If the money then flows into funds to invest in China and India, and the money buys goods from such countries, HOW are jobs created in America, and that help those formally on the welfare system?

And here, we have paleoconservatives battle libertarians.  Paleos would say, "We need tarrifs!" and "Throw all illegals out of the country!"  And the Libertarians say, "Free markets!"

I ask all this of people here, because I am curious what people would want me to target so I get off Medicaid and food stamps.  The Medicaid help me get my back fixed, so I will soon be able to get working again.  Not saying I want to be here, but curious WHAT people want me to target.  Who here would end up paying for me to get retrained in something in exchange for getting paid a portion of my income for the rest of my life? 

I hope you were joking. 

Trickle down theory has been disproven, quite frankly. We don't need to be giving the rich more money when they have it better than they've had it in 70 years

Or we could do what Norway does.

They have social security and stuff as well... the difference is, the they invest it, unlike the US who just buys it's own bonds and promises to pay it back later.

Norway gets an average of like 14% for it's investments.

It... hasn't though.  As the majority of economists not affiliated with any sort of political group and they generally aprove of those tactics.  The only issue is... just like Kensyian economics, supply side economics leads to deficits.

Reganomics actually work pretty well.  The only thing that caused his downfall was MASSIVE deficit spending caused by escalating a cold war was going to end soon anyway.

The largest drop of real wages since WW2 happened during the Carter administration.

You want to see disproven economics... look at the Kensyian theories.  Pretty much every poltiician uses a Kensyian reaction to depressions and recessions and it pretty much never works... with the arugement always being "That's just because we need to spend more."

Up to, and including  Hoover, who somehow gets used as proof kensyian economics is better even though he vastly increased government spending under his presidency, and there is even a quote during his leaving where he defends himself by talking about how he increased government spending more then any other president before him.

At the time, FDR was actually attack hoover for... "Spending and taxing too much."

Of course, FDR was the king of "Say one thing, mean the exact opposite" politics.

If you stop welfare payments then you end up with more homeless people and more crime. Oh and the rich will get even richer.

I'm not saying that the welfare system in America is perfect, but some sort of solid welfare system is necessary.

Also trickle down economics doesn't work. The money doesn't trickle down, it just pools at the top.

Someone broke this thread...

Yeah..  but its Norway and that shit just sucks. :)

When a country maintains a trade deficit for a long period of time it experience artificially low interest rates and/or low inflation, while the other country experiences artificially high interest rates and/or high inflation. Unless your government is foolish (and running very large deficits or creating a moronic regulatory system) this gives companies within your country a massive advantage, while putting companies within the other country at a massive disadvantage. The reason for this is that you need to maintain a balance of payments between currencies, or the exchange rates will change to preserve a balance of payments.

Didn't you ever wonder where the capital to give people with no jobs hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy houses came from? While the USA maintained a trade deficit with China, excessive capital from China had to flow into American capital markets to maintain a balance of payments ... essentially, this created a sellers-market for debt instruments and an artificial valuation which eliminated any consideration of risk. Because of the lack of (reasonable) controls within the mortgage market, this money flowed into mortgages and the net result was that jobs that were lost in manufacturing were recovered in home construction.

I'm not talking about the rich getting richer or anything like that, I'm just hoping you're joking about every person in the top 1% having offshore accounts and ponzi schemes. Not every rich person is a tax evading piece of crap you know.