HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Ruby the Liberal » Journal
Page: 1

Ruby the Liberal

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: East Coast US
Member since: Sun Sep 6, 2009, 08:36 PM
Number of posts: 25,779

Journal Archives

Interesting to watch where the blame falls

Everyone knows the system is jacked, but do you fix it from the top or the bottom?

Those on the left supporting Sanders place the blame on the failed policies of trickle down - giving all available resources to the rich in the hopes that something dribbles down to the less fortunate, all the while watching as the rich horde more and more and offshore our jobs.

Those on the right supporting Trump place the blame on anyone they perceive as being beneath them - the fear being that "those people" are dragging society down by having needs but not means.

IMO, you fix an economy from the bottom up, not the top down. People are not going to become mythical 'job creators' no matter how much cash you throw at them - if there isn't demand for whatever they are peddling.

I get the fear of becoming the next "those people" as companies shutter US operations, relocating to China and Mexico, but there is a total cognitive dissonance for me in blaming those less fortunate for that stack of dominoes falling. It isn't immigrants or the working poor making those decisions with their raison d'etre being the enrichment of their shareholders above all else.

All one has to do is look at the payoff of public monies - where (last I checked), every $1 in tax cuts brings $0.60 back into the fold vs every $1 in food stamps (the greatest multiplier of expenditures) bringing back $1.32. If your goal is to stimulate the economy, focus resources on where money is going to be spent not where it is going to be saved.

But, that involves math. Ginning up fear is so much easier. Because it works.
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:32 AM (0 replies)

Another thought on taxes for you.

As far as cutting taxes on the wealthy - that does not help the economy one iota. People don't hire because they have cash laying around, they hire because they have work that needs to be done.

Demand drives the economy, not supply. That is the whole problem in a nutshell - back in the 1980's there was a school of thought called "supply side economics" that sold everyone on the idea that if you concentrate the transfer of wealth to the top, those at the top will create jobs with it and it will "trickle down" to everyone else. Guess what - that was a MISERABLE failure. Those at the top didn't create jobs, they looked for even higher profits and started outsourcing the jobs overseas where they can pay $.50 an hour to someone in a call center or manning a sewing machine. The only "trickle down" we here in the US felt was them pissing on our legs as the boats left port with dismantled factories and call center phone systems, headed for asia.

Henry Ford made a huge splash back in the 1940s by paying WAY more than his competitors. Ford Motor workers were earning incredible wages. When asked about it, his response to that decision was that "he wanted his workers to be able to afford his products". Today, we are in the opposite situation - hundreds of thousands of people shop at Walmart because they work at Walmart, and with shortened hours, no benefits, and 47% their employee base is on food stamps and other welfare programs - they can't afford to shop anywhere else.

Here's a quiz. Give Walmart a tax break, are they going to:

A. Raise wages and move people to full time so they qualify for benefits

B. Send large dividend checks to their shareholders in the hopes that more people become shareholders

When you build an economy from the bottom up as opposed to the top down, something called a "multiplier effect" kicks in and the entire economy begins to grow. Here is an example of how that works:

Man goes on vacation and rents a hotel room. He gives the proprietor $100 for the night and leaves to go sight seeing. Proprietor pays the housekeeping employee $100 for her wages. Housekeeping takes the $100 to the grocery store and buys food. Grocery store takes the $100 and orders produce from the farmer. The farmer takes the $100 and buys more seed. Etc Etc Etc...

This is called velocity of money - how many times something happens when $1 is introduced into the economy. All of these people got paid and all of these economic activities took place - all from the original seed money.

For each $1 in tax cuts, it adds $0.63 to the economy (negative multiplier). The top accelerators are Unemployment Insurance (at about $1.20 for every $1 spent) and Food Stamps (at about $1.65 for every $1 spent) because they circulate. Tax refunds do not.

Republicans are still stuck in "supply side" mode, even though economists have been screaming for a decade that it was a FAILURE and that trickle down formula is lower taxes. Its. All. They. Know.

Until we as a society realize that you have to build from the bottom up (and prime the pump - through that dreaded word, "stimulus") we are not going to get the money into the economy to start flowing (multiplying). You try to "stimulate" the top and it just gets parked. As a % of income, poor people spend close to 100% of their income (living paycheck to paycheck) where the rich spend only a fraction.

Make sense?
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:03 PM (0 replies)

Not conservative; uneducated, apolitical and dare I say, hijacked.

For 30 years, the voters on the right have been hijacked by social issues - to their OWN detriment. Why this election is so exciting. For the first time in memory, we get to have the conversation about what the RW ECONOMIC policies are for this nation. Once those teabagging "keep the government out of my Medicare" people take a drink from the Gekko/Galt clue hose, I don't think many will be on board with that path.

We just need to talk with them (one on one, door by door) about the VAST and diametrically opposed policies are, and what they mean to all of us who aren't in the 1%.

"RR wants to cut SS and Medicare so that they can offset giving billionaires more tax cuts".

"Customers are job creators. More customers, more jobs, more hiring."

"Companies are sitting on record amounts of cash. Giving them more won't make them hire - demand makes them hire"

"We need to prime the pump from the bottom up. People with jobs consume, people with money save - which does not get money flowing through the economy"

"Small businessman: You want me to hire, bring me more customers. If you give me a tax break, I'll just take the wife to Aruba".

"Without regulation, it is a free-for-all with greed at the center as the driving point"

Talking points - short and simple. Once people are forced to pay attention to this stuff (which I think this election is going to do), hopefully they will realize that voting against their own interests isn't in their best interest.
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:44 PM (2 replies)

Econ 101, which I will post for the record

as your account rots in the DU dump pile.

For every $1 that is sent out in food stamps, $1.61 (est) goes back into the economy. That is the top multiplier. The bottom of the heap is tax cuts, where every $1 results in a fraction of a dollar ($0.30-$0.60) going back into the economy.

Ever heard the phrase, "living paycheck to paycheck"? Maybe that will help.

You see, those with nothing spend every dime on goods and services (food, rent, utilities). Those on the other end of the spectrum save and invest their money - which is not spending, therefore not going back into the economy. (Those in the middle do both).

So - the more you put into the 'spend' end, the more is spent, and the more you put into the 'save' end, the more is saved.

And this, dear departed friend - is why no one is hiring, but businesses are sitting on record amount of cash. It has nothing to do with giving them tax breaks (and even more cash) and everything to do with priming the pump to get them more customers to buy their goods and services so that they have a greater demand and therefore need more employees. It isn't rocket science.

Truly, this is so simple a 5 year old could explain it.
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Thu Aug 9, 2012, 07:40 PM (0 replies)

Is the answer in Willard's 2009 return?

What is he hiding?

Well, the US Government announced an amnesty program in 2009 for US Citizens holding unreported assets in offshore accounts. From March 2009, these folks were given the option of a penalty-free (and reduced tax burden) fess-up period to tell the IRS about these accounts. The program closed on October 15, 2009 (but was offered again in 2011).

I think this is the white whale, folks: Willard took advantage of the amnesty and in releasing the 2008 and 2009 returns, we would know exactly how much he was previously shielding from the government by his disclosures. It also makes him "legal" again - as these accounts are now being reported.

Besides, the McCain vetting team would have only seen through 2007 - so 2008 and 2009 are two years NO ONE has seen until 2010 was released.

Information on the 2009 Amnesty:

Overview: http://www.mlhorwitzlaw.com/Articles/IRS-Amnesty-Program-for-Unreported-Offshore-Bank-Accounts.shtml

And extension to October 15, 2009: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/amnesty-deadline-extended-for-offshore-account-holders/
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:59 PM (28 replies)

I didn't include links, but you may want to:


February 11, 1999 contract date: Romney will have to sever ties with any companies that do business with the games.


Run for President of the US

Federal disclosure filing 2011:


Run for Governor of MA:

State of MA Election disclosure filing 2001:


State of MA Election disclosure filing 2002:


Sample SEC Filings 1999-2002:

2000: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892058/000092701600002483/0000927016-00-002483-0001.txt

2001: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/0000927016-01-001009-0001.txt

AmPad bankruptcy:

Bain invested $5 million, made $100 million, taxpayers bailed out the pension fund:




$100k+ "salary" for doing nothing at Bain (retroactive retirement):


Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:54 PM (0 replies)

Dear Republican: Willard's 'felony' problem in a nutshell

Edit - Originally posted to ask for editing help in responding to an (R) family member who wanted to know why the Bain employment dates were causing such a ruckus, and why people were saying Romney might have committed a felony. Thank you to everyone who gave input! This is what I sent. Fingers crossed that it makes a dent.

Governor Romney's claims about his tenure at Bain for 1999-2002 differ depending on who is asking (and why). These claims are not just fudging dates - they are mutually exclusive and potentially federal felonies. Martha Stewart was put in jail, not for insider trading, but for lying about it - so that is why you heard the uproar about "potential felony" thrown out there.

Position #1 is that he left Bain in February 1999.

  • This would gel with the contractual requirements of the Salt Lake City Olympics, because they had a requirement that he sever all ties to any entity doing business with a company who sponsors or financially supports the games by February 11, 1999, or he would be in breach of that contract.

  • This is what he also told the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2011 when he filed his disclosures to run for President.

Position #2 is that he left Bain in 2002

  • This is what he told the State of Massachusetts in sworn testimony to justify his residency in the state so that he could run for Governor, as he actually lived in Utah at the time.

  • This is what is listed on all SEC filings from 1999-2002. He signed all regulatory filings as the CEO, President, Board Chairman and Sole Stockholder for Bain during this time.

Why this is a problem:

  1. The FEC and SEC are federal entities, and filing false information with either is a felony. He filed mutually exclusive statements with these entities, and if one is true, the other is a lie as both cannot coexist.

  2. Bain did a lot of lousy stuff during that 3 year window: becoming an industry leader in sending US jobs to Asia and India (outsourcing), taking out debt and bankrupting companies they bought, and wiping out the pensions of tens of thousands of people - who were then made whole/partially whole on the backs of US taxpayers in bailouts. In one noted case, Bain made $102 million in shuttering a company, where they could have made $80 million and left the pensions intact rather than letting the US taxpayers pick up the tab for that. Romney wants to distance himself from these activities after the fact.

  3. Of special note to you, look up Stericycle. This company specializes in medical waste, and part of their role is the disposal of aborted fetuses. You can see in google that in <state>, Stericycle is only located in <city> and <city> - where Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. Romney and Bain invested millions (believed $8 million of a $75 million investment consortium) in Stericycle in November of 1999. Doubtful he wants that out there.

Now, his campaign is trying to sell the public on the fact that he drew an annual salary in excess of $100k from Bain from 1999-2002 (exact amount unknown, $100k+ is from his election disclosure filings to the FEC) - while not doing anything at Bain. No work, no phone calls, no board meetings, and no involvement in decisions. He was just paid to sign SEC papers on what the people who worked for him were doing - without any oversight or approval from him. That is enough to write a few headlines, and if they ever publish a list of where these 6 figure jobs are, I will hold you a spot in line.

I asked a few folks to fact check me and help me put this into a clear format, and I hope it untangles a bit as to why this is such a big deal. Happy to provide you with links to back up anything I have included in this if you want to dig in any further.

Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:21 PM (45 replies)

Eggs Actly.

I came through school under the Laffer curve and Supply Side and didn't *get* the whole shovel ready thing during the Depression - pay someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it in. Looked like a total bureaucratic waste of time and money.

... UNTIL I got into Grad school and was hit upside the head with bottom up pump priming as opposed to top down trickle down.

Now it just pisses me off no end when I see this thoroughly discredited 'top down tax cut' theory being espoused by the people in charge (or hoping to be in charge) of public policy.

Maybe we do need to stock DC with 5 year olds...

At least THAT infrastructure is in place.

Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:11 AM (1 replies)

You know who creates the most jobs?

People who earn a living wage that can pay for the goods and services that create the demand that causes businesses to hire, whose new employees then buy the goods and services that create the demand for other businesses to hire.

Shit on a stick - how is it that people don't *get* this where people like Rmoney get away with this shit?

1. Dude goes on vacation and pays innkeeper $100 for a room
2. Innkeeper pays staff member $100 for hours worked
3. Staff member pays grocer $100 for food
4. Grocer pays $100 to produce farmer to restock
5. Farmer pays $100 to feed/grain store for supplies
6. Etc...

Velocity of Money.

So simple a 5 year old can explain it.

So simple half of this country thinks jobs grow out of the ass of the 1% who create jobs not out of need, but the goodness of their hearts and government tax breaks...
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:38 AM (1 replies)

I've never used the journal, but I will help test.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

Edit - looks like it worked?
Posted by Ruby the Liberal | Sun Feb 19, 2012, 11:55 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1