult......globalization. Especially now when we have such a huge economic outlay or sink like in China, where many jobs have been sent and investment dollars spent. After going global, you no longer have a closed cycle where supply and demand directly offset each other. Corporations expect consumers to continually spend and provide a steady revenue stream, while not investing in healthy job creation (slashing jobs, benefits, and offshoring to decrease overhead). This only works if consumers have a sense of wealth (i.e. portfolio full of AOL and Nortel stock, or skyrocketing housing equity)
It makes sense if you contemplate the motives in most corporate board rooms. Investors want their stock to go up as quickly as possible so they can sell. CEO's want the same, so they can exercise their options, cash out, move to another company.....rinse and repeat.
It also limits the Fed's effectiveness. It simple can't move the market like before with interest rate adjustments because of foreign exchange ratios and huge foreign reserves full of American dollars.
sracer
10-05-08, 10:35 AM
Those who are not wealthy look to one day become wealthy, so they are not bothered by policies that disproportionally benefit the wealthy. "Hey, one day I might be rich, so I don't want those anti-rich policies out there."
That is conservative talk radio speaking, not the average American worker. I have NEVER heard anyone say that in a real life conversation...ever.
classicman2
10-05-08, 10:44 AM
How do you account for the fact (I believe it's a fact) that all economic groups are opposed to the inheritance tax?
DVD Polizei
10-05-08, 10:45 AM
What people say in public and what they do in private (where it counts), is often completely different. I pretty much agree with VinVega on this behavior, except for people not changing policy because they think someday they will get rich. I hear people bitch and complain all the time...but do they vote or actually take somekind of initiative to change the status-quo? Nope.
If you're more towards the upper-middle class, then yes, I'd say these people probably are thinking about their income and how to protect it. But most on the lower-middle class and lower, just don't have the initiative to change much. Which is why welfare is great. It keeps you down so you can't even get yourself in a better situation. Either you make an amazing leap of getting a great job and great pay...or you stay on welfare. The State of Oregon is great at keeping the lower class...low.
classicman2,
Good point. But this is like asking anyone in the US if they should be taxed for receiving a free home. Of course no one is going to say, "Yeah dude. Talk the fuck outta me!" But for less extreme policies, the lower class don't take much notice.
sracer
10-05-08, 11:01 AM
What people say in public and what they do in private (where it counts), is often completely different. I pretty much agree with VinVega on this behavior, except for people not changing policy because they think someday they will get rich. I hear people bitch and complain all the time...but do they vote or actually take somekind of initiative to change the status-quo? Nope.
Part of that is because there is no option to change the status-quo... you can't vote for someone/something that isn't on the ballot. Part of it is due to stupidity in believing the lies, spin, and talking points of their favorite political party.
If you're more towards the upper-middle class, then yes, I'd say these people probably are thinking about their income and how to protect it.
Yes, I see that as true.
But most on the lower-middle class and lower, just don't have the initiative to change much. Which is why welfare is great. It keeps you down so you can't even get yourself in a better situation.
Either you make an amazing leap of getting a great job and great pay...or you stay on welfare. The State of Oregon is great at keeping the lower class...low.
Y'see, this is where you go off the rails. You fall into that welfare keeps people down nonsense. I know plenty of people who are lower-middle, lower class who work full-time at a low paying job, living paycheck to paycheck, older car, no cable tv, few if any of the "luxury" items, and none of them are on welfare.
Or is your definition of "poor" = "people on welfare"?
DVD Polizei
10-05-08, 11:57 AM
sracer,
I noticed my sentence ran a little bit. I didn't mean to say everyone who is not middle-class, is on welfare. I jumped the subject to comment about those who are already on welfare.
I do see some who get off welfare, and make a great life for themselves, but most don't want to and many just cannot do it here. Why? Because they are given just enough to survive. Why work when you will make just a little more and you're spending 10-hours a day working, fighting traffic, and a neurotic boss.
Now, as I mentioned, this is in Oregon. It might be different for other states. In Oregon, I've noticed a virtual conspiracy over here to ramp up government jobs and federal funding, which pay rather well, only to give the Oregonian crumbs. Oregon knows the business of welfare is a damn lucrative business, and generates some great-paying government jobs. Problem is, most people cannot get these jobs. It is a protected social class, which needs to be investigated by the Feds.
Hell, Oregon is STILL requesting and now received recently, Timber payments for those who used to work in the sector. I mean really. They need to pay for re-training, not continually paying people to sit at home and complain about the old days when they cut trees for a living. The amount of disabled Oregonians is extremely high as well when compared to other states. Oregon loves to keep you at home, and on federal money. Why? Because it generates a lot of money for Oregon government.
Oregon government is virtually avoiding any project if they don't get federal funding for it.
And the Oregon Lottery. 70% of the profits go to education, but we still have the state saying they don't have enough. Oregon is in bed with vice behaviors, and they love to see people addicted. To money. To gambling. Even sex. Just come to Oregon and do a statistical analysis on how many bars and titty clubs we have around here. And then Oregon claims they are a "clean state".
Buy: